Właściwość sądu w postępowaniu w sprawie o ustalenie czy orzeczenie sądu państwa obcego podlega albo nie podlega uznaniu według Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego

Right to a hearing as a manifestation of the principle of equality of parties and participants in civil proceedings

Change of legal basis by the court and the right to a fair civil trial

Over the past two decades, jurisdictions in the Gulf Region, Asia and Europe have established special judicial bodies to settle international commercial disputes. Commonly referred to as “international commercial courts” these bodies are distinct from other (local) courts in that they display innovative features with regards to their institutional and procedural design which are geared towards greater internationalization. However, not all of these courts have turned out to be a resounding success. A case in point are the international commercial courts – or, more precisely: the international (commercial) chambers – that have been established at regional courts (Landgerichte) in Germany during the past 15 years: They have not managed to attract a large number of cases, most likely because they did not offer enough benefits to induce parties to change their dispute resolution habits. In fact, since the overall legislative framework remained unchanged, they were bound by the general rules and regulations of German law, notably the Courts Constitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz – GVG) and the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung – ZPO). The newly founded chambers could, therefore, only make use of the leeway that was granted by these rules and regulations. And the leeway was certainly limited. The use of English as court language, for example, was confined to the oral hearing and the submission of English-language evidence whereas all party briefs as well as all court orders, the records of the proceedings as well as all judgments had to be made in German. Moreover, there was no certain prospect for an English-language second and third instance. However, a new Law adopted by the German Federal Legislature in late 2024 gives hope that things are about to change. Called “Law on the Strengthening of Germany as a Place to Settle Disputes” (Justizstandort-Stärkungsgesetz) the new Law amends both the Courts Constitution Act and the Code of Civil Procedure with the aim of making German courts more attractive places to settle international commercial disputes and in the hope of improving Germany’s position vis-à-vis recognized litigation and arbitration venues, notably London, Amsterdam, Paris and Singapore. Specifically, it allows (certain) courts to conduct proceedings completely in English. And it allows the German federal states (Bundesländer) to establish specialized “commercial courts” that may hear certain high-volume (international) commercial disputes in an arbitration-style fashion. In the article we explore whether the new Law will make German courts an attractive alternative for “big business” – and a serious competitor for foreign courts and international commercial arbitration. To this end, we contextualize the new German Law by giving an overview of the German civil justice system, the current German dispute resolution landscape and the global trend to establish specialized courts for international commercial disputes (part II.). We move then on to discuss the details of the new German Law (part III.) before we offer some thoughts on its likely impact on the dispute resolution landscape in Germany and beyond (part IV.). All in all, we show that the new Law introduces welcome innovations that will actually improve the framework conditions for the settlement of international commercial disputes in Germany. However, we also demonstrate that shortcomings remain that will prevent German courts from becoming serious competitors for leading international commercial courts as well as international commercial arbitration.

A somewhat contested basis of international competence in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in South Africa is mere presence. Over the years, an academic debate has raged in South Africa over mere presence as a basis of jurisdiction for the enforcement of foreign judgments sounding in money. A recent decision by the Constitutional Court makes the topic worth revisiting.Practical circumstances, social and political considerations as well as natural justice inevitably call for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. As Forsyth aptly puts it “[a] plaintiff may sue in one country and hear with pleasure judgment given in his favour, then discover, to his dismay, that the defendant, with his assets, has absconded to another country”. In such a situation, the judgment has become brutum fulmen in the court which pronounced it and the plaintiff is placed in a grossly prejudicial position. However, because of widely accepted values and principles, legal systems of the world recognize and appreciate that a judgment rendered by the courts of one country may be enforced elsewhere, provided certain conditions are satisfied.Under South African common law one of the conditions for the enforcement of foreign judgments is that the court which pronounced the judgment must have had jurisdiction to entertain the case according to the principles of our law with reference to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. (In Reiss Engineering Co Ltd v Insamcor (Pty) Ltd 1983 (1) SA 1033 (W) 1037B the court stated that the mere fact that the foreign court may have had jurisdiction under its own laws, is not conclusive. Instead, the question of jurisdiction has to be determined in the light of the principles of our law on the jurisdiction of foreign courts. Other requirements for recognition and enforcement are that (i) the foreign judgment must be final and conclusive in its effect and not have become superannuated; (ii) the recognition and enforcement of the judgment by South African courts should not be contrary to public policy; (iii) the foreign judgment should not have been obtained by fraudulent means; (iv) the judgment must not involve the enforcement of a penal or revenue law of the foreign state; and (v) the enforcement of the foreign judgment must not be precluded by the provisions of the Protection of Business Act 99 of 1978, as amended. See Jones v Krok 1995 (1) SA 667 (AD) 685B−D.) This note is concerned only with the requirement that the foreign court that pronounced the judgment must have had jurisdiction to entertain the case according to the principles of our law with reference to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. The other four requirements are outside the scope of this paper and will not be discussed. It appears that the requirement that the foreign court must have had jurisdiction is a tenet central to the common law world. This requirement is a concept sui generis which is not affected by the internal jurisdiction rules of the foreign court, nor by the internal jurisdiction rules of the South African courts. Under South African common law there are, at least, two grounds which have been established with absolute clarity, that clothe a foreign court with international competence.

Recognition is the process by which the authority of a foreign judgment is established, i.e. the effects of a foreign judgment are allowed to take effect in the territory of the State addressed. The concept of foreign judgment includes both contentious and non-contentious acts. The authority from which it emanates is irrelevant. Foreign judgments may be court judgments, authentic instruments or court settlements (which are assimilated to authentic instruments). In Romania recognition is allowed either by operation of law or by court decision, subject to certain specific conditions. The regulations contained in the Code of Civil Procedure on the recognition of foreign judgments usually apply to judgments from non-EU countries. In order to produce legal effects, the foreign judgment must be recognized and enforced, which is not automatically done through recognition.

THREE TRANSFORMATIONS OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN POLAND IN THE 20TH CENTURY. THE LEGAL PATTERNS Summary Poland’s history over the last century was an eventful period of political, state and legal change. There were three transformations of judicial law due to changing political circumstances in twentieth century Poland. The first transformation occurred when independence was gained in 1918. At that point in Poland five different legal system were in force. The decision to temporarily keep the law of the occupying powers until the new Polish legal system was created was taken by the Polish authorities. The work on Polish civil procedure began in November 1919. Using the comparative method all modern legal answers within European civil procedures, which equated with Polish Law, were drafted in the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. The second transformation in Polish judicial law began after World War II, when Poland found itself under the political influenceof the USSR. Formal maintenance of the law of the Second Republic of Poland was decided on in People’s Poland. The legal system of the interwar Poland, including the Code of Civil Procedure (1930), did not square with the principles of the new state system. Code of Civil Procedure (1930) had been „adapted“ to contemporary governance, plitical and ideological so that it would mirror as much as possible the Soviet model. The new Code of Civil Procedure that was adopted during November 1964 retained its binding force so far. However when the third transformation came about soon after 1989, the existing system of law was revised to eliminate the rules and principles characteristic of the socialist legal system. Amendments of the Code of Civil Procedure (1964) have increased the adversarial aspect of civil proceedings. The possibility of the court to order the investigations during the civil procedure was eliminated, but the possibility of the court to obtain evidence ex officio was kept which is intended to guarantee the implementation of the principles of truth, in legal sense and not in the ideological sense.

The possibility of private recording of the course of court hearings and other judicial acts performed with the participation of the parties or participants in proceedings despite its seemingly technical dimension is an important element of the openness of civil proceedings in its internal aspect and significantly implements the right to a fair trial guaranteed not only by the Polish Constitution but also by acts of international law. By the Act of 4 July 2019 amending the Act – Code of Civil Procedure and certain other acts (Journal of Laws of 2019, Item 1469, as amended), the legislator repealed the article 162 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which had been added to the Code of Civil Procedure by the Act of 10 July 2015 amending the acts – Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure and certain other acts (Dz.U. 2015, Item 1311, as amended). The abovementioned regulation has been replaced by the added regulation of article 9 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the concept of the legislator, this amendment was to extend the possibility of recording the court hearings in order to meet public expectations regarding the transparency of the operation of the judicial system. However, the admissibility of the private recording of the course of the court hearing and other judicial acts still is the subject of relevant limitations in the form of the absolute exclusion of the possibility for the parties to record the hearings held in camera or to record the image. The considerations are aimed at presenting the amended regulations and attempting to assess its significance and impact on the implementation of the principle of transparency in civil proceedings in its internal sense.

The author’s aim is to introduce the principles on which public entities can simplify the process of resolving economic disputes and the role of the court in the mediation process. The question should be posed as to how economic conflicts can be resolved out of court? Does the public economic administration (units of the public finance sector, in particular local and regional authorities) always have to address claims based on a lawsuit filed before a court or are there alternative solutions that do not violate the principles described in the Act of 17 December 2004 on Liability for Breach of Public Finance Discipline (i.e. Journal of Laws of 2024, item 104)? The article answers this question in the affirmative, indicating that it is permissible by law to carry out extrajudicial mediation which does not, in its essence, contravene the principles described by the provisions of the Act of 17 November 1964 - the Code of Civil Procedure or the Act of 17 December 2004 - the Code of Civil Procedure. Code of Civil Procedure or the Act of 11 September 2019. Public Procurement Law which consequently leads to time savings and tangible financial benefits in the budget of the local government.

The paper is devoted to the admissibility of recognition and enforcement of a judgment of a foreign court, the subject matter of which is recognition or declaration of enforcement of a judgment from yet another state (judgment on judgment). The issue is discussed in particular with reference to the public policy exception which constitutes a ground for refusal of recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments, both under Polish domestic law (the Code of civil procedure) and European law (Brussels I bis Regulation). It remains controversial whether the judgments on judgments should be recognized, thus benefiting from the so called “parallel entitlement”. The article takes a comparative approach, examining solutions adopted by various legal systems and analysing arguments for and against recognition of such decisions. The author takes the position that they should not be recognized (and that their enforceability should not be declared) in Poland, both under the Code of civil procedure (as with respect to judgments originating from non-EU states), as well as under EU legislation, in particular Brussels I bis Regulation. It is advocated that the concept of a “parallel entitlement” should be rejected.

The article/paper aims to study the binding nature of the foreign judgments i.e. judgments given by the courts in foreign countries and the scope and object of section 13 of C.P.C. Also the project describes the conditions under which the judgments given by any foreign court creates the rule of estoppel or res judicata. A foreign Court is defined as a court situate outside India and not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government.1 And a Foreign Judgment means a judgment of a foreign court.2. In other words, a foreign judgment means adjudication by a foreign court upon a matter before it.3 Thus judgments delivered by courts in England, France, Germany, USA, etc. are foreign judgments. Sections 13 and 14 enact a rule of res judicata in case of foreign judgments. These provisions embody the principle of private international law that a judgment delivered by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction can be enforced by an Indian court and will operate as res judicata between the parties thereto except in the cases mentionedin Section 13. NATURE AND SCOPE OF Sec. 13, C.P.C.: A foreign judgment may operate as res judicata except in the six cases specified in the section 13 and subject to the other conditions mentioned in Sec. 11 of C.P.C. The rules laid down in this section are rules of substantive law and not merely of procedure. The fact that the foreign judgment may fail to show that every separate issue, such as, the status of the contracting parties, or the measure of damages, was separately framed and decided, is irrelevant unless it can be shown that failure brings the case within the purview of one of the exceptions to Section 13.

تناول البحث حالات إسقاط الدعوى في قانون أصول المحاکمات المدنية رقم 24 لسنة 1988 وحتى آخر تعديلاته لسنة 2017 ، والذي بين في المبحث الأول مفهوم إسقاط الدعوى وحالاته والتي قد ترجع لعيب في الإجراءات أو يکون سببها راجع للخصوم وذلک من خلال مطلبين ومن ثم أوضحنا الآثار المترتبة على إسقاط الدعوى وذلک من خلال بيان حجية الحکم الصادر بإسقاط الدعوى فأوضحنا طبيعة الحکم والأحکام المتعلقة بطريق الطعن به ومن ثم بينا ما يترتب على الإسقاط الموضوعي والإجرائي من آثار. وقد توصل البحث إلى مجموعة من النتائج، أهمها: إن حالات إسقاط الدعوى قد جاءت في قانون أصول المحاکمات المدنية الأردني في مواد مبعثرة ومتفرقة فقد نص عليها ضمن فصل الغياب وتارة أخرى ضمن فصل الوقف. کما أن إسقاط الدعوى يکون إما لعيب في الإجراءات أو لأسباب ترجع للخصوم، کما اعتبر المشرع الأردني أن خلو لائحة الدعوى من بيان السبب الذي تستند إليه من حالات إسقاط الدعوى، کما رتب المشرع على تخلف الخصم عن أداء فرق الرسم أو إکماله خلال أجل تحدده المحکمة إسقاط الدعوى. وقد أوصى البحث بأمور، من أهمها: العمل من جانب المشرع الأردني على إفراد فصلا خاصا لحالات إسقاط الدعوى بدلا من کونها في مواد مبعثرة ومتفرقة، وإلغاء الفقرة الأولى من نص المادة 124 من قانون أصول المحاکمات المدنية لکون خلو لائحة الدعوى من سببها تؤدي إلى رد الدعوى، ووضع أحکام قانونية تنظم مسالة الآثار القانونية على إسقاط الدعوى بإفراد نصوص خاصة لها في قانون أصول المحاکمات المدنية. The research dealt with cases of abatement of action in the Code of Civil Procedure No. 24 of 1988 and until its latest amendments for the year 2017, which we explained in the first section the concept of abatement of action and its cases, which may be due to a defect in the procedures or the cause of which is due to the litigants through two requests, and then we explained the implications of Dropping the lawsuit by showing the authenticity of the judgment issued to drop the case. We explained the nature of the judgment and the provisions related to the way to appeal it, and then we explained the implications of the substantive and procedural dropping. The research reached a set of results, the most important of which are: The cases of abatement of action came in the Jordanian Code of Civil Procedure in scattered and dispersed articles, as it was stipulated in the absence chapter and at other times within the Waqf chapter. Likewise, dropping the lawsuit is either due to a defect in the procedures or for reasons related to the litigants, and the Jordanian legislator considered that the absence of the lawsuit’s statement of the reason on which it relied from cases of abatement of action, and the legislator arranged for the opponent’s failure to perform the difference in the fee or to complete it within a deadline determined by the court to drop The lawsuit. The research recommended matters, the most important of which are: Working on the part of the Jordanian legislator to single out a special chapter for cases of dropping the lawsuit instead of being in scattered and dispersed articles, and canceling the first paragraph of the text of Article 124 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the absence of the case list of its cause leads to the dismissal of the case And laying down legal provisions that regulate the issue of legal effects on dropping a case by enlisting special provisions for it in the Code of Civil Procedure.

<p>Pursuant to the Act of 9 November 2018 amending the Act – Code of Civil Procedure (Journal of Laws 2018, item 2385), there was a change in Article 778<sup>1</sup> of the Act of 17 November 1964 – Code of Civil Procedure (consolidated text Journal of Laws 2018, item 1360 as amended) regarding the granting of an enforcement clause against the partners who are liable without limitation for the obligations of partnerships. This amendment was a consequence of the judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 October 2017 (SK 31/15, Journal of Laws 2017, item 1883), which stated that this provision was incompatible with Article 45 (1) and Article 77 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (Journal of Laws 1997, no. 78, item 483 as amended). The purpose of this article is to analyse the new Article 778<sup>1</sup> CCP in the context of the protection of creditors and partners</p>

The Institute of International Jurisdiction Agreement has recently been incorporated into domestic law through the adoption of the Russian Code of Arbitration Procedure on 24 July 2002 and the Russian Code of Civil Procedure on 14 November 2002. Previously, the domes-tic doctrine did not give sufficient attention to this instrument of contractual regulation of procedural relations and it was considered only to a limited extent. At present, including the adoption of the Concept of the Unified Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, which was developed for the purpose of comprehensive reform of procedural legislation, interest in international jurisdiction is growing significantly. Subordi-nation of a dispute to the jurisdiction of the court of the state whose law regulates the legal relationship between the parties from which the dispute arose significantly simplifies its reso-lution, as there is no need to establish the content of foreign law. Agreements on international jurisdiction also contribute to legal certainty between the parties. An agreement on international jurisdiction is of a complex legal nature as it has both procedural and substantive legal features. This type of agreement is at the intersection of private international law and international civil procedure law on the one hand, and civil and proce-dural law on the other. The study of the law applicable to agreements on international jurisdiction involves resolving a huge number of conflicts that arise when establishing the applicable national legal order to an aspect of an agreement. In the article, the author investigates the advantages and disadvantages of establishing the validity of an international jurisdiction agreement on the basis of the lex causae, i.e. the law applicable to the main contract with a foreign element for dispute settlement from which the parties conclude a propulsion agreement. The collision rule of the lex fori prorogati, set out in the 2005 Hague Convention and Regulation No 1215/2012 for its uniform application to the substantive validity of the agreement, does not contribute to international uniformity of decisions, since the law of the forum country referred to in the agreement as competent means not only substantive but also collision rules. As a result, the question of the applicable law to substantive validity is settled by the courts of various states on their own, and in most European law and order practice shows the application of the lex causae rather than the lex fori. The author concludes that accentuating the statute of the international jurisdiction agree-ment to the statute of the main treaty in order to resolve the question of the substantive validity of the agreement, despite the existence of certain shortcomings, is in the best interest of indi-vidual conflict interests, conflict of interests in turnover and law and order.

The doctrine of international comity, which involves recognizing and respecting the laws and judgments of other countries, should be considered in this context. Private international law defines state sovereignty and allocates authority between public and private actors. This article explores the doctrine of international comity and its application in the context of recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments in Pakistan. Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prohibits the execution of foreign judgments or decrees unless it has been "recognized" for domestication purposes under the Code of civil procedure sections 14 and 44A. The article highlights the need to balance public policy and private rights when assessing the applicability of domestic and foreign law. The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments should be allowed where comity principles are met and where such recognition would not violate public policy and provides practical recommendations for resolving the issues related to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Pakistan.

The purpose of introducing a new procedure on intellectual property into the Code of Civil Procedure was to ensure the efficiency of the procedure and to develop uniform practices. At the same time, the solutions adopted so far in Directive 2004/48 / EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights caused doubts and was subject of criticism. According to this solution, the competent judicial authorities may order that information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services which infringe an intellectual property right be provided by the infringer or any other person. It is very important to assure such protection especially in case of electronic works. The regulation of a uniform request for information in the Code of Civil Procedure has not been interpreted yet, as obtaining information on the scope of infringements simultaneously discloses information about third parties. Hence, it is justified to analyze whether it is acceptable to disclose personal data of electronic works in the light of the Directive, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and the current new regulation. The regulation of a uniform request for information in the Code of Civil Procedure has not been interpreted yet, as obtaining information on the scope of infringements simultaneously discloses information about third parties. Hence, it is justified to analyze whether it is acceptable to disclose personal data of electronic works in the light of the Directive, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and the current new regulation.