Part III Recognition and Enforcement, 18 Brussels and Lugano: Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartley Trevor C
Keyword(s):  
General Rule ◽  
Member States ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement

The general rule in Brussels 2012 and Lugano 2007 is that all judgments from other Member States or Lugano States must be recognized unless there is a reason why they should not be. This chapter discusses those reasons. The grounds for refusal set out in the instruments apply to both recognition and enforcement of a judgment. However, in the case of enforcement, the judgment-debtor may also invoke grounds that apply under national law for the non-enforcement of national judgments — for example, that the judgment has been satisfied. This is not possible with regard to recognition: recognition may be refused only on the grounds set out in the instruments. The principal grounds are set out in Brussels 2012, Article 45, and Lugano 2007, Articles 34 and 35.

Recognition and Enforcement

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reinhard Bork ◽  
Renato Mangano
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Automatic Recognition ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Foreign Member

Automatic recognition of judgments rendered within the course of insolvency proceedings constitutes one of the fundamental principles of the EIR, as recognition is based on mutual trust and is crucial regarding maintenance of the universality of (main) insolvency proceedings. This chapter scrutinizes the mechanism through which recognition operates pursuant to the EIR. Recognition applies only to certain judgments handed down during insolvency proceedings; therefore, we must determine which types of judgment enjoy recognition pursuant to the EIR. Discussion then focuses on the impact of recognizing foreign judgments before exploring the public policy exception, this being the only ground upon which refusal of recognition may be based. As enforcement of judgments in foreign Member States may be necessary, the manner in which the EIR ensures the enforceability of judgments handed down during insolvency proceedings will also be observed.

Part VI The Law of Property, 37 Matrimonial Property

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torremans Paul
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Civil Partnership ◽  
Marriage Contract ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Property Regimes ◽  
Husband And Wife

This chapter examines the legal regime governing matrimonial property, and more specifically the rights of a husband and wife in the movable and immovable property which either of them may possess at the time of marriage or may acquire afterwards. It first considers the general rule on assignment where there is an ante-nuptial contract as well as the assignment where is no ante-nuptial contract, focusing in particular on the application of matrimonial domicile in the case of movables and the effect of marriage on the spouses' immovables in the absence of a marriage contract. It then discusses the question of property rights arising from civil partnership and cohabitation, citing the relevant provisions of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, and concludes with an overview of European proposals for legal reform with respect to jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes.

POTENTIAL UNIFICATION IN THE FIELD OF CROSS-BORDER CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS IN THE BRICS COUNTRIES

Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 9-17
Author(s):  
Ya. O. Alimova
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Cape Town ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Great Role ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Brics Countries ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Contractual Relations

The article is devoted to the peculiarities of regulation of cross-border contractual relations that are being developed within the BRICS countries in compliance with universal international treaties. The author has outlined the prospects and problems with which traders from BRICS countries are facing when concluding contracts. International treaties, which contain, above all, uniform substantive rules, play a great role in concluding cross-border contracts. However, all the BRICS countries are member-states to very few treaties. The author of the article has revealed that such conventions still exist, although not only in the contractual field. The article pays special attention to the peculiarities of application of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958, the Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment of 2001 and, indeed, the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 1980 (although only three BRICS countries are involved, it can also be applied to India and South Africa).

BOOK REVIEWSBOOK REVIEWSvan der WeideJ. A.Lecturer in private international law, Faculty of Law, Free University, Amsterdam122001483367371RutgersJ.W., International Reservation of Title Clauses: A Study of Dutch, French and German Private International Law in the Light of European Law, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague 1999, XI + 233 pp., € 61.50/US$ 81/UK£ 47.25. ISBN 90-6704-116-5.Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 20012001T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X00001388a.pdfdispartBook Reviews1.See, e.g., VlietL.P.W. van, Transfer of Movables in German, French, English and Dutch Law (diss. Maastricht) (Nijmegen, Ars Aequi Libri 2000).2.1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, most recently amended by the 1996 Accession Convention. The Brussels Convention will be converted into the Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Official Journal ECL 12, 16 01 2001), which will come into force on 1 March 2002. This Council Regulation shall apply to all EC Member States except Denmark.3.Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 (Official Journal EC L 200, 8 08 2000). Art. 4 states: ‘1) Member States shall provide in conformity with the applicable national provisions designated by private international law that the seller retains title to goods until they are fully paid for if a retention of title clause has been expressly agreed between the buyer and the seller before the delivery of the goods. 2) Member States may adopt or retain provisions dealing with down payments already made by the debtor.’4.See, e.g., MünchKomm-Kreuzer, Internatonales sachenrecht (München, C.H. Beck 1998), Nach Art. 38 Anh. I, nrs. 66–67; Staudinger/Stoll, Internationales Sachenrecht (Berlin, Sellier de Gruyter 1996) nrs. 282–285 and 292–294; WeberR.H., ‘Parteiautonomie im internationalen Sachenrecht?

2001 ◽  
Vol 48 (03) ◽  
pp. 367
Author(s):  
J. A. van der Weide
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Official Journal ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
European Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Council Regulation

scholarly journals Recurso extraordinario en el estado de origen. Comentario a la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, de 17 diciembre 2015, Imtech Marine, c-300/14 = Review in exceptional cases in the member state of origin. Judgment of the Court (fourth chamber) of 17 december 2015, Imtech Marine, case c-300/14

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 702
Author(s):  
Juliana Rodríguez Rodrigo
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Law

Resumen: El artículo 19 del Reglamento 805/2004, relativo al título ejecutivo europeo, es el precepto objeto de estudio por parte del Tribunal de Justicia en esta sentencia. En este artículo, el legislador europeo regula el recurso extraordinario contra la resolución por la cual se emite el título ejecutivo europeo. En este sentido, el precepto indicado establece la necesidad de que exista esta posibilidad de revisión de la resolución, en los casos en los que el deudor haya permanecido en rebeldía forzosa durante el procedimiento que ha dado lugar a la misma, y como requisito para que pueda ser certificada como título ejecutivo europeo la mencionada resolución. En relación con este artículo 19, el Tribunal de Luxemburgo aclara, entre otras cuestiones, que no es obligatorio para los Estados miembros del Reglamento regular en sus ordenamientos el recurso al que alude el precepto. Sin embargo, en el caso de que no exista esa posibilidad de revisión conforme a la legislación del foro, la resolución no podrá ser certificada como título ejecutivo europeo. Todo lo cual no significa que aquella no pueda circular por la Unión Europea, lo puede hacer, pero siempre que se acoja a otras normas aplicables en la materia, como el Reglamento 1215/2012.Palabras clave: título ejecutivo europeo, recurso extraordinario.Abstract: Article 19 of Regulation 805/2004, creating the European Enforcement Order, is the precept studied by the European Court in this judgment. In this article, the European legislator regulates the extraordinary appeal against the decision by which the European enforcement order is issued. The indicated article establishes the need for this possibility of revision of the resolution, in cases in which the debtor has remained in forced rebellion during the procedure, and as a requirement for that the resolution may be certified as the European Enforcement Order. In relation to this article 19, the Luxembourg Court clarifies, among other things, that it is not compulsory for the Member States to regulate in their legal systems this review. However, in the event that there is no such possibility of revision under the law of the forum, the resolution can not be certified as a European Enforcement Order. In these cases, the creditor may instead choose the system of recognition and enforcement under Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012 or other European instruments.Keywords: European Enforcement Order, review in exceptional cases.

Effective judicial protection in judicial cooperation in civil matters and the Court of Justice of the European Union case law: the public policy clause and the absolute default of appearance as denial causes of judgments’ recognition and enforcement in E

2014 ◽  
pp. 147-161
Author(s):  
Joana Covelo de Abreu
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Protection

The Brussels I Regulation’s re-foundation by the New Brussels I Regulation was thought to secure reciprocal trust on justice administration among Member States and to grant full access to justice for those who inhabit and circulate in its territory. In a Union characterized by circulation freedoms and an internal market existence, those principles justify a situation in which judgments ruled by a Member State’s court are automatically recognised and enforced, in other Member-State, except when the defendant evokes the rules on denial of judgments’ recognition and enforcement. There would not be judicial cooperation and integration’s prosecution without trust – trust must exist among Member States’ courts and it must be felt by EU citizens so they can acknowledge that EU is actively seeking to improve their life and working conditions. The European Commission made constructive efforts to promote an exequatur’s abolition, making recognition and enforcement proceedings on the New Brussels I Regulation simpler (it even proposed to remove the “public policy” clause, which was not accepted). It is necessary to analyse howthe CJEU applies the rules on denial of judgments’ recognition and enforcement to perceive if the principle of an effective judicial protection is fulfilled under New Brussels I Regulation.

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS: I. Brussels II bis: Matrimonial Matters, Parental Responsibility, Child Abduction and Mutual Recognition

2004 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 503-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter McEleavy
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Council Meeting ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Member States ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
Formal Classification ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Council Regulation

At the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council meeting in Brussels on 2 and 3 October 2003 final political agreement was reached on a new and expanded version of the Brussels II Regulation, a text which has commonly become known as Brussels II bis. The instrument, which was adopted by the JHA ministers on 27 November, has now received formal classification as Council Regulation No 2201/2003 Concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and Matters Relating to Parental Responsibility Repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.1 The net result of this precipitous reform is that Brussels JJ shall cease to have effect from 1 May 2005,2 a mere 4 years and 2 months after it entered into force. Henceforth there will be a single, integrated instrument which will cover, inter alia, the free movement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility as well as of matrimonial judgments and introduce provisions on cooperation between Member States.

scholarly journals Odlučivanje o imovinskim odnosima bračnih drugova u ostavinskim postupcima sukladno Uredbi 2016/1103 o bračnoimovinskom režimu

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 449-471
Author(s):  
Paula Poretti
Keyword(s):  
Family Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
International Couples ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Council Regulation ◽  
Property Regimes ◽  
European Family ◽  
Open Issues

Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes (hereinafter: Regulation 2016/1103) provides for uniform rules which should facilitate delivering of judgments concerning matrimonial property in cross-border disputes in 18 Member States which established enhanced cooperation between themselves in the area of the property regimes of international couples. The application of the Regulation 2016/1103 should contribue to the application of other european instruments in the fi eld of european family law in divorce and succession proceedings. The paper presents rules on jurisdiction and applicable law under the Regulation 2016/1103 which should be applied in proceedings concerning matrimonial property regimes. Application of the provisions of Regulation 2016/1103 on jurisdiction and applicable law in proceedings for succession will be analyzed. The paper elaborates on certain potentially problematic solutions and open issues revealed through interpretation of provisions of Regulation 2016/1103 which could cause doubts and uncertainties for the court and public notaries. Possible solutions which could remove diffi culties and insuffi ciencies in the application of the Regulation 2016/1103 will be suggested.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document