The cross-border enforcement of court settlements within Brussels Ia RegulationPhilipp Anzenberger
, 2020, original scientific article
Abstract: Despite the enormous practical relevance of court settlements, the Brussels Ia Regulation contains only a few explicit provisions for the cross-border enforcement of this legal instrument. This can cause difficulties in borderline cases, for example when it is doubtful whether the legal act in question is to be classified as a settlement or a judgment or which specific European regulation is applicable to a settlement containing several different claims. This paper provides a general overview of the rules for the enforcement of court settlements under the Brussels Ia Regulation and examines some problems that may specifically arise in the case of cross-border enforcement of court settlements.
Keywords: court settlement, Brussels Ia Regulation, cross-border enforcement, recognition, scope, judgment, certificate, exequatur
Published: 15.01.2021; Views: 126; Downloads: 0
The principle of mutual recognition in the area of freedom security and justiceMihael Pojbič
, 2019, master's thesis
Abstract: Mutual recognition in the EU is both a goal and a principle in of itself, constructed and operationalised through individual provisions. The principle of mutual recognition is regarded as fundamental in enabling cooperation between Member States both in civil and criminal matters. The principle of mutual recognition has long ago outgrown the Internal Market and seeped through into judicial matters between Member States in the AFSJ. The accompanying realisation that the EU is not just an economic area is therefore evident. Since the inception of the idea of a Europe free of classical border checks facilitating freedom of movement was manifested, the fear of circumventing the application of judicial decisions became evermore real. Therefore, monumental changes in the fields of international criminal and international private law were expected and implemented in the European union (EU), through the principle of mutual trust and mutual recognition. Subsequently, classical concepts of private international and international criminal law gave way to Europeanised concepts of exequatur, the public policy exception, the principle of reciprocity, the principle of double criminality and the principle of specialty to name a few. It should be noted that these rules had been reserved to be enacted by the Member States. However, by loosening those principles the guarantees and freedoms which they either explicitly or implicitly guard are in danger of being sidestepped in order to enable mutual recognition. Therefore, at the forefront of the debate of mutual recognition of judicial decisions is the question of protecting fundamental rights and legal principles enshrined both in European and domestic legislation of the Member States. The balancing act that the EU preforms has to be careful enough to facilitate mutual recognition while not jeopardizing mutual trust between Member States.
Today both EU private international law and EU criminal law work on the basis of the provisions which facilitate mutual recognition and limit it within the AFSJ. Since the basic idea behind mutual recognition is the same, i.e. free movement of judicial decisions, both their manifestations and their limits should strive to respect the basic framework of the field of law form which they stand. While the principle of mutual recognition has been slowly and methodically evolving, there is a sense of urgency with the development of the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters.
Keywords: The principle of mutual recognition, European arrest warrant, Exequatur, Surrender, General principles of EU law, Recognition and enforcement of judgements, double criminality
Published: 17.12.2019; Views: 518; Downloads: 78
Full text (885,55 KB)
Abolition of exequatur in Brussels Ia regulationPaula Poretti
, 2016, original scientific article
Abstract: This article will analyse and evaluate if and to what extent enforcement of judgments according to the Brussels Ia Regulation may be challenging for Croatian judges. It seeks to answer the questions a) which novelties in terms of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are introduced through the system of cross-border enforcement of judgments under Brussels Ia and b) with regard to the lack of implementation provisions in Croatian legal system, how will a new “adaptation device” according to Art. 54 of the Brussels operate. In particular, how and by whom will the adaptation of measure or order be carried out and how will it be challenged pursuant to Art. 54 (2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. In a search for possible answers, approaches as well as solutions adopted in the legal systems of some Member States will also be taken into account. Considerations which can be attributed to the lack of provisions regarding implementation of the Brussels Ia Regulation in Croatian legal system will be highlighted.
Keywords: exequatur, abolition, Brussels Ia Regulation, adaptation, measure, order, recognition, enforcement, execution, judgment
Published: 02.08.2018; Views: 439; Downloads: 40
Full text (448,01 KB)
This document has many files! More...
Characteristics of Austrian remedies against enforcement and a general analysis of their suitability for achieving the objectives of Brussels I recastBettina Nunner-Krautgasser
, 2015, original scientific article
Abstract: Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia or Brussels I Recast) was another big step forward towards the establishment of a genuine European judicial area. In the wake of the Brussels I Recast, two facts have rather soon become apparent: One, several well- known (or better: infamous) issues are sadly still unsolved. And two, some other issues have emerged. Because of the abolishment of the “exequatur procedure”, esp. the issue of remedies against enforcement, in both the Member State of origin as well as in the Member State of enforcement, has gained more importance again. Therefore this paper analysis the characteristics of Austrian remedies in enforcement and their suitability for achieving the objects of Brussels I Recast.
Keywords: Brussels I Recast, remedies in enforcement, cross- border enforcement, abolition of “exequatur”, Art. 46 Brussels I a Recast, grounds for refusal of the enforcement, implementation in the national system of remedies in enforcement
Published: 02.08.2018; Views: 364; Downloads: 31
Full text (440,07 KB)
This document has many files! More...