Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Protection of Fundamental Rights by EU Instruments on Free Movement of Civil Judgments

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

  • 532 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses why the simplification of the European Union (EU) regime for recognition and enforcement of civil judgments is important to the protection of the fundamental rights of EU citizens. The primary tool for addressing fundamental rights violations in the context of cross-border recognition and enforcement is arguably the public policy exception, which is partly why its (proposed) abolition proved controversial. This chapter argues that the value of the public policy exception lies in its flexibility, its deference to national definitions of public policy and the fact that it protects against systemic failures. Next, the functioning of the public policy exception in instruments of EU private international law is explained to show how this protection is effected in practice. The chapter also discusses how other common grounds for refusal are used to address fundamental rights violations. It then discusses whether the cross-border review of civil judgment that refusal of recognition or enforcement entails is valuable in and of itself, or whether it can adequately be replaced with common (‘minimum’) standards that are to be checked by a court in the Member State of origin of the judgment. Finally, this chapter discusses Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) judgment in Zarraga. This judgment shows the possible consequences for fundamental rights protection if a court in the Member State of enforcement is no longer allowed to exercise any control on a foreign judgment because refusal grounds have been abolished (in this case under the Brussels II bis Regulation).

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.

    Section 2.2.3 onwards.

  2. 2.

    Section 2.2.2.

  3. 3.

    See the literature discussed under 3.2.7.

  4. 4.

    See in general Callsen (2011); Vlas (2013); Kinsch (2004, 2011) pp. 44–45; Fawcett (2007); Schilling (2012); Oster (2015); Wurmnest (2016).

  5. 5.

    Section 2.2.2.

  6. 6.

    Gebauer (2007) no. 1. In the European Union, Article 21 of the Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations, and Article 26 of the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, allow courts to refuse the application of a provision of foreign law “only if such application is manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the forum”. Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) OJ L 177/6; Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) OJ L 199/40.

  7. 7.

    Corthaut (2012) p. 15.

  8. 8.

    Kessedjian (2007) p. 28. See for a more in-depth discussion of the concept Chap. 7.

  9. 9.

    Corthaut (2012) p. 16.

  10. 10.

    Van Hoek (2000) p. 1018.

  11. 11.

    Kessedjian (2007) p. 28; see Articles 36 (free movement of goods) 45(3) (free movement of workers) 52 (freedom of establishment and to provide services) and 65(1) (freedom of capital) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  12. 12.

    CJEU Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen ECLI:EU:C:2004:614.

  13. 13.

    CJEU Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd vs Benetton International NV ECLI:EU:C:1999:269, paras 36–37.

  14. 14.

    As explained under 2.2.1.4.

  15. 15.

    Corthaut (2012) p. 23.

  16. 16.

    Franq (2016) p. 882.

  17. 17.

    ECHR Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), appl. no. 15318/89, 1995, para 75.

  18. 18.

    ECHR Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain [GC], no. 12747/87, 1992; Lush (1993); De Schutter (2006) pp. 202–204. See also the earlier Soering case: ECHR Soering v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 14038/88, 1989.

  19. 19.

    Kinsch (2004) pp. 210–211; Fawcett (2007) pp. 3–5; Schilling (2012). See Sect. 5.2.

  20. 20.

    ECtHR Pellegrini v. Italy, appl. no. 30882/96 ECHR 2001-VIII.

  21. 21.

    See Kinsch (2004) p. 228.

  22. 22.

    Fawcett calls this the “indirect effect” of Article 6 ECHR: Fawcett (2007) pp. 3–5.

  23. 23.

    ECtHR Pellegrini, para 47. See Briggs (2005) p. 187; Cuniberti (2008) pp. 33–34.

  24. 24.

    Schilling (2011); Kinsch (2004) p. 228.

  25. 25.

    Section 2.3.2.2; Article 45, Brussels I bis Regulation; Fitchen (2015) p. 437.

  26. 26.

    Article 40, Succession Regulation.

  27. 27.

    Franq (2012) p. 660. This is borne out by the 1999 Proposal which states that this adverb is intended to ‘underscore” the exceptional nature of the public policy exception (p. 23).

  28. 28.

    CJEU Case 145/86 Hoffman v Krieg ECLI:EU:C:1988:6.

  29. 29.

    For instance Dickinson (2011) p. 8.

  30. 30.

    Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) pp. 152–153, have shown that European national courts have repeatedly refused enforcement of judgments in cases where damages were awarded on legal bases which were considered against public policy in the Member States of enforcement, for instance in cases concerning liability in employment relations. Other potential sources of application of substantive public policy are cases involving the award of punitive damages: see on this matter Vanleenhove (2016). Dickinson (2011) names a number of other topics that could be considered part of substantive public policy, including matters relating to freedom of religious expression or the status or activities of religious bodies, liability for wrongful conception or “wrongful life”, disputes concerning the right to life or death and other questions of medical ethics, the use of gene technology and the operation of nuclear installations (pp. 8–9). Other examples, such as disputes arising from trade in organs or questions on surrogacy, are imaginable.

  31. 31.

    CJEU Case C-38/98 Régie nationale des usines Renault SA v Maxicar SpA and Orazio Formento ECLI:EU:C:2000:225. See also the CJEU’s more recent judgment in Diageo/Simiramida:CJEU Case C-681/13 Diageo Brands v Simiramida-04 EOOD ECLI:EU:C:2015:471; Hazelhorst (2016).

  32. 32.

    The relationship between this judgment and Eco Swiss/Benetton, in which the CJEU decided that principles of EU law were part of public policy was seen as unclear (Franq (2012) p. 664). The difference in treatment can however at least partly be explained by the fact that Eco Swiss/Benetton concerned the recognition of an arbitral award. Since arbitration tribunals cannot request preliminary rulings from the CJEU, refusal of enforcement is sometimes the only way of addressing the error in the application of EU law, since the CJEU cannot be relied on to correct the error. Vlas (2003) no. 6.

  33. 33.

    Franq (2016) p. 883.

  34. 34.

    See for instance Kiestra (2014) pp. 307–317.

  35. 35.

    CJEU Povse v. Austria [dec.], appl. no. 3890/11 ECHR 2013; see for an extensive discussion Chap. 5.

  36. 36.

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

  37. 37.

    CJEU Diageo/Simiramida, para 53. The case also raises interesting questions concerning the relationship between Member State and European Union public policy in the context of recognition and enforcement; see D’Oliveira (2014, 2015).

  38. 38.

    CJEU Diageo/Simiramida, para 54.

  39. 39.

    CJEU Case C-420/07 Apostolides v. Orams ECLI:EU:C:2009:271, para 55; CJEU Case C-145/86 Hoffman v Krieg ECLI:EU:C:1988:61, para 21; CJEU Case C-78/95 Hendrikman and Feyen/Magenta Druck & Verlag ECLI:EU:C:1996:380, para 23; CJEU Case C-302/13 flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines, ECLI EU:C:2014:2319, para 47.

  40. 40.

    CJEU Case C-7/98 Dieter Krombach v André Bamberski ECLI:EU:C:2000:164, para 21, and CJEU Renault v. Maxicar, para 26.

  41. 41.

    CJEU Case C-7/98 Dieter Krombach v André Bamberski ECLI:EU:C:2000:164; Van Hoek (2000).

  42. 42.

    CJEU Case C-394/07 Marco Gambazzi v. DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc. and CIBC Mellon Trust Company ECLI:EU:C:2009:219.

  43. 43.

    Corthaut deems them “worthy of a novel”: Corthaut (2012) p. 174.

  44. 44.

    CJEU Krombach, para 37.

  45. 45.

    With the refusal to enforce the French civil judgment, the case of Krombach v. Bamberski was far from over; according to various media, Mr. Bamberski took the drastic measure of kidnapping Mr. Krombach and delivering him to French justice. See for an update Cuniberti, ‘Dr. Krombach’s Final (?) Contribution to the European Judicial Area’, http://conflictoflaws.net/2009/dr-krombachs-final-contribution-to-the-european-judicial-area/, 21 October 2009.

  46. 46.

    Muir Watt (2001) p. 550.

  47. 47.

    CJEU Gambazzi, para 29.

  48. 48.

    Beaumont and Johnston (2010b) p. 256.

  49. 49.

    Van Bochove (2009) p. 300.

  50. 50.

    Andrews (2011) p. 42. See for a more detailed discussion 4.3.2.2.

  51. 51.

    Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Oxford Dictionary of English.

  52. 52.

    Cuniberti (2008) p. 34.

  53. 53.

    Franq (2016) p. 881.

  54. 54.

    Cuniberti (2008) p. 33.

  55. 55.

    Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) p. 17.

  56. 56.

    The Report does not concern the application of public policy under the Brussels I bis Regulation, since this was not in force yet at the time the Report was prepared. There are as of yet no statistics or case law available as to the operation of public policy under Brussels I bis.

  57. 57.

    See Eurofood, in which the findings of Krombach are seen by the CJEU as “transposable” to the interpretation of Article 26 of the Insolvency Regulation. CJEU Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd ECLI:EU:C:2006:281, para 62–64.

  58. 58.

    For more information on the methodology see Introduction (Sect. 1.5).

  59. 59.

    Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) pp. 65–67.

  60. 60.

    Italy: Corte d’appello Milan, September 29, 1978, Jure id: 38703; Corte d’Appello Naples, February 20, 1982, Trans-Atlantica s.p.a./Soc. Vertom Shipping and Trading Corporation B.V., Rivista di diritto internazionale private e processuale 1983; Supreme Court of Portugal (Suprema Tribunal de Justica) Ac STJ pf 22 September 2005, available at http://www.dgsi.pt. Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) p. 58.

  61. 61.

    Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) pp. 60–61.

  62. 62.

    Netherlands: Hoge Raad 18 March 2011, ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BP0003.

  63. 63.

    France: CA Colmar 25 March 2004, No 02/04955. That recognition of a judgment lacking reasons should be considered contrary to public policy was already argued by Cuniberti: Cuniberti (2008).

  64. 64.

    France: Ca Versailles, 5 July 2006, No 05/04718; Ca Versailles, 21 December 2006, No 06/03801, Ca Reims, 7 May 2007, No 06/01161.

  65. 65.

    Germany: OLG Zweibrücken 10.05.2005, 3 W 165/04.

  66. 66.

    Prior to the entry into force of the Maintenance Regulation (Regulation 4/2009) judgments on maintenance fell within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, which is why they were subject to the public policy exception under this instrument. Since the entry into force of the Maintenance Regulation, maintenance judgment are excluded from the scope of the Brussels I and I bis Regulations.

  67. 67.

    The Netherlands: Hoge Raad 3 March 2006, ECLI:NL:HR:2006:AU8179.

  68. 68.

    Siehr (2013) p. 535.

  69. 69.

    Germany: BGH 26.8.2009, XII ZB 169/07; see for a discussion Siehr (2013) p. 533 onwards.

  70. 70.

    Section 2.2.4.

  71. 71.

    Court of Appeal, 29 March 2002, Unanimous opinion by Lord Philips MR—Maronier v. Larmer; Kramer (2003). This case was not reported on the Dutch case law repositories, which is not surprising because it was considered a simple default judgment containing no reasoning and therefore probably not suitable for publication. See also Beaumont and Johnston (2010b) p. 255; Franq (2016) pp. 896–897.

  72. 72.

    CJEU Case C-414/92 Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH v Emilio Boch ECLI:EU:C:1994:221.

  73. 73.

    CJEU Case C-78/95 Hendrikman and Feyen/Magenta Druck & Verlag ECLI:EU:C:1996:380.

  74. 74.

    Franq (2016) p. 896.

  75. 75.

    Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) p. 155.

  76. 76.

    Hartley (2015) p. 373.

  77. 77.

    E.g. Rechtbank Dordrecht 24 May 2006, ECLI:NL:RBDOR:2006:AX2008; the Dutch court rejected the argument that the alleged fraud should lead to a refusal of enforcement because it had already had an opportunity to address the fraud before the courts in Belgium, where the judgment originated.

  78. 78.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 552.

  79. 79.

    Hartley (2015) p. 410.

  80. 80.

    The Netherlands: Rechtbank Dordrecht, 24 May 2006, Nr. 60725/HA ZA 05-2282; Slovenia (Hess and Pfeiffer 2011, p. 61); Germany (at least 6 cases, Hess and Pfeiffer 2011, p. 65).

  81. 81.

    None of the German cases where the public policy exception was applied concern fraud (OLG Zweibrücken 10 May 2005, 3 W 165/04 and BGH 26 August 2009, XII ZB 169/07; Hess and Pfeiffer 2011, p. 58); the Dutch case was also unsuccessful for the reasons explained above with regard to Rechtbank Dordrecht 24 May 2006, ECLI:NL:RBDOR:2006:AX2008. See also Hess et al. (2007) para 546.

  82. 82.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 548.

  83. 83.

    Hess et al. (2007) paras 549 and 551.

  84. 84.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 544.

  85. 85.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 562.

  86. 86.

    Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) p. 156.

  87. 87.

    Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) pp. 113–115.

  88. 88.

    Germany: OLG Celle, 30 September 2010, 18 UF 67/10; Helsinki CoA 13-05-2009 S 09/357. See also a Dutch judgment in a case where procedural fraud was alleged, Rb Den Haag 23-12-2008, ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2008:BG9144.

  89. 89.

    Portugal: Lisbon Court of Appeal, 20 January 2009, RP 10097/2008-7, N. 4–6.

  90. 90.

    Netherlands: Rb Den Haag 10-4-2009, ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2009:BJ1995.

  91. 91.

    Netherlands, Rb Haarlem, 7 September 2010, Nr. F. 172470; Germany: Amsgericht Düsseldorf 07 April 2004, 502 IN 124/03; Amtsgericht Nürnberg 15 August 2006, 8004 IN 1326; Amtsgericht Düsseldorf 12 March 2004, 502 IN 126/03; Amtsgericht Deggendorf 12 February 2007, 1 IK 255/03; Amtsgericht Düsseldorf 6 June 2003, 502 IN 126/03; Landesarbeitsgericht Hessen 14 December 2010, 13 Sa 969/10.

  92. 92.

    Netherlands, Rb Haarlem, 7 September 2010, Nr. F. 172470.

  93. 93.

    UK: Re Stojevic v Official Receiver, [2007] BPIR 141. Also Hess et al. (2013) p. 123.

  94. 94.

    CJEU Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd, [2006] I-3813. See Bariatti (2009); Beale (2006); Barlowski (2012); Hess et al. (2013).

  95. 95.

    CJEU Eurofood, para 66.

  96. 96.

    Bariatti (2009) p. 644.

  97. 97.

    Sweden: Göta Hovrätt case Ö 3222-07; Svea Hovrätt case Ö 4988-08.

  98. 98.

    Beaumont and Johnston state that procedural issues are the crux of Article 34(1) and that its content essentially corresponds to Article 6 ECHR: Beaumont and Johnston (2010b) p. 261.

  99. 99.

    See also Beaumont and Johnston (2010b) p. 264.

  100. 100.

    Schlosser (2010) p. 103.

  101. 101.

    Schlosser (2010) p. 103; Beaumont and Johnston (2010b) p. 264.

  102. 102.

    Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 293.

  103. 103.

    As in Krombach v. Bamberski and Maronier v. Larmer, discussed above; Beaumont and Johnston (2010) p. 264.

  104. 104.

    Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 301; Muir Watt (2001) p. 549; Kramer (2011a) p. 640; Schack (2011) p. 7.

  105. 105.

    Oberhammer (2010) p. 202; Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 293; Beaumont and Johnston (2010b) p. 264; De Cristofaro (2011) p. 452; Schlosser (2010) p. 103; Schack (2011) p. 6; Timmer (2013) p. 131; Kramer (2011a) p. 640.

  106. 106.

    Apart from the other literature cited in this section, see Oster (2015); Frąckowiak-Adamska (2015); Vlas (2013).

  107. 107.

    Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) pp. 296–302.

  108. 108.

    Section 3.4.2.

  109. 109.

    Oberhammer (2010) p. 202.

  110. 110.

    E.g. Beaumont and Johnston (2010a) p. 110.

  111. 111.

    Oberhammer (2010) p. 202.

  112. 112.

    Section 3.4.1.

  113. 113.

    Franq (2016) p. 902. CJEU Case C-228/81 Pendy Plastic Products BV v Pluspunkt Handelsgesllschaft GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:1982:276, para 13.

  114. 114.

    The Jenard Report formulates the purpose of the as follows: “Where judgment is given abroad in default of appearance, the Convention affords the defendant double protection”. Jenard (1979) p. 44.

  115. 115.

    Fitchen (2015) p. 451; EEO Regulation, Articles 13 and 14. The ESCP and EOP Regulations similarly contain rules on service.

  116. 116.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 539.

  117. 117.

    Hess et al. (2007) paras 540–541.

  118. 118.

    Rechtbank Haarlem 25 April 2008, ECLI:NL:RBHAA:2008:BD0602.

  119. 119.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 539.

  120. 120.

    CJEU Case C-78/95 Hendrikman and Feyen/ Magenta Druck & Verlag, ECLI:EU:C:1996:380.

  121. 121.

    CJEU Case C-112/13 A v B and Others ECLI:EU:C:2014:2195, paras 55–58. CJEU Case C-112/13 A v B and Others ECLI:EU:C:2014:2195, paras 55–58. In Hypoteční Banka the CJEU clarified that it should be possible to bring proceedings against a defendant whose domicile is unknown by the appointment of a guardian ad litem or another court-appointed representative, but that such an arrangement should be seen as a judgment by default against which Article 45(1)(b) can be invoked. CJEU Case C-327/10 Hypoteční banka a.s. v Udo Mike Lindner ECLI:EU:C:2011:745, paras 53–54.

  122. 122.

    CJEU Case C-172/91 Volker Sonntag v Hans Waidmann ECLI:EU:C:1993:144, para 39.

  123. 123.

    CJEU Case 228/81 Pendy Plastic Products BV v Pluspunkt Handelsgesellschaft GmbH ECLI:EU:C:1982:276, para 13.

  124. 124.

    Franq (2012) p. 685.

  125. 125.

    Case C-283/05 ASML Netherlands BV v Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS), ECLI:EU:C:2006:787.

  126. 126.

    ECtHR Hadjianastassiou v Greece of 16 December 1992, ECHR. Series A. no 252, para 29–37.

  127. 127.

    See Dickinson (2011) p. 7.

  128. 128.

    The scope now includes Section 5 of Chapter II of the Regulation, which concerns employment cases.

  129. 129.

    Heiss (2016) p. 407; Mankowski and Nielsen (2016) p. 443; Esplugues Mota and Palao Moreno (2016) p. 539.

  130. 130.

    Article 45(3) Brussels I bis Regulation.

  131. 131.

    Kramer (2011b) p. 216.

  132. 132.

    Fitchen (2015) p. 474; Franq (2012) p. 391.

  133. 133.

    Articles 18(1) and (2) Brussels I bis Regulation.

  134. 134.

    Articles 21(1)(a) and (b).

  135. 135.

    The other sections of this Article confer exclusive jurisdiction: (a) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the validity of the decisions of their organs, on the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat (Article 24(2)); (b) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of entries in public registers, on the courts of the Member State in which the register is kept (Article 24(3)); (c) in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence, on the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is under the terms of an instrument of the Union or an international convention deemed to have taken place (Article 24(4)); and (d) in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, on the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced (Article 24(5)).

  136. 136.

    Borràs (1998) para 73; UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, 1989.

  137. 137.

    This qualification is found in the Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children, Article 23(b); see also Siehr (2012) p. 282.

  138. 138.

    Kruger (2011) p. 37.

  139. 139.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) p. 43.

  140. 140.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) p. 48.

  141. 141.

    See under 3.2.2, above, and the discussion in Sect. 7.2.2.

  142. 142.

    See Sect. 2.3.1.2.

  143. 143.

    Kramer (2003) expresses surprise that the case was allowed to progress in this way, even if Dutch procedural law technically allowed it, and states that “maybe, hopefully, under the new procedural rules a case like this would not have slipped through”. Kramer (2003) p. 18.

  144. 144.

    Muir Watt (2001) p. 551.

  145. 145.

    De Cristofaro (2011) p. 452; Kramer (2011a) pp. 639–640; Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 301.

  146. 146.

    Muir Watt (2001) p. 551.

  147. 147.

    Article 45, 2010 Proposal; see in general Dickinson (2011) pp. 8–10; Layton (2011) pp. 5–8. Something similar was proposed by Oberhammer (2010) p. 202.

  148. 148.

    Layton (2011) pp. 6–7.

  149. 149.

    The Maintenance Regulation contains a similar provision: Article 19.

  150. 150.

    Section 2.2.5. See for a discussion of the effectiveness of this arrangement Sect. 8.6.3.

  151. 151.

    Article 20, EOP Regulation; Article 18, ESCP Regulation. Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 widened the scope of this review procedure for the ESCP Regulation, in order to address the lacuna identified by the CJEU in its judgment in eco cosmetics/Raiffeisenbank; see 8.5.1.

  152. 152.

    Article 19(1) Maintenance Regulation.

  153. 153.

    As provided for by Article 14 of the EEO Regulation; Article 18(1)(a) ESCP Regulation, Article 20(1)(a) EOP Regulation.

  154. 154.

    Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 298.

  155. 155.

    E.g. Cuniberti and Rueda (2011); Stadler (2004a); Kramer (2008); Zilinsky (2006); Ptak (2014).

  156. 156.

    Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 298.

  157. 157.

    Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) pp. 298–300.

  158. 158.

    CJEU eco cosmetics/Raiffeisenbank; see under 8.5.1.

  159. 159.

    Joined cases C-119/13 and C-120/13 eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy and Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH v Tetyana Bonchyk ECLI:EU:C:2014:2144. See under 8.5.1.

  160. 160.

    Cuniberti and Rueda (2011); De Cristofaro (2011).

  161. 161.

    Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 295.

  162. 162.

    Kuipers (2010) p. 44; Cuniberti (2010) p. 8.

  163. 163.

    The admissibility decision was not published in the ECtHR’s reports or its online database. In response to a request by the author of this research, the ECtHR’s registry confirmed that ‘The case GAMBAZZI v. the United Kingdom has been declared inadmissible on the date of 09/01/2003.The Court does not give any justifications regarding an inadmissibility on a case. The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments, decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the Committee of Ministers (resolutions). Therefore, this case cannot be found in HUDOC and decisions are only sent to the applicants or their representatives.’

  164. 164.

    See Sect. 4.3.7.2.

  165. 165.

    Stadler (2004b) p. 8.

  166. 166.

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

  167. 167.

    CJEU Case C-211/10 PPU, Doris Povse v Maura Alpago, ECLI:EU:C:2010:400, not to be confused with ECtHR Povse v. Austria (dec.) no. 3890/11, ECHR 2013.

  168. 168.

    CJEU Case C-195/08 PPU Inga Rinau, [2008] ECLI:EU:C:1998:608.

  169. 169.

    CJEU Povse para 40.

  170. 170.

    Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, OJ C 303/17, p. 25 (relating to Article 24 of the Charter).

  171. 171.

    Hodgkin and Newell (2007) pp. 155–156.

  172. 172.

    The UN Committee has even recognized the right of the child to be heard as one of four “general principles” of the Convention, which according to the General Comments of the Committee on that article “highlights the fact that this article establishes not only a right in itself, but should also be considered in the interpretation and implementation of all other rights.” The right of the child to be heard is therefore clearly of central importance to protecting the child’s autonomy. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 12: the right of the child to be heard. 2009, p. 3. See also Kruger (2011) pp. 37–39; Sect. 7.5.1.

  173. 173.

    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 12: the right of the child to be heard, 2009.

  174. 174.

    Beaumont and Walker (2011) pp. 244–245.

  175. 175.

    View of Advocate General Bot, delivered on 7 December 2010, Case C-491/10 PPU, Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga v. Simone Pelz, para 95 et seq.

  176. 176.

    De Boer (2011) p. 4644; Holliday (2012) p. 130.

  177. 177.

    Peers (2011) p. 693.

  178. 178.

    Holliday (2012) p. 132.

  179. 179.

    Beaumont and Walker (2011) p. 245.

  180. 180.

    The CJEU does note that an appeal against the custody decision of the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5 de Bilbao was still pending with the Audiencia Provincial de Biskaya, so a procedural remedy is still open to Ms Pelz and her daughter, which may eventually lead to a review before the Constitutional Court. However, while the appeal on the merits of the custody decision was indeed still pending, the Audiencia Provincial had already explicitly refused a request that Andrea be heard on appeal. Whether this possibility would eventually provide Andrea with an opportunity to be heard is therefore unclear, since the Spanish courts are clearly of the opinion that they have already satisfied their legal obligation by inviting her to a hearing which she did not attend.

  181. 181.

    See under 3.4.1.

  182. 182.

    Section 5.4.3.

  183. 183.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) p. 43 onwards; see Sect. 7.5 below.

  184. 184.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) p. 29.

  185. 185.

    Section 3.2.6.2.

  186. 186.

    Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) p. 159.

  187. 187.

    Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) p. 162.

  188. 188.

    De Cristofaro (2011) p. 451; Beaumont and Johnston (2010a) p. 106; Muir Watt (2001) p. 554; Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 312; Kramer (2011a) p. 640.

  189. 189.

    Stadler (2004b) p. 7.

  190. 190.

    Hess (2012) p. 1103; Kramer (2011b) p. 230.

References

  • Andrews N (2011) Parere del Prof. Neil Andrews, University of Cambridge, del 23.11.2007 (Legal Opinion of Prof. Neil Andrews). Problemi di diritto processuale internazionane Italiano 2011:38–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Bariatti S (2009) Recent Case-Law Concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments under the European Insolvency Regulation. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 73:629–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlowski M (2012) Public Policy exception under the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings: is it fit for purpose? Corporate Rescue Insolvency 5:166–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Beale S (2006) The Judgment in Eurofood: the European Court of Justice gives Guidance on the EC Insolvency Regulation. J Int Banking Law Regul 21:487–492

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont P, Johnston E (2010a) 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 

  • Beaumont P, Johnston E (2010b) Can exequatur be abolished in Brussels I whilst retaining a public policy defence? J Private Int Law 6:249–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont P, Walker L (2011) Shifting the Balance Achieved by the Abduction Convention: the Contrasting Approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. J Private Int Law 7:231–249

    Article  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 

  • Briggs A (2005) Foreign Judgments and Human Rights. Law Q Rev 121:185–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Callsen R (2011) Human rights and the public policy exception in private international law. In: Alleweldt R, Callsen R, Dupendant J (eds) Human Rights Abuses in the Contemporary World. Peter Lang, Bern, pp 125–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Corthaut T (2012) EU Ordre Public. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuniberti G (2008) The recognition of foreign judgments lacking reasons in Europe: access to justice, foreign court avoidance, and efficiency. Int Comp Law Q 57:25–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuniberti G (2010) Debarment from defending, default judgments and public policy in Europe. A case note on Gambazzi. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 30:148–153. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1515363

  • Cuniberti G, Rueda I (2011) Abolition of Exequatur: Addressing the Commission’s Concerns. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 75:286–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Boer ThM (2011) Zaaknr. C-491/10 PPU, LJN BP0409: [Joseba Andoni Aquirre Zarraga/Simone Pelz]. Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 43:4635–4644

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cristofaro M (2011) The abolition of exequatur proceedings: speeding up the free movement of judgments while preserving the rights of the defense. Int J Procedural Law 1:432–457

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter O (2006) Human Rights. Globalization and Jurisdiction: Lessons from the European Convention on Human Rights. Baltic Yearbook Int Law 6:183–245

    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 

  • D’Oliveira U (2014) The Public Policy Exception in EEX Regulation 44/2001: is “Union Public Policy” included? A Constitutional Conundrum. In: Piers M, Storme S, Verhellen J (eds) 2014. Liber Amicorum Johan Erauw, Intersentia, Antwerpen/Cambridge, pp 15–34

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Oliveira U (2015) Inlijving van de openbare orde van de EU in die van de lidstaten? Nederlands Juristenblad 2015(90):2350–2357

    Google Scholar 

  • Esplugues Mota C, Palao Moreno G (2016) Section 5: Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) The Brussels Ibis Regulation. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 534–558

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett JJ (2007) The Impact of Article 6(1) of the ECHR on Private International Law. Int Comp Law Q 56:1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Frąckowiak-Adamska A (2015) Time for a European “Full Faith and Credit Clause”. Common Market Law Rev 52:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Franq S (2012) Art. 34. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I Regulation. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 644–697

    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 

  • Gebauer M (2007) Ordre public (public policy). In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (MPEPIL). Oxford University Press, Oxford. http://opil.ouplaw.com/home/EPIL

  • 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 

  • Heiss H (2016) Section 3: Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I bis Regulation. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 407–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2012) The Brussels I Regulation: recent case law of the Court of Justice and the Commission’s proposed recast. Common Market Law Rev 48:1075–1112

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkin R, Newell P (2007) Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (prepared for the United Nations Children’s Fund). UNICEF

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday J (2012) Case Comment: Aguirre Zarraga v Simone Pelz. Aberdeen Student Law Rev 3:126–135

    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 

  • Kessedjian C (2007) Public order in European Law. Erasmus Law Rev 1:25–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiestra L (2014) The impact of the ECHR on private international law. An analysis of Strasbourg and selected national case law. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsch P (2004) The impact of Human Rights on the Application of Foreign Law and on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments—A Survey of the Cases Decided by the European Human Rights Institutions. In: Einhorn T, Siehr K (eds) Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law—Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 197–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsch P (2011) Private International Law topics before the European Court of Human Rights. Selected judgments and decisions (2010–2011). Yearbook Private Int Law 13:37–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2003) Enforcement under the Brussels Convention: procedural public policy and the influence of Article 6 ECHR. Int’l Lis 2003:16–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2008) 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 (2011a) 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 (2011b) Cross-Border Enforcement in the EU: Mutual Trust versus Fair Trial? Towards Principles of European Civil Procedure. Int J Procedural Law 1:202–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger T (2011) International Child Abduction. The Inadequacies of the Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers J-J (2010) The right to a fair trial and the free movement of civil judgments. Croatian Yearbook Eur Law Policy 6:23–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton 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). European Parliament

    Google Scholar 

  • Lush C (1993) The Territorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights: Recent Case Law. Int Comp Law Q 42:897–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P, Nielsen P (2016) Section 4: jurisdiction over consumer contracts. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I bis Regulation. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 437–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir Watt H (2001) Evidence of an Emergent European Legal Culture: Public Policy Requirements of Procedural Fairness under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions. Texas Int Law J 36:539–554

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Oster J (2015) Public policy and human rights. J Private Int Law 11:542–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (2011) Mission accomplished? EU Justice and Home Affairs after the Treaty of Lisbon. Common Market Law Rev 48:661–693

    Google Scholar 

  • Ptak P (2014) Der Europäische Vollstreckungstitel und das rechtliche Gehör des Schuldners. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Schack H (2011) The misguided abolition of exequatur proceedings in the European Union. In: Gudowski J, Weitz K (eds) 2011. Festschrift für Tadeusz Erecinski, LexisNexis Polska, Warsaw

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling T (2011) Das Exequatur und die EMRK. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 31:31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling T (2012) The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 48:545–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser P (2010) The Abolition of Exequatur Proceedings—Including Public Policy Review? Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 30:101–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehr K (2012) Article 22 and Article 23. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels II bis Regulation. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 256–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehr K (2013) The EU Maintenance Regulation and the Hague Maintenance Protocol of 2007: Recognition of Foreign Judgments and the Public Policy Defence. In: Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (ed) A commitment to private international law: essays in honour of Hans van Loon. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 529–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler A (2004a) Kritische Anmerkungen zur Europäischen Vollstreckungstitel. Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 12:801–808

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler A (2004b) Das Europäische Zivilprozessrecht - Wie viel Beschleunigung verträgt Europa? Kritisches zur Verordnung über den Europäischen Vollstreckungstitel und ihrer Grundidee. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 24:2–11

    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 (2009) Een onwillige gedaagde uitsluiten van het proces: weigeringsgrond voor tenuitvoerlegging onder het EEX? Hof van Justitie EG 2 april 2009 (Marco Gambazzi/Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc. c.s.). Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 27(3):295–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hoek A (2000) Case C7-98, D. Krombach v. A. Bamberski, Judgment of the Full Court of 28 March 2000 [2000] ECR I-1395. Common Market Law Rev 38:1011–1027

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanleenhove C (2016) Punitive Damages in Private International Law: Lessons for the European Union. Dissertation University of Ghent

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlas P (2003) (Case note on CJEU Case C-38/98 Régie nationale des usines Renault SA v Maxicar SpA and Orazio Formento, ECLI:EU:C:2000:225). Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 2003 no 627

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlas P (2013) Public policy in private international law and its continuing importance. In: The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (ed) A Commitment to Private International Law. Essays in honour of Hans van Loon. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 621–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurmnest W (2016) Ordre public (public policy). In: Leible S (ed) General Principles of European Private International Law. Wolters Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 305–329

    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 

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). Protection of Fundamental Rights by EU Instruments on Free Movement of Civil Judgments. 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_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-162-3_3

  • 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