Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Evolution of Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union and the Right to a Fair Trial

  • 569 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter outlines the development of legislation on free movement of civil judgments in the European Union. This legislation has evolved radically over the past decades. The chapter shows that whereas legislation on civil justice cooperation was originally motivated by the internal market rationale, aimed at facilitating trade, the objective of creating a true European area of freedom, security, and justice, and the introduction of mutual recognition, meant that civil justice cooperation became more ideologically motivated. Since the Tampere European Council of 1999 made mutual recognition a principle of civil justice cooperation, the EU legislature made it a priority to simplify cross-border recognition and enforcement as much as possible and to remove potential obstacles. The chapter then goes on to discuss how recognition and enforcement are currently organized under EU legislation in the field of civil justice. It considers how this mechanism is laid down in a number of instruments: the Brussels I bis Regulation (the recast Brussels I Regulation), the Brussels II bis Regulation, the Insolvency Regulation and the Succession Regulation. It also discusses the two uniform European Procedures, the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) and the European Order for Payment Procedure (EOP), as well as the European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (EEO).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    CJEU Case C-681/13 Diageo Brands v Simiramida-04 EOOD ECLI:EU:C:2015:471.

  2. 2.

    Michaels (2009) para 1.

  3. 3.

    Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, Rome 1957, OJ 25 March 1957, Article 220.

  4. 4.

    Jenard (1979) p. 3.

  5. 5.

    Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, done at Brussels on 27 September 1968 (‘Brussels Convention’).

  6. 6.

    The Lugano Convention extends the Brussels regime to three EFTA Member States: Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, done at Lugano on 16 September 1988.

  7. 7.

    For example France (Rosner (2004) p. 233); Germany (Section 328(1) Zivilprozessordnung) Switzerland (Article 26 Federal Statute on Private International Law).

  8. 8.

    Of course this is still the case for judgments falling outside the scope of European Union legislation. See for an historical overview Berglund (2009).

  9. 9.

    Article 26, Brussels Convention.

  10. 10.

    Article 31, Brussels Convention.

  11. 11.

    Section 3.2.

  12. 12.

    Article 27(4) is not discussed here because it was removed when the Convention became a Regulation and therefore was not a factor in the discussion on the abolition of refusal grounds. Article 27(4) allowed recognition or enforcement to be refused if the court of the State of origin, in order to arrive at its judgment, has decided a preliminary question concerning the status or legal capacity of natural persons, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, wills or succession in a way that conflicts with a rule of the private international law of the State in which the recognition is sought, unless the same result would have been reached by the application of the rules of private international law of that State.

  13. 13.

    Under the current Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) judicial cooperation in civil matters is based on Title V (Articles 67–89) of Part III (Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union OJ C 83/47). With the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.

  14. 14.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments, OJ L 12/1 (the ‘Brussels I Regulation’).

  15. 15.

    Article 41, first sentence, Brussels I Regulation.

  16. 16.

    Article 43 Brussels I Regulation.

  17. 17.

    Article 34(1) Brussels I Regulation.

  18. 18.

    See in more detail Sect. 3.2.5.

  19. 19.

    Article 34(2) of the Brussels I Regulation, Article 27(1) of the Brussels Convention.

  20. 20.

    See Sect. 3.3.1.

  21. 21.

    Craig and De Bùrca (2015) p. 966.

  22. 22.

    Tampere European Council, 15–16 October 1999, Presidency Conclusions (the ‘Tampere Conclusions’).

  23. 23.

    Tampere Conclusions, para 33. See Storskrubb (2016). See in general on the topic of mutual recognition Janssens (2013), Thunberg Schunke (2013), Ouwerkerk (2011), Thomas (2013).

  24. 24.

    See Sect. 2.1.3 of this chapter.

  25. 25.

    Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, OJ L 134/15 (the ‘EEO Regulation’).

  26. 26.

    Recital 9, EEO Regulation.

  27. 27.

    Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, OJ L 399/1 (the ‘EOP Regulation’). See Sect. 2.2.7.

  28. 28.

    Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, OJ L 199/1 (the ‘ESCP Regulation’). See Sect. 2.3.7.

  29. 29.

    Hess et al. (2007) p. 221. The findings of this report are discussed in more detail in Sect. 2.2.4.

  30. 30.

    Green Paper on the Review of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM (2009) 175 final.

  31. 31.

    Recasting is a legislative technique that involves bringing together in a single new act a legislative act and all the amendments made to it. The new act passes through the full legislative process and repeals all the acts being recast. Apart from codification, recasting involves new substantive changes, as amendments are made to the original act during preparation of the recast text. See http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/recasting_en.htm, last visited 06 March 2016.

  32. 32.

    See Zilinsky (2011) para 2.3.

  33. 33.

    Oberhammer (2010); see the contributions to the consultation on the 2009 Green Paper on the review of Regulation 44/2001, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/news_consulting_0002_en.htm, from Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Denmark; Finland; Germany; less clearly, Greece; Latvia; Lithuania; Malta; Slovenia; and the UK.

  34. 34.

    Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (recast) OJ L 351/1 (the ‘Brussels I bis Regulation’).

  35. 35.

    In accordance with its decision to implement it Regulation 1215/2012 will also be applicable in Denmark. Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 79/4, 31 March 2013.

  36. 36.

    See under 2.3.3.

  37. 37.

    Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, OJ L 338/1 (the ‘Brussels II bis Regulation’. This instrument replaced Regulation 1347/2000, or the Brussels II Regulation, which was the first piece of EC legislation in the field of private international law in family matters (other than maintenance) and was therefore considered a landmark (see (Stone 2006) p. 384); Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses, OJ L 160/19.

  38. 38.

    Regulation 2201/2003, Recital 17. See also Jänterä-Jareborg (2003) p. 205; see on the free movement of judgments in these matters Sect. 2.2.5.

  39. 39.

    Regulation 2201/2003, Articles 21–52.

  40. 40.

    Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, COM (2014) 225 final, pp. 10–11.

  41. 41.

    Council Regulation (EC) 4/2009 of 18 December 2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, OJ L7/1 (the ‘Maintenance Regulation’).

  42. 42.

    See Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, COM (2005) 649 final, pp. 4–6.

  43. 43.

    Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings, OJ L 160/1.

  44. 44.

    Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 2015/… of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast) 2012/0360 (COD) LEX 1607, PE-CONS 31/15 (not yet published in the Official Journal) (‘recast Insolvency Regulation’).

  45. 45.

    Article 33 of the recast Insolvency Regulation.

  46. 46.

    Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession.

  47. 47.

    These two Proposals were not adopted after a failure to reach political agreement. Instead, in March 2016 the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Council decision authorising enhanced cooperation on these topics. European Commission, Proposal for a Council Decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions on the property regimes of international couples, covering both matters of matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships, COM (2016) 108 final.

  48. 48.

    Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes, COM (2011) 126 final.

  49. 49.

    Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships, COM (2011) 127 final.

  50. 50.

    Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes, COM (2011) 126 final, para 5.4; Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships, COM (2011) 127 final, para 5.4.

  51. 51.

    The European Parliament was of the opinion that the exequatur procedure should indeed be retained for these procedures given their complexity. (European Parliament, Report on the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes (COM(2011)0126—C7-0093/2011—2011/0059(CNS)) Committee on Legal Affairs, rapporteur: Alexandra Thein, Explanatory statement.

  52. 52.

    Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 189/59.

  53. 53.

    Article 2(a) Brussels I bis Regulation. See CJEU Case 125/79 Denilauler v SNC Couchet Frères, ECLI:EU:C:1980:130; see further under 2.3.1.1.

  54. 54.

    Andersson (2005).

  55. 55.

    Sections 5.4.5 and 6.3.3.

  56. 56.

    See for a discussion on how mutual recognition was ‘transferred’ to the justice context Storskrubb (2016).

  57. 57.

    CJEU Case C-120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein ECLI:EU:C:1979:42 (Cassis de Dijon) para 14.

  58. 58.

    Craig and De Bùrca (2015) p. 674 onwards.

  59. 59.

    Storskrubb (2016) p. 301.

  60. 60.

    See Weller (2015) p. 73.

  61. 61.

    Craig and De Bùrca (2015) p. 965.

  62. 62.

    Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament ‘Towards Greater Efficiency in Obtaining and Enforcing Judgments in the European Union’, COM(97) 609 final, OJ 1998, C 33/3.

  63. 63.

    Tampere Conclusions, para 33.

  64. 64.

    Explanatory Memorandum, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast) COM (2010) 748 final, p. 6.

  65. 65.

    Council Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001, C 12/1.

  66. 66.

    Council Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001, C 12/1, 5 sub A(2)(b).

  67. 67.

    European Council, The Stockholm Programme—an open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, OJ C/115/10. 2010 (the ‘Stockholm Programme’).

  68. 68.

    Stockholm Programme, p. 11.

  69. 69.

    Hess et al. (2007). The paragraph numbers cited refer to Study JLS/C4/2005/03, published in September 2007, available on http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_application_brussels_1_en.pdf. The Report was also published in book form, with some additions Hess et al. (2008).

  70. 70.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 4.

  71. 71.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 5.

  72. 72.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 52.

  73. 73.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 505.

  74. 74.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 514. See for an interpretation Timmer (2013) p. 145.

  75. 75.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 525.

  76. 76.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 506. This corresponds with the figure found by Muller and Cuniberti (2013) see below.

  77. 77.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 576.

  78. 78.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 541.

  79. 79.

    Hess et al. (2007) p. 252. This view is also taken by Arenas Garcia (2010) p. 365 and Dickinson (2011) p. 10.

  80. 80.

    Hess et al. (2007) p. 244. The statistical data gathered by Hess c.s. in their 2011 study on the application of the public policy exception in EU instruments of private international and procedural law appear to reinforce this conclusion. Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) pp. 49–50, 94, 103, 119, 134, 138, 145.

  81. 81.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 543.

  82. 82.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 544.

  83. 83.

    Muller and Cuniberti (2013) p. 3.

  84. 84.

    Muller and Cuniberti (2013) p. 3.

  85. 85.

    Muller and Cuniberti (2013) p. 12.

  86. 86.

    Muller and Cuniberti (2013) p. 13.

  87. 87.

    Cuniberti (2012) pp. 575–576.

  88. 88.

    Dickinson (2012) p. 140.

  89. 89.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) p. 35.

  90. 90.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) p. 34. See also pp. 43–44 of the Study.

  91. 91.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) p. 36.

  92. 92.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) pp. 35–36.

  93. 93.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) p. 36.

  94. 94.

    Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, COM (2014) 225 final, p. 10.

  95. 95.

    Ibid., p. 10.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., pp. 10–11.

  97. 97.

    See on this proposal De Boer (2013) and Scott (2015).

  98. 98.

    Hess et al. (2013).

  99. 99.

    Hess et al. (2007, 2013) p. 384.

  100. 100.

    Hess et al. (2013) p. 385.

  101. 101.

    Hess et al. (2013) p. 384.

  102. 102.

    Hess et al. (2013) p. 393.

  103. 103.

    Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession, Article 82.

  104. 104.

    Recital 33, Brussels I bis Regulation; CJEU Denilauler v SNC Couchet Frères, para 13; Franq (2016) pp. 97–98.

  105. 105.

    ECtHR Micallef v. Malta [GC], appl. no. 17056/06 ECHR 2009-V, para 85.

  106. 106.

    Case C-619/10 Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd ECLI:EU:C:2012:531.

  107. 107.

    Recital 33, Brussels I bis Regulation.

  108. 108.

    Case 166/80 Peter Klomps v Karl Michel ECLI:EU:C:1981:137.

  109. 109.

    This distinction is widely accepted in literature (see for instance Oberhammer (2010) pp. 197–198) but not always made in practice. See on this issue Oberhammer (2010), Dickinson (2010) p. 255, Beaumont and Johnston (2010) p. 105.

  110. 110.

    For instance, the 2000 Draft Programme (discussed under 2.2.3) advocates the ‘abolition, pure and simple, of any checks on the foreign judgment by courts in the requested country’, which later turned out to mean only the abolition of the formal check of the exequatur, not the refusal grounds.

  111. 111.

    Michaels (2009) para 1.

  112. 112.

    Article 431 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure states that (in the absence of any international treaty or law) judgments given by foreign courts may not be enforced, and that the matters may be brought before a Dutch judge. See Van der Grinten (2006) p. 72.

  113. 113.

    Hartley (2015) p. 397.

  114. 114.

    Rosner (2004) pp. 253–254.

  115. 115.

    For example France Rosner (2004) p. 233; Germany (Section 328(1) Zivilprozessordnung) Switzerland (Article 26 Federal Statute on Private International Law).

  116. 116.

    For example France Rosner (2004) pp. 239–246, Germany (Section 328(4) Zivilprozessordnung) Switzerland (Articles 27(1) and 27(2) Federal Statute on Private International Law).

  117. 117.

    France: Rosner (2004) pp. 250–252; Germany (Article 328(1) subparagraph 3 Zivilprozessordnung); Switzerland (Article 27(2) subparagraph (c) Federal Statute on Private International Law).

  118. 118.

    Hartley (2015) p. 349.

  119. 119.

    Hartley (2015) p. 350.

  120. 120.

    That enforcement procedures vary among Member States is shown by Andenas et al. (2005). That this divergence may constitute a bottleneck for effective cross-border enforcement even in the presence of a harmonized exequatur procedure is signaled by Jänterä-Jareborg (2003) p. 205.

  121. 121.

    The question remains whether, even though the refusal grounds may only be applied on the application of an interested party, a court is allowed or required to apply the refusal grounds of his own motion, for instance where it considers that a refusal ground other than the one expressly invoked also applies. It appears from the wording that the court may do so, since Article 45 implies that enforcement or recognition must be refused if one of the grounds applies. See Franq (2016) p. 871.

  122. 122.

    The Brussels I bis Regulation does not define the scope of the class of persons who may be considered an ‘interested party’. See Fitchen (2015) pp. 437–440.

  123. 123.

    Case C 681/13 Diageo Brands v Simiramida-04 EOOD ECLI:EU:C:2015:471; see Hazelhorst (2016).

  124. 124.

    Article 45(3) Brussels I bis Regulation.

  125. 125.

    Article 52, Brussels I bis Regulation; Article 22(2) ESCP Regulation; Article 22(2) EOP Regulation; Article 21(2) EEO Regulation; Article 26, Brussels II bis Regulation; Article 41, Succession Regulation.

  126. 126.

    Mankowski (2016) p. 964; he posits that “the judiciary in the Member States is deemed equivalent and equally apt to decide cases which assertion in turn vastly disposes of a necessity for review and control. Whereas control freaks and Leninists might go berserk, European ideology demands so”, citing the dictum attributed to Lenin: “Trust is good, but control is better”.

  127. 127.

    Mankowski (2016) p. 964.

  128. 128.

    Mankowski (2016) pp. 964–965.

  129. 129.

    This is implied by the wording of, for instance, Article 45(1) Brussels I bis Regulation, which provides that recognition ‘shall’ be refused if one of the refusal grounds is found to apply.

  130. 130.

    Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes, COM (2011) 126 final.

  131. 131.

    Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships, COM (2011) 127 final.

  132. 132.

    Except for the refusal ground pertaining to irreconcilability, as discussed under 2.3.2.3.

  133. 133.

    Article 40(a) of Regulation 650/2012; Articles 22(a) and 23(a) of the Brussels II bis Regulation; the Insolvency Regulations and both proposed Regulations discussed earlier refer to the Brussels I Regulation.

  134. 134.

    To be discussed in Sect. 3.2.5.

  135. 135.

    Article 24 of the Brussels II bis Regulation.

  136. 136.

    Article 52, Brussels I bis Regulation; Article 26, Brussels II bis Regulation.

  137. 137.

    Franq (2016) p. 883; Hess et al. (2007) para 559.

  138. 138.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 548.

  139. 139.

    Kramer (2011) p. 640.

  140. 140.

    CJEU Case C-7/98 Dieter Krombach v André Bamberski ECLI:EU:C:2000:164.

  141. 141.

    Article 40(b) of Regulation 650/2012. Articles 22(b) and 23(c) of the Brussels II bis Regulation are a little more lenient: recognition and enforcement may only be refused if the first two conditions apply and if the person in default has accepted the judgment unequivocally. This means that inactivity on the part of the person in default does not necessarily preclude an appeal on the basis of these articles.

  142. 142.

    The term ‘default of appearance’ is applied autonomously and independently of national procedural law. See further Franq (2016) p. 908, citing Kropholler (2005) Article 34 para 27: “with respect to the aim of Article 45(1)(b) the defendant cannot be considered as having failed to appear as soon as he or his counsel presented arguments before the court from which it can be deduced that he has actual knowledge of the proceedings and enjoyed enough time to prepare his defence”.

  143. 143.

    The circumstances surrounding the delivery will often determine whether the defendant had enough time to prepare: for example, if the defendant was served with a document in a foreign language a longer period of time will have been necessary. Franq (2016) p. 913.

  144. 144.

    Except under the Brussels II bis Regulation, see footnote 71.

  145. 145.

    CJEU Case C-123/91 Minalmet GmbH v Brandeis Ltd ECLI:EU:C:1992:432, para 19.

  146. 146.

    Articles 45(1)(c) and (d) Brussels I bis Regulation; Article 22(1) ESCP Regulation; Article 22(1) EOP Regulation; Article 21(1) EEO Regulation; Article 21(2) Maintenance Regulation; Article 40(c) Succession Regulation. Again, Regulation 2201/2003 provides an exception for judgments concerning parental responsibility: only irreconcilability with a later judgment can lead to refusal of recognition or enforcement. This shows that the Regulation accepts the inherent nature of custody orders, as being open to modification by reason of a subsequent change in circumstances. See Borràs (1998) para 73.

  147. 147.

    Article 25(3) of the Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000 (there is no such ground for refusal for judgments opening proceedings); Articles 22(c) and 23(e) of the Brussels II bis Regulation; Article 40(c) of Regulation 650/2012.

  148. 148.

    Article 25(3) of Regulation 1346/2000 (there is no such ground for refusal for judgments opening proceedings); Articles 22(d) and 23(f) of Regulation 2201/2003; Article 40(d) of Regulation 650/2012. It should be noted that ‘third State’ refers to a state that is not an EU Member State.

  149. 149.

    CJEU Case C-145/86 Hoffman v Krieg ECLI:EU:C:1988:61.

  150. 150.

    This is the situation covered by Article 45(1)(c) of Brussels I bis and its equivalents.

  151. 151.

    CJEU Hoffman v. Krieg.

  152. 152.

    This is the situation covered by Article 45(1)(d) of Brussels I bis and its equivalents.

  153. 153.

    Article 24 of the Brussels II bis Regulation explicitly forbids review of jurisdiction of the court of origin.

  154. 154.

    Article 45(3) Brussels I Regulation. This was affirmed by the CJEU in Krombach v. Bamberski, see the discussion under 3.2.5.

  155. 155.

    See for a general discussion Nielsen (2013) pp. 524–528, Zilinsky (2014), Hazelhorst and Kramer (2013), Kramer (2013), Cadet (2013).

  156. 156.

    As Sect. 2.2.2 discussed, the 2010 Proposal included, alongside the abolition of the exequatur a narrowing of the grounds for refusal. The public policy exception was to be replaced with a more narrow reference to ‘fundamental principles underlying the right to a fair trial’. The 2010 Proposal also included a redistribution of the authority to apply refusal grounds between the Member State of origin and the Member State of enforcement: the ground for refusal of undue service upon the defendant in case of a default judgment (Article 34(2) of Brussels I) would be applicable only in the Member State of origin.

  157. 157.

    See for a general discussion Nielsen (2013), Beraudo (2013).

  158. 158.

    Hazelhorst and Kramer (2013).

  159. 159.

    Council Regulation (EC) 4/2009 of 18 December 2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, OJ L7/1 (the ‘Maintenance Regulation’). According to the Proposal, the reasons for proposing abolition of exequatur were (1) simplifying the citizen’s life, (2) strengthening legal certainty, and (3) ensuring effectiveness and continuity of recovery. See Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, COM (2005) 649 final, pp. 4–6.

  160. 160.

    Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, concluded in the framework of The Hague Conference on Private International Law. All EU Member States and Serbia have ratified this Protocol.

  161. 161.

    Article 17 Maintenance Regulation.

  162. 162.

    Article 21(2) Maintenance Regulation.

  163. 163.

    See Sect. 3.2.6.1.

  164. 164.

    Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

  165. 165.

    Because the 1980 Convention remains in force within the EU, the following discussion on the child abduction regime in the EU refers where relevant also to that Convention. See also Article 62(2) of Brussels II bis that provides that “The conventions mentioned in Article 60, in particular the 1980 Hague Convention, continue to produce effects between the Member States which are party thereto” unless the Brussels II bis Regulation takes precedence.

  166. 166.

    Pérez-Vera (1982) para 34.

  167. 167.

    Articles 41(1) and 42(1) Brussels II bis Regulation. Note that this only applies to those States that have ratified the 2007 Protocol to the Hague Convention on the law applicable to maintenance obligations: Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations.

  168. 168.

    Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters an in matters of parental responsibility repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 and amending Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 in matters relating to maintenance, COM (2002) 222 final/2, p. 2.

  169. 169.

    Initiative of the French Republic with the view to adopting a Council Regulation on the mutual enforcement of judgments on rights of access to children, OJ C 234/7.

  170. 170.

    Initiative of the French Republic with the view to adopting a Council Regulation on the mutual enforcement of judgments on rights of access to children, OJ C 234/7, recitals 3 and 13.

  171. 171.

    In order to ensure the return of a child to its state of residence, the initiative proposed that the authorities in the state where the child is staying order the prompt return on the application of the parent with custody. Articles 10 and 11.

  172. 172.

    Boele-Woelki and Gonzàlez Beilfuss (2007) p. 7.

  173. 173.

    CJEU Case C-491/10 PPU Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga v Simone Pelz ECLI:EU:C:2010:828.

  174. 174.

    See for a discussion of the instrument Bittman (2008), Zilinsky (2005, 2006).

  175. 175.

    According to Article 3(1) of the EEO Regulation, a claim shall be regarded as uncontested if (a) the debtor has expressly agreed to it by admission or by means of a settlement which has been approved by a court or concluded before a court in the course of proceedings; or (b) the debtor has never objected to it, in compliance with the relevant procedural requirements under the law of the Member State of origin, in the course of the court proceedings; or (c) the debtor has not appeared or been represented at a court hearing regarding that claim after having initially objected to the claim in the course of the court proceedings, provided that such conduct amounts to a tacit admission of the claim or of the facts alleged by the creditor under the law of the Member State of origin; or (d) the debtor has expressly agreed to it in an authentic instrument.

  176. 176.

    Article 16 EEO Regulation.

  177. 177.

    EOP Regulation, Article 19; ESCP Regulation, Article 20(1); EEO Regulation, Article 5.

  178. 178.

    EOP Regulation, Recital 6.

  179. 179.

    Article 8 does not make clear whether the claim is to be reviewed on the merits. Recital 16 of the Regulation provides that the court reviews the claim on the basis of the information provided by the claimant, which would allow it to review prima facie the merits of the claim and inter alia to exclude any unfounded or unmeritorious claims, yet goes on to state that “the examination should not need to be carried out by a judge”. This, combined with the provision in Article 8 that the examination may be conducted automatically, appears to rule out a thorough examination of the merits. See Kramer (2010) p. 24.

  180. 180.

    Kramer (2010) p. 26.

  181. 181.

    Kramer (2007) pp. 47–49 and Kramer (2009) pp. 101–103.

  182. 182.

    See for an analysis Kramer (2008a, b).

  183. 183.

    Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, OJ L 341/1.

  184. 184.

    Article 18 ESCP Regulation, as amended by Regulation 2015/2421. See Sect. 8.5.2.

  185. 185.

    Kramer (2011) p. 633.

  186. 186.

    Van der Grinten (2006), Van Bochove (2007), Cuniberti (2007–2008).

References

  • Andenas M, Hess B, Oberhammer P (eds) (2005) Enforcement Agency Practice in Europe. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson T (2005) Harmonization and Mutual Recognition: How to Handle Mutual Distrust. In: Andenas M, Hess B, Oberhammer P (eds) Enforcement Agency Practice in Europe. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 245–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Arenas Garcia R (2010) Abolition of exequatur: problems and solutions. Mutual recognition, mutual trust and recognition of foreign judgments: too many words in the sea. Yearbook Private Int Law 12:351–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont P, Johnston E (2010) Abolition of Exequatur in Brussels I: Is a Public Policy Defence Necessary for the Protection of Human Rights? Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 30:105–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Beraudo JP (2013) Regards sur le nouveau règlement Bruxelles I sur la compétence judiciaire, la reconaissance et l’execution des décisions en matière civile et commercial. Journal du Droit International 140:741–763

    Google Scholar 

  • Berglund M (2009) Cross-Border Enforcement of Claims in the EU. History, Present Time, and Future. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittman D (2008) Vom Exequatur zum qualifizierten Klausererteilungsverfahren. Die Implementierung des Europäischen Vollstreckungstitels für unbestrittene Forderungen in den nationalen Zivilprozessordnungen. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Boele-Woelki K, Gonzàlez Beilfuss C (eds) (2007) Brussels II bis: Its Impact and Application in the Member States. Intersentia, Antwerpen–Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Borràs A (1998) Explanatory Report on the Convention, drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters (approved by the Council on 28 May 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadet F (2013) Le nouveau règlement Bruxelles I ou l’itinéraire d’un enfant gâté. Journal du Droit International 140:765–790

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P, De Búrca G (2015) EU Law. Text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuniberti G (2007–2008) The first stage of the abolition of the exequatur in the European Union. Columbia J Eur Law 14:371–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuniberti G (2012) Some Remarks on the Efficiency of Exequatur, Paper Number 2012-01. Law Working Paper Series. University of Luxembourg. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1998030

  • De Boer ThM (2015) What we should not expect from a Recast of the Brussels II bis Regulation. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 33(1):10–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A (2010) The Revision of the Brussels I Regulation. Surveying the Proposed Brussels I bis Regulation—Solid Foundations but Renovation Needed. Yearbook Private Int Law 12:247–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A (2011) The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast) (“Brussels I bis” Regulation). Note, European Parliament

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A (2012) Free Movement of Judgments in the EU: Knock Down the Walls but Mind the Ceiling. In: Lein E (ed) The Brussels I Review Proposal Uncovered. The British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 135–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitchen J (2015) The Recognition and Enforcement of Member State Judgments—Arts 45–57. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 432–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Franq S (2016) Article 45. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I bis Regulation. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 863–928

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley TC (2015) International Commercial Litigation: Text, Cases and Materials on Private International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelhorst MI (2016) Onjuiste toepassing van het Unierecht als grond voor toepassing van de openbare orde-exceptie. Hof van Justitie EU 16 juli 2015, zaak C-681/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:471 (Diageo Brands BV tegen Simiramida-05 EOOD). Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 34 1:11–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelhorst M, Kramer XE (2013) Afschaffing van het exequatur in Brussel I: daadwerkelijke verbetering of politiek gebaar? Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging 21:37–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B, Pfeiffer T (2011) Interpretation of the public policy exception as referred to in EU instruments of private international and procedural law. Study for the European Parliament. European Parliament, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B, Oberhammer P, Schlosser P (2013) External Evaluation of Regulation 1346/2000/EC on Insolvency Proceedings. Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg; Universität Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B, Pfeiffer T, Schlosser P (2007) Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States. Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B, Pfeiffer T, Schlosser P (2008) The Brussels I Regulation 44/2001. Application and Enforcement in the EU. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Jänterä-Jareborg M (2003). Unification of international family law in Europe—a critical perspective. In: Boele-Woelki K (ed) Perspectives for the unification and harmonisation of family law in Europe. Intersentia, Antwerp—Oxford—New York, pp 194–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssens C (2013) The principle of mutual recognition in EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jenard P (1979) Report on the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (signed at Brussels, 27 September 1968), OJ C 59/1

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2007) Eenvormige Europese procedures voor de inning van vorderingen. De Europese betalingsbevelprocedure en de Europese procedure voor geringe vorderingen, Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2008a) The European Small Claims Procedure: Striking the Balance Between Simplicity and Fairness in European Litigation. Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 16:355–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2008b) A Major Step in the Harmonization of Procedural Law in Europe: the European Small Claims Procedure. Accomplishments, New Features and Some Fundamental Questions of European Harmonization. In: Jongbloed AW (ed) The XIIIth World Congress of Procedural Law: The Belgian and Dutch Report. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 253–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2009) Het IPR voorbij: de invoering van eenvormige Europese procedures. De Europese betalingsbevelprocedure en de Europese procedure voor de inning van geringe vorderingen. In: Erauw J, Taelman P (eds) Nieuw internationaal privaatrecht. Meer Europees, meer globaal. Kluwer, Mechelen, pp 79–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2010) Enhancing Enforcement in the European Union. The European Order for Payment Procedure and Its Implementation in the Member States, Particularly in Germany, The Netherlands and England. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Enforcement and Enforceability. Tradition and Reform. Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford/Portland, pp 17–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2011) Abolition of exequatur under the Brussels I Regulation: effecting and protecting rights in the European judicial area. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 29(4):633–641

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2013) Cross-Border Enforcement and the Brussels I-Bis Regulation: Towards A New Balance Between Mutual Trust and National Control over Fundamental Rights. Netherlands Int Law Rev 60:343–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kropholler J (2005) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, 8th edn. Beck, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2016) Section 4: Common Provisions. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I-bis Regulation. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 963–969

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R (2009) Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. In: Wolfram R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law Online Edition. Oxford University Press. www.mpepil.com

  • Muller M, Cuniberti G (2013) Une étude empirique sur la pratique de l’exequatur dans la Grande Région. Journal du Droit International 140:83–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen PA (2013) The New Brussels I Regulation. Common Market Law Rev 50:503–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2010) The abolition of exequatur. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 30:197–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouwerkerk J (2011) Quid Pro Quo? A comparative perspective on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Vera E (1982) Explanatory Report on the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. Acts and Documents of the Fourteenth Session (1980), tome III, Child abduction

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosner N (2004) Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. Ulrik Huber Institute for Private International Law, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott J (2015) A question of trust? Recognition and enforcement of judgments. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 33(1):27–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone P (2006) EU Private International Law. Harmonization of Laws. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb E (2016) Mutual Recognition as a Governance Strategy for Civil Justice. In: Hess B, Bergström M, Storskrubb B (eds) EU Civil Justice. Current Issues and Future Outlook. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 299–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas J (2013) The principle of mutual recognition—success or failure? ERA Forum 13:585–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thunberg Schunke M (2013) Whose Responsibility? A Study of Transnational Defence Rights and Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions within the EU. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmer LJE (2013) Abolition of Exequatur under the Brussels I Regulation: Ill Conceived and Premature? J Private Int Law 9:129–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bochove L (2007) Het ontbreken van de openbare orde-exceptie in de nieuwe generatie Europese procesrechtelijke verordeningen in het licht van artikel 6 lid 1 EVRM. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 25(4):331–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Grinten P (2006) Abolishing Exequatur in the European Union: An Alternative. In: Van der Grinten P, Heukels T (eds) Crossing Borders. Essays in European and Private International Law, Nationality Law and Islamic Law in Honour of Frans van der Velden. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 71–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller M (2015) Mutual trust: in search of the future of European Union private international law. J Private Int Law 11:64–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilinsky M (2005) De Europese Executoriale Titel: Tijdige tenuitvoerlegging van vermogensrechtelijke beslissingen in de Europese Unie bezien vanuit verschillende internationale instrumenten. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilinsky M (2006) Abolishing exequatur in the European Union: the European Enforcement Order. Netherlands Int Law Rev 53:471–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilinsky M (2011) Afschaffing van het exequatur onder het voorstel tot herschikking van de EEX-Verordening: een hybride tussenvorm? Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie 2011:544–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilinsky M (2014) De herschikte EEX-Verordening: een overzicht en de gevolgen voor de Nederlandse rechtspraktijk. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 32(1):3–11

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Judicial Assistant at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Monique Hazelhorst

Authors
  1. Monique Hazelhorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monique Hazelhorst .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hazelhorst, M. (2017). The Evolution of Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union. In: Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union and the Right to a Fair Trial. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-162-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-162-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-161-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-162-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation