Enforcement Of Judgments Research Articles

La crisi familiare e le giurisdizioni religiose negli Stati Uniti: tensioni tra separatismo e pluralismo nel sistema delle ADR

Familiar crisis and religious jurisdictions the United States: tensions between separatism and pluralism in the ADR system ABSTRACT: In the United States, religious denominations play a central role in the out-of-court resolution of disputes. In fact, religious groups provide negotiation facilitation, mediation and arbitration services, according to models of increasing procedural complexity and binding nature. The contribution will illustrate case law guidelines about law enforcement of Jewish and Islamic judgements in familiar matters. I will focus on attempts of secular courts to mediate between opposing demands: the security of legal statuses, the maintenance of social stability and public order, the protection of rights of the individual, the deflation of civil litigation, the greater confidence of litigants towards the minister of religion acting as judge. In the conclusion, I will evaluate the impact of these trends on the intercultural paradigm that characterizes the American pluralist legal system. SOMMARIO: 1. Le ADR religiose negli Stati Uniti tra luci e ombre - 2. Pactum suprema lex esto? Il riconoscimento dei lodi arbitrali emessi dai tribunal rabbinici in sede di divorzio - 3. Il diritto familiare musulmano tra ostracismo e neutralità - 4. E pluribus unum? Il molteplice e il singolo di fronte allegiurisdizioni religiose nella società americana

The Phenomenon of Difficult Enforcement in the Circuit Trial System in China from the Perspective of Power Operation

The phenomenon of "difficulty in enforcement" is prevalent in the judicial practice of China and poses similar challenges to circuit trials. This paper, based on Su Li's premise of the shifting local power dynamics in rural China, utilizes Foucault's theory of micro-power and Geertz's theory of local knowledge to explore how these misalignments in local power relationships affect the enforcement work in circuit trials in China, and provides suggestions on how to alleviate this issue. In the power relationship of enforcement within circuit trials, the relatively weaker state power struggles to support the compulsory execution of judgments, while the relatively stronger individual power resists the enforcement of judgments. This leads to a reliance on the recognition and cooperation of the judgment debtor, as well as the assistance of local power as a third party. However, the lack of local knowledge among judges makes it difficult for "legally sound but unreasonable" judgments to gain the recognition and cooperation of the parties involved, resulting in challenges to enforcement. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen cooperation with local powers and other state agencies, seeking a multi-faceted approach.

Abortion, Full Faith and Credit, and the "Judicial Power" Under Article III

Interstate judgments enforcement is governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the Constitution, together with its implementing statute, 28 U.S.C. 1738. Although a highly technical area of the law, interstate judgments enforcement has important social repercussions for some very modern problems of great cultural significance. One of the currently significant applications is the interstate enforcement of judgments rendered in civil suits based on state anti-abortion laws. For example, Texas statute S.B. 8 gives anyone who wishes to sue a civil cause of action against persons who facilitate abortions. Even complete strangers to the abortion can decide to become a plaintiff in such an action and can sue for money “damages” despite having suffered no injury. Non-experts seem to have the impression that the Full Faith and Credit Clause presents an ironclad requirement that judgments of sister states must always be enforced. If thatwere the case, states that recognize reproductive freedom would be obliged to enforce judgments entered into in states like Texas, despite their strong public policy against such actions. This Article shows why this impression is mistaken. First, the full faith and credit principle has for centuries been subject to exceptions,several of which are potentially relevant in the reproductive freedom context. Theseinclude lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the public policy exception, and the penallaw exception. In addition, a uniform law adopted in forty-eight states (the UniformEnforcement of Foreign Judgments Act) permits the state enforcing the judgment to applyits own judgments law to an interstate enforcement proceeding. The enforcing state will therefore apply to foreign state judgments any exceptions to judgments enforcement lawthat it has as a general matter for its own domestic judgments. Second, and more importantly, the Clause and statute both contain an important qualification: they apply only to “judicial” actions. This exception prevents a state from requiring sister-state enforcement of decisions that do not meet the usual tests for a judicial “case or controversy” (as defined in Article III of the Constitution). Article III and Article IV both use the word “judicial” to specify the standard necessary for the exercise of federal power. These two neighboring constitutional provisions are supported by a common historical origin (they were drafted at the same time and by some of the same people at the constitutional drafting convention) and fulfill comparable functions. If the two constitutional provisions are treated the same, judgments under statutes like Texas S.B. 8 would not be given mandatory force in other states because such cases would not meet the standing requirement imposed by Article III.

The Challenges Facing China's International Commercial Court System Under the "Belt and Road" Vision and China's Response

In order to provide all-round judicial guarantee for the high-quality development of the "Belt and Road", China established the China International Commercial Court in 2018 and achieved remarkable results after six years of construction. In recent years, with the increasing number of commercial disputes related to the Belt and Road Initiative, such as international trade, international logistics and international project contracting, the construction of China's international commercial courts is faced with difficulties related to insufficient international vision, backward jurisdiction rules, lack of appeal relief channels, difficulties in cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments, and inflexible convergence of multiple dispute resolution methods. In view of this, the China International Commercial Court should be based on an international perspective, expand its jurisdiction to improve the jurisdiction rules, implement "two final trials" to reconstruct the appeal relief system, transform "factual reciprocity" to "constructive reciprocity" to ensure the cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments, and constantly optimize the interface mechanism of litigation, arbitration and mediation has become an important way to solve the problem. It will help build a new situation of international commercial court.

On the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters

On the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters

Analysis of Article 6 of the ECHR: In Recognition and Enforcement of Civil Judgments among European Countries

The right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights plays a crucial role in procedural protection in the recognition and enforcement of judgments within the European sphere. While the European Court of Human Rights has developed various scrutiny standards for judgments of different statuses by contracting states to safeguard procedural rights under Article 6 of the Convention, there is still a lack of systematic clarification regarding the application sequence of relevant scrutiny rules in the judicial practice of the Court. This paper analyzes the Court's application sequence of rules through the examination of existing case rules and interpretation of recent cases. The study finds that in judicial practice, the Court examines the admissibility criteria based on the standard of "crucial importance of the judgment for the parties"; after meeting the admissibility criteria, the Court applies the "equivalent protection standard" to determine exceptions where contracting states do not require scrutiny; in cases requiring scrutiny, the Court guides its scrutiny scope based on the rules established in the Saccoccia case.

A reassessment of the challenges of enforcement of foreign judgments in Nigeria: the need for legislative reform to ease business

Enforcement of foreign judgments has significant relevance in this era of increased international investments and commercial relations across borders. Focusing on Nigeria as the central jurisdiction of analysis, this paper takes the position that rules of private international law form an often understated yet important aspect of the governance system of a country often measured by the Ease of Doing Business (EDB) ranking of the World Bank. This paper further argues that central to opening up the economy and inviting FDI into the country, the obvious matter of the inconsistency in the application of the foreign judgment enforcement statutes ought to be settled so as to create determinacy in Nigeria’s legal system – a potential attraction for foreign investors who appreciate predictability in the laws of a host country. It recommends the review and adoption of the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1990 in order to quell the circumspection of the investor and trade participant due to uncertain legislation.

Interstate Lawsuits of Ukraine to the ECTHR: Is it Realistic to Achieve Final Judgments?

The article examines the problems and prospects of consideration of interstate applications of Ukraine against the Russian Federation by the ECtHR. The article analyzes that the ECtHR is currently considering five interstate cases initiated by Ukraine against the Russian Federation. However, the Russian Federation does not participate in the proceedings on the claims of Ukraine and does not intend to comply with the ECHR judgments. However, the ECHR will continue to consider the applications submitted to the ECtHR after Russia's withdrawal from the Council of Europe. The article proves that today there is no mechanism for enforcement of the ECtHR judgments on interstate claims of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. Since the Russian Federation does not intend to execute the decisions of the ECtHR voluntarily, there remains the option of either enforcing such judgments by the affected Ukrainians individually on the principle of reciprocity in other countries or creating a supranational mechanism for the execution of such decisions. It is indicated that in the future, the ECtHR will be able to consider and award compensation in all existing cases against the Russian Federation. Affected companies and individuals can file a claim for violation of property rights against the Russian Federation only in respect of actions or omissions before September 16, 2022. Nevertheless, even in light of the Russian Federation's withdrawal from the ECHR, all decisions taken before the exit from the ECHR and the CoE must be implemented. Although after the ECtHR has decided on the merits, it takes a long time to decide on just satisfaction. In conclusion, it is noted that the Russian Federation also does not comply with the interim measures demanded by the ECtHR to cease hostilities in Ukraine immediately. At the same time, this procedural decision is vital for considering the case "Ukraine v. Russia - X" on the merits from a historical perspective.

Codification of European Private International Law!

Codification of European Private International Law!

Exploring the Evolution of Contractual Concepts within Regulation No 1215/2012 Through CJEU Judgments: Civil and Commercial Matters, Contracts, Tenancies of Immovable Property, and Provision of Services Under Examination

Starting with the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Obala case, this article explores: how the Court has redefined the concepts of ‘contract matters’ and ‘tort, delict, or quasi-delict matters’; actions related to ‘tenancy agreements for immovable property’ versus ‘rights in rem’; and the evolving interpretation of ‘services’ within the Brussels I Recast Regulation on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. It also illustrates the discrepancies in the analysis of the term ‘civil and commercial matters’. The Obala ruling has led to changes in how these concepts are understood and studied in certain contexts, thereby reshaping their interpretative contours. As a result, this article conducts a retrospective analysis to grasp these changes and their implications.

Perbandingan Bentuk Kelembagaan Program Penjaminan Polis Asuransi Antara Indonesia dengan United Kingdom dan Jepang

Insurance company defaults in Indonesia have a negative impact on policyholders. Suing the company for bankruptcy is the last resort for policyholders to obtain compensation from the company's assets, but the enforcement of court judgements is difficult due to obstacles such as abuse of receivership powers. Policyholders' rights are often violated as they do not receive insurance claim payments. Law No. 40 of 2014 requires insurance companies to participate in the Policy Guarantee Programme and establish a Policy Guarantee Agency within two years. However, such an institution has not yet been established in Indonesia. This research compares the Policy Guarantee Programmes in the UK and Japan to show the importance of establishing a similar institution to protect the rights of policyholders. This research uses normative research with a comparative approach and legislation. By studying the sustainability of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in the UK and the Life Insurance Policyholders Protection Corporation in Japan, the research recommends that the Indonesian government promptly establishes a Policy Guarantee Corporation, either as an independent institution or in conjunction with the existing Deposit Insurance Corporation for the banking sector.

Irreconcilability and the Role of the CJEU post-Brexit

In the latest court decision in the context of the “Prestige” case, post-Brexit legal complexities came to the forefront. The “London P&I Club” contested a Spanish court’s decision demanding compensation for an oil spill. Invoking arbitration, the Club sought to prevent enforcement of the Spanish judgment in the UK. However, the CJEU ruled the arbitration couldn’t block the Spanish judgment’s recognition. Challenging this, Justice Butcher of the London High Court found the CJEU had overstepped its jurisdiction. He concluded the arbitration proceedings could indeed impede the Spanish judgment’s enforcement, highlighting tensions between UK courts and CJEU post-Brexit, and raising critical questions about arbitration’s role in international disputes and the principles of irreconcilability and public policy.

Irreconcilable judgments in the EU Regulations

Despite the fact that the abolition of exequatur seems to have become the norm under the EU regulations dealing with monetary claims, all of the regulations that fall under this category still preserve some grounds for refusal of enforcement of judgments. One of the refusal grounds which remained, even in the regulations which otherwise abolished all possibility of refusal, is the ground of irreconcilability with another judgment. Despite its importance, this refusal ground can sometimes still be quite complex to interpret. This paper thus analyses the notion of ‘irreconcilable judgments’, clarifying the remaining difficulties in interpretation. Moreover, it compares the diverging solutions offered in different regulations, and ultimately proposes a potential reform.

The anti-juridicidity and the incoherence of Summary no. 345 of the STJ

The article elucidates some of the issues surrounding the payment of succumbence fees as a result of enforcements of judgments and their challenges, especially when the enforcements are brought against the public treasury. Initially, he presents how these issues were dealt with in executions of individual judgments against private parties governed by the CPC/1973 and how they are now dealt with in executions of individual judgments against private parties governed by the CPC/2015. It then presents how these issues are dealt with in the enforcement of individual judgments against the public treasury. It then presents how these issues are dealt with in individual enforcement of collective judgments against the public treasury. It concludes that Precedent No. 345 of the STJ is unlawful and inconsistent with other precedents of the STJ itself, with precedents of the STF and with the legal order as a whole. It should therefore be revoked or revised.

Executions of decisions of writ of mandamus

The article elucidates some controversial aspects of the enforcement of judgments issued in writs of mandamus. The aspects revolve around provisional compliance and the initiative for compliance. Initially, it presents how these aspects are or should be dealt with in the ordinary rite, governed by the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It then points out that the writ of mandamus is a civil action that only differs from others by the limitation of its object and the special nature of the procedure it triggers. The article then demonstrates that the grounds invoked by the legal literature to argue that all decisions handed down in writs of mandamus can be provisionally enforced and enforced ex officio by the court are incorrect. It also points out that there is nothing in its object and rite that guarantees this. However, the article points out that there are certain decisions in writs of mandamus that can be provisionally enforced and enforced ex officio. It concludes by explaining which decisions these are and the reasons for them having such aptitudes.

The Belt and Road Initiative: conflict of laws and dispute resolution

Purpose This paper aims to determine the adaptability of China’s legal system in recognizing and enforcing foreign judgements in China. Design/methodology/approach Academic articles, case law and books are examined as are relevant reports by various regulatory authorities and organizations. Findings Historically, Chinese courts have strictly adhered to “de facto reciprocity”, which made it difficult for foreign judgements to be recognized and enforced in China. Fortunately, Chinese courts have since abandoned their rigid adherence to de facto reciprocity, and have instead, used flexible tests of reciprocity such as de jure reciprocity, reciprocal commitment and reciprocal understand/consensus. Accordingly, this would facilitate the recovery of stolen assets, as there is a lower threshold for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgement. Research limitations/implications There are limited data available in relation to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements pertaining to the recovery of stolen assets. Any discussions within this paper are based on the impressionistic observations of this author, which may not reflect the true state of affairs within the Belt and Road Initiative. Practical implications Those who are interested in examining the viability in recognizing and enforcing foreign judgements relating to stolen assets will have an interest in this topic. Originality/value The value of the paper is to demonstrate the difficulties in recognizing and enforcing foreign judgements in China in relation to stolen assets.

Prerequisite for implementation of judicial control over the enforcement of judgments in Ukraine

Since the declaration of Ukraine’s independence, the system of enforcement judgments has undergone significant changes, which were caused by changes in the social order in the country and new challenges. The judicial control over the enforcement of judgments in Ukraine was implemented in a non- systematic manner, which led to its low efficiency.
 To solve the set goal, which was set during the introduction of judicial control over the enforcement of judgments, this article examines the prerequisites for the introduction of judicial control over the enforcement of judgments in Ukraine.
 Conditional division of the prerequisites for the introduction of judicial control over the enforcement of judgments into historical, legal and economic ones has been carried out.
 The historical prerequisites for the introduction of judicial control over the enforcement of judgments include the validity of Soviet legislation after the declaration of independence of Ukraine, which provided for control by a judge over the correct and timely enforcement of a court decision, that is, the actual exercise of judicial control over the enforcement of judgments.
 The legal prerequisites for the introduction of judicial control over the enforcement of judgments include the issuance of many decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and decisions of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which stated the systematic non-implementation of national court decisions, as well as the existence of a structural problem in Ukraine regarding the non­implementation of decisions of national judicial bodies.
 The economic prerequisites for the introduction of judicial control over the enforcement of judgments include a negative assessment by Ukrainian entrepreneurs of the effectiveness and duration of enforcement judgments, Ukraine’s undertaking to reform the system of enforcement judgments to improve the conditions of doing business in the country, foreign economic relations with other countries, attracting investments, the conclusion of other economic agreements.
 Determining the prerequisites for the introduction of the institution of judicial control over the enforcement of judgments gives a clear answer to the purpose of the introduction of this institution, as well as ways to improve the procedure and forms of implementation, which requires more detailed research.

Criminological Effectiveness of the Astrent as a Legal Incentive for Judgment Enforcement

The enforcement of judicial decisions is a pivotal aspect of the criminal justice system. The institution of an astrent is recognized as a legal mechanism designed to motivate a debtor to comply with a judicial decision, thereby serving as a deterrent to non-compliance and as a reinforcement of the rule of law. This coercive tool, by imposing negative material consequences, is intended to ensure adherence to a verdict, which is essential for maintaining public trust in the justice system – a core criminological concern. Given the varying legal nature of the astrent across different jurisdictions, this study examines its potential introduction into Ukrainian law from a criminological perspective, analyzing its deterrent capacity within the framework of criminal justice enforcement. The research outlines the similarities and distinctions between the astrent and other punitive measures, delving into its effectiveness as a defense method and its role in bolstering the execution of judgments. It highlights specific dispute categories within the criminal justice system where the astrent could significantly enhance compliance. Critical to the adaptation of this European legal construct to Ukrainian legislation, the paper scrutinizes several foundational issues that necessitate resolution. Notably, the paper discusses the termination of the right to an astrent post-imposition, suggesting that the objective impossibility of fulfilling a judicial act – owing to circumstances emerging after the court's decision and leading to the obligation's termination as per Article 607 of the Civil Code – should be the sole ground for relieving a debtor from the astrent payment. The study's alignment with criminological interests lies in its potential to shape debtor behavior, augment the effectiveness of legal sanctions, and provide empirical evidence for policy-making in the realm of crime management and enforcement legislation. The implications for both national and international criminological scholarship are considered, with the article contributing to the ongoing discourse on the optimization of punitive measures within the justice system and their theoretical underpinnings.

International multilateral treaties in the system of sources of legal regulation of the process of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in family disputes

International multilateral treaties in the system of sources of legal regulation of the process of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in family disputes

Challenges of enforcement of judgements of the General Delegation of the Administrative Justice Court; From the perspective of separating the legislative and judicial nature of the judgements issued

Challenges of enforcement of judgements of the General Delegation of the Administrative Justice Court; From the perspective of separating the legislative and judicial nature of the judgements issued