Abstract
This chapter summarises the findings of the previous chapters and elaborates on the implications of these findings for academic and political debate and for legislation. Its main conclusion is that the European Union has committed itself to protecting fundamental rights effectively. The exequatur procedure, by allowing Member States to refuse recognition and enforcement to civil judgments from other Member States on fundamental rights grounds, has proven to be an effective remedy for fundamental rights violations in practice. For this reason, the ‘judgment inspection’ function of exequatur should not be abolished. This conclusion implies a reconsideration of the functioning of mutual recognition and the underlying assumption of mutual trust between the Member States. It also has implications for the division of responsibilities between the EU and its Member States where it comes to fundamental rights protection. This chapter ends with a number of avenues for further research. One such implication is that the policy objective of building mutual trust through the identification of common principles of civil procedures is commendable, but it can only ever lead to a strong working presumption that decisions from other Member States conform to those principles. Another implication is that where it comes to the uniform European procedures, much can be gained by making courts, practitioners and litigants more familiar with the intricacies of the procedures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
See for a general overview of the topic Koch (2008).
- 2.
- 3.
Storme (1993).
- 4.
A comprehensive overview is provided by Kramer (2016).
- 5.
Among others J Albert, Study on the Transparency of Costs of Civil Proceedings in the EU: Final Report, December 2007, available at https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_costs_of_proceedings-37-en.do (last accessed 17 April 2016).
- 6.
https://euservicestudy2015.wordpress.com/ (Accessed 29 April 2016).
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
European Parliament, Committee on Legal Affairs, Working Document on establishing common minimum standards for civil procedure in the European Union. The legal basis, 21 December 2015.
- 10.
Mankó (2015) p. 4.
- 11.
Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 136/3. According to its Recital 7, this Directive aims to ‘promote further the use of mediation and ensure that parties having recourse to mediation can rely on a predictable legal framework’ by introducing ‘framework legislation addressing, in particular, key aspects of civil procedure’ for cross-border disputes.
- 12.
Council Directive 2002/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, OJ L 026/41. This Directive seeks to promote the application of legal aid in cross-border disputes for persons who lack sufficient resources where aid is necessary to secure effective access to justice (Recital 5). Another example is the Directive on Consumer ADR: Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR) OJ L 165/ 63.
- 13.
European Parliament, Committee on Legal Affairs, Working Document on establishing common minimum standards for civil procedure in the European Union. The legal basis, 21 December 2015, p. 2.
- 14.
A comprehensive exposé of the need for coherence in EU instruments is provided by Von Hein and Rühl (2016).
- 15.
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_european_judicial_atlas_in_civil_matters-321-en.do, last accessed 12/04/2016.
- 16.
http://ec.europa.eu/odr, last accessed 12/04/2016.
- 17.
European Commission, Press release. Solving disputes online: New platform for consumers and traders, Brussels, 15 February 2016.
- 18.
http://www.irsig.cnr.it/index.php?lang=en, last accessed 12/04/2016.
- 19.
http://www.hiil.org/, last accessed 12/04/2016.
- 20.
See for instance the project ‘Quality and Innovation in the administration of justice’ (KEI) of the Dutch government, which allows civil procedures to be conducted fully digitally.
- 21.
The HiiL project ‘Rechtwijzer 2.0’: see http://www.hiil.org/project/rechtwijzer, last accessed 12/04/2016.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
ECtHR Lawyers Partners A.S. v. Slovakia, appl. no. 54252/07 ECHR 2009; Sect. 4.3.2.4.
References
Berglund M (2009) Cross-Border Enforcement of Claims in the EU. History, Present Time, and Future. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Koch IE (2008) Human Rights: a conflict between positive individual and collective democratic interests? (Erasmus Law Lectures no. 12). Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The Hague
Kramer XE (2016) Europees procesrecht in de lift: het ELI-Unidroit project en andere Europese initiatieven. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 34(1):1–2
Lopez de Tejada M (2013) La Disparation de l’exequatur dans l’espace judiciaire europeen. LGDJ/Lextenso Editions, Paris
Mankó R (2015) Europeanisation of civil procedure—towards common minimum standards? European Parliament Research Service. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/home.html
Stadler A (2005) From the Brussels Convention to Regulation 44/2001: Cornerstones of a European Law of Civil Procedure. Common Market Law Rev 42:1637–1661
Storme M (1993) Final Report of the Working-Group for the Approximation of Civil Procedural Law
Storskrubb E (2008) Civil Procedure and EU Law: A Policy Area Uncovered. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Tulibacka M (2009) Europeanization of civil procedures: in search of a coherent approach. Common Market Law Rev 46:1527–1565
Von Hein J, Rühl G (eds) (2016) Kohärenz im Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht der Europäischen Union. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Von Mehren AT (1981) Recognition and Enforcement of Sister-State Judgments: Reflections on General Theory and Current Practice in the European Economic Community and the United States. Columbia Law Rev 81:1044–1060
Zhang W (2013) Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in China: A Call for Special Attention to Both the “Due Service Requirement” and the “Principle of Reciprocity”. Chin J Int Law 12:143–174
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hazelhorst, M. (2017). Conclusion. 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_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-162-3_9
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)
