Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters Research Articles

Ukraine-Romania judicial cooperation in civil matters: twenty years of signing the agreement

The extraordinary session of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR on August 24, 1991 proclaimed the independence of Ukraine and the creation of an independent Ukrainian state, the Act of Independence of Ukraine. Since then, Ukraine, as a sovereign, independent, independent State, has been creating legal relations between states, finding not only reliable partners, but also friends. One of these countries is Romania. This article examines the issue of the Agreement on Legal Assistance between Ukraine and Romania, which was signed in 2002, and implementing this act in the judicial system of Ukraine - through judicial cooperation, recognition of judicial decisions and participation of Romanian citizens in trials in Ukraine.

Constitutional identity and judicial cooperation in civil matters in the European Union – An ace up the sleeve?

The reliance on constitutional identity by EU courts and governments has been widely discussed in legal scholarship, but less attention has been devoted to the impact of constitutional identity-based arguments on the evolution of judicial cooperation in civil matters. Member States have increasingly relied on constitutional identity in the area of private international law to claim the application of their own law or reject the recognition of foreign situations. Constitutional identity can be invoked through the public policy exception, to avoid the normal operation of private international law rules. Member States can also refer to constitutional identity when staying outside the adoption of EU private international law rules, especially regarding family law. Constitutional identity can thus impede judicial cooperation in civil matters and contribute to the fragmentation of EU private international law. Constitutional identity does not grant unfettered freedom to Member States, however. The autonomous private international law rules of the Member States must respect EU fundamental principles if the situation demonstrates some connection to EU law and the public international law obligations assumed by the Member State concerned.

A Brüsszel IIa rendelet szülői felelősséget és a jogellenes gyermekelvitelt érintő felülvizsgálata

Az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződés 81. cikke értelmében az Európai Unió a határokon átnyúló vonatkozású polgári ügyek tekintetében igazságügyi együttműködést alakít ki, és ennek keretében intézkedéseket fogad el. A családok felbomlása esetében ez az együttműködés különösen fontos ahhoz, hogy biztonságos jogi környezet jöjjön létre, hiszen az egyre fokozódó mobilitása következtében egyre több a nemzetközi vonatkozással bíró család. A tanulmány célja, hogy röviden bemutassa az EU családjogi szabályozásának fejlődését, különös tekintettel a már elfogadott, de még hatályba nem lépett Brüsszel IIb. rendeletre, és annak szülői felelősséggel és jogellenes gyermekelvitellel kapcsolatos szabályainak megújult szabályaira.

The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: New Trends in Trust Management

On its 22nd Diplomatic Session on 2 July 2019, the Hague Conference on Private International Law concluded its Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. The adoption of this Convention completes intense efforts of the HCC and the participating State Parties since 1992. One of the controversial issues in the last steps before the adoption was what has been called, in other contexts, “trust management”. This concept refers to the question how to embark on meaningful judicial cooperation in civil matters with participating states whose administration of justice is perceived as not sufficiently trust-worthy by other participating states – the “real elephant in the room”. At the same time, judicial integration in civil matters is an indispensable part of regulating transnational trade relations. Undoubtedly, international commercial arbitration should have the fullest possible freedom and support. However, without any effective alternative, there is no “alternative” dispute resolution and no “freedom of choice”. Rather, nations and regions, particularly those trading within frameworks of economic integration and thus on an intensified scale, should strive for an “integrated approach”. Against this background, the text explores new trends of trust management of the new HCCH instrument.

Strengthening Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters Between the EU and Neighboring Countries: The Example of Ukraine and the Baltic States

Abstract Judicial cooperation between EU Member-States and Ukraine is still at a basic level. The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement does not prove an appropriate approach, and their relations are regulated mostly with the bilateral agreements. The Baltic states and Ukraine, which are the focus of this research, are deeply engaged by their close geographical location, common historical issues and friendly relations, and seek further development of their relations. This should be accompanied by mutual judiciary trust and therefore by the corresponding evolution of bilateral relations proper to this trust. The following types of judicial cooperation in civil matters were chosen as objects of this research: recognition of Baltic States’ courts’ judgments in Ukraine, as well as service of documents and taking of evidence in Ukraine. The conclusions consist of several proposals related to deeper judicial cooperation between Member-States and third countries, illustrated by the example of the Baltic States and Ukraine, in light of the right to fair trial and mutual trust in the judiciary.

La protección de las víctimas de violencia de género en la Unión Europea. Especial referencia al reconocimiento mutuo de medidas de protección en materia civil

Las cifras de violencia de género son sobrecogedoras. Ante esta realidad, la Unión Europea no ha permanecido impasible y, aunque no cuenta con una base legal específica para actuar en el área de la violencia de género, ello no ha sido un obstáculo para luchar contra esta lacra, en tanto que elemento necesario para promover un espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia. Con ese espíritu, en los últimos años se han adoptado instrumentos normativos para garantizar que las víctimas se puedan mover libremente en el Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia, y a hacerlo protegidas. La Directiva 2011/99/EU, sobre la Orden Europea de Protección, y el Reglamento 606/2013 relativo al reconocimiento mutuo de medidas de protección en materia civil, son muestra de ello. Ambos instrumentos, a través del principio de reconocimiento mutuo, garantizan el reconocimiento y ejecución en todo el territorio de la Unión de las medidas de protección de víctimas dictadas por un Estado miembro. Ambas normas regulan las mismas medidas y tienen prácticamente los mismos objetivos, pero con mecanismos de reconocimiento diferentes. En este trabajo examinamos el sistema de protección creado y enfocamos nuestro análisis en el Reglamento 606/2013, instrumento de cooperación judicial en materia civil y básicamente concebido como complemento de la orden europea de protección regulada por la Directiva 2011/99/EU.

Mutual Trust Under Pressure: Civil Justice Cooperation in the EU and the Rule of Law

In recent years, widespread concerns have been expressed about some of the proposed reforms to the judicial system in Poland posing a risk to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in the country. The present contribution argues that the proposed reforms also threatens the mutual trust between EU Member States, which is the backbone of judicial cooperation in civil matters. It will show how mutual trust underpins the mutual recognition of judgments under various EU Regulations and discusses to what extent these regimes allow for exceptions to mutual recognition in case of fundamental rights concerns in the Member State of origin of a judgment. It is shown that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) maintains a strict approach to such cases, allowing for exceptions only in extreme cases. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is shown to be deferential to the authority of the CJEU in this regard.

Brexit and EU private international law

Procedure of the British withdrawal from the European Union, officially launched on the 29th of March this year, opens not only questions of the general public-law governance but, first and foremost, gives rise to concern about its overall impact on the cross-border private-law transactions involving the UK and the rest-EU Member States. The article is focused on the regulatory risk within the framework of the Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters (JCCM), encompassing the EU common private international law (PIL) provisions. Some misapprehensions about a possible continuity of the cooperation based on the existing PIL international treaties (e.g. the Lugano Conventions or the 1980 Rome Convention) on the one hand, and the deficiencies of the post-Amsterdam JCCM legislative mechanisms on the other hand, have been considered. The current European legislative policy dramatically lacks consistency even with regard to the EU countries which have not been vested with a special status comparable to the UK, Ireland, or Denmark. Thus the article suggests a possibility of restructuring the JCCM so as to encourage the UK to cooperate with the EU in the form of a ‘Continental PIL Partnership.’

Brexit, cooperación judicial en materia civil y su repercusión en los acuerdos de mediación transfronterizos = Brexit, judicial cooperation in civil matters and its impact on cross-border mediation agreements

The United Kingdom has decided to separate from the European Union after 43 years of common coexistence. Since then different studies have analyzed the consequences of this disconnection for both, the United Kingdom and the other countries of the Union. In this context, it is important to analyze the consequences of this disconnection for judicial cooperation in civil matters, in particular on the effectiveness of the recognition and enforcement of crossborder mediation agreements.

Judicial Discretion in Light of the New European Rules on Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters: Reform or Continuity?

The free movement of judgments can be presented as a necessary corollary of the European internal market where goods, people, services and capital move freely. The first step towards the adoption of harmonized private international law provisions was made in 1968 with the conclusion of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. In 1999, the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam transferred the competence to legislate in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters from the Member States to the European Union. This led to the transformation of the 1968 Brussels Convention, an instrument of inter-governmental cooperation, into a Regulation: Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, colloquially known as ‘Brussels I’. Subsequently, a Recast (reform) of the Regulation was agreed in 2012 which substantially amended Brussels I, and will replace it from 10 January 2015. This paper evaluates the extent to which the new jurisdiction rules of the Brussels I Recast impact on the exercise of judicial discretion by courts in the EU. This question is closely linked with the nature of Brussels I as a civilian instrument. Part I will consider how the activism of the European Court of Justice (now Court of Justice of the EU) had reinforced the civilian imprint of the Brussels I Regulation. Part II will assess whether the Recast is breaking away from what has been, for a period, considered the ‘systematic dismantling of the common law of conflict of laws’ by the EC (now EU). The article concludes that under the Brussels I Recast, the domain of both anti-suit injunctions and forum non conveniens has, if anything, been even further reduced. However the Recast has not only corrected some of the unwelcome consequences of an overly civilian interpretation of the Brussels I Regulation but simultaneously introduced, on the whole territory of the EU, a harmonised mechanism of jurisdictional regulation based on judicial discretion (which was hitherto available only in a few Member States). On this aspect, the Recast has the great merit of promoting (at least on paper) a better coordination between European and third States procedures, and one that may be easier to anticipate in third countries.

Enhancing judicial cooperation in civil matters through interactive language training

Enhancing judicial cooperation in civil matters through interactive language training

Mutual trust: in search of the future of European Union private international law

“Mutual trust” has become one of the central buzzwords of the EU in its search of the future of European Union private international law. The following text unfolds possible meanings and functions of the omnipresent but quite opaque notion of mutual trust in European policy-making. The potential role of mutual trust in private international law in general will briefly be considered. Then the law of the European Union will be analysed, first on the level of primary law (what to trust in). Secondly the functioning of the fundamental freedoms and their structural repercussions on European choice of law thinking will be considered insofar as it revolves around a mutual “recognition” of legal relationships. On the level of secondary law the normative system of judicial co-operation in civil matters will be considered in the light of mutual trust, the operation of that normative system by the Court of Justice of the European Union in recent and telling cases, challenges for this normative system from the European Convention on Human Rights as well as challenges from the Commission's 2014 proposal for reacting to systemic deficiencies in the administration of justice in a Member State. Finally, suggestions will be submitted as to how these challenges could be integrated into the normative system. The last part will sum up insights from the deconstruction of the multifaceted term of “mutual trust”.

Reconciling European Conflicts and Insolvency Law

This paper focuses critically on European conflicts and insolvency law—examining and evaluating the relationship between the Jurisdiction and Judgments Regulation and the Insolvency Regulation. The Regulations are founded on the notion of judicial cooperation in civil matters linked to maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice. The paper asks whether these high-minded ideals have been achieved in practice. It also asks whether the recent recasting of the Jurisdiction and Judgments Regulation, and the proposals for revision of the Insolvency Regulation will improve the situation. The paper concludes that the ideals have not quite been achieved and the reform proposals provide only a partial solution.

Do We Need a Rome 0 Regulation?

With the Treaty of Amsterdam entering into force on 1 May 1999 the European Union has obtained legislative competence concerning judicial cooperation in civil matters. This competence includes the power to unify rules on applicable law (Art. 81(1), (2) letter c TFEU). There are already some European instruments based on this competence. All these instruments contain some identical provisions (e. g., ordre public, renvoi, escape clauses, overriding mandatory provisions). The article raises the question whether shared provisions should be taken out of these instruments and put into a new regulation (the so-called Rome ‘0’ Regulation). Such a Rome 0 Regulation could also deal with other aspects which are not yet covered by the existing instruments and which could also be placed in a general part of the rules on applicable law (e. g., qualification, preliminary questions, agency). Before he comes to the overall conclusion the author describes the advantages and disadvantages of such a Rome 0 Regulation. He takes into account not only the different legislative procedures within Article 81 TFEU for family and non-family law projects but also the special position of Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland within judicial cooperation in civil matters.

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

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.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE TO THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE

ABSTRACTThe aim of this article is to provide an overview of the European Court of Justice's (‘ECJ’) past and present contribution— both procedurally and substantively—to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. While it is too early to speculate what the ECJ's contribution to this area will be under the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, the latter's modifications to the ECJ's jurisdiction merit close attention. After describing how the procedural limitations that were imposed on the ECJ's jurisdiction by ex Title IV of Part Three of the EC Treaty and by ex Title VI of the old EU Treaty have been almost entirely eliminated by the Treaty of Lisbon, this article posits that not only does the latter Treaty improve significantly the judicial protection of private individuals, but it also facilitates the dialogue between the Union and the national judiciaries in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Next, the article briefly explores the special ECJ procedures which may be followed in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in cases where time is of the essence. There, it is argued that, when having recourse to these procedures, the ECJ strives to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, swift judging and, on the other hand, the preservation of a qualitative and fair judicial procedure. As to substantive issues, drawing on examples from the fields of judicial cooperation in civil matters, asylum and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, it is argued that the ECJ's contribution to this area is largely grounded in the protection of fundamental rights. Finally, a brief conclusion supports the contention that the ECJ's contribution to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice has favoured a ‘mutual borrowing’ of concepts and principles as between this area and other fields in relation to which the EU has competences, such as the internal market and competition. The Treaty of Lisbon having entered into force, an unprecedented level of coordination between different areas of EU law on both the procedural and substantive levels is to take place. Respect for fundamental rights will definitely be a unifying factor binding them all together.

Europeanization of Civil Procedures: In Search of a Coherent Approach

Civil procedure is an increasingly important element of the European Union’s legal system. The interest in it, both on the regulatory and on the academic side, has grown considerably. Time has come to re-evaluate the position. While the policy of “judicial cooperation in civil matters” coordinated by the DG Freedom, Security and Justice contains most EU activities in the area, civil procedure is also the subject of attention from various other actors within the EU. Directorates General Internal Market, Competition, or SANCO are involved in regulating civil procedures on sectoral levels. There is little doubt that coordination of domestic civil procedure rules of European Union Member States is necessary to some extent. This paper tackles two important questions: how far should the harmonization of these rules reach, and can its aims be achieved by the approach taken by the EU at present? It emphasizes the recent phenomenon of decentralized harmonization as a particular challenge to the coherence of the EU policy in the area. It sketches a blueprint for a more coherent approach to Europeanization of civil procedures.

The Communitarisation of Private International Law – Introduction

In 1997, the Treaty of Amsterdam added a new title to the EC Treaty which was meant to establish progressively an area of freedom, security and justice, see Art. 61 EC. It instructed and empowered the Community to adopt measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters includ ing those promoting the compatibility of the rules applicable in the Mem ber States concerning the conflict of laws Art. 65 EC.

Mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters and the role of the national judge*

On 23–25 October 2006, ERA organised a conference on the principle of mutual recognition, and in particular on its legal implications for national judges. Based on the results of that conference, this article presents an overview of this form of cooperation in criminal matters from a legislative and a jurisprudential perspective. Firstly, it analyses the principle of mutual recognition in a broader context (internal market; judicial cooperation in civil matters) in order to better understand its contours. We also address the question whether this principle is as ‘revolutionary’ as many proclaim it to be. Secondly, (the progress of and obstacles to) the legislative programme of mutual recognition are discussed. Finally, after an excursus on a few key issues connected to the European Arrest Warrant, the article deals with the development of the above-mentioned principle and other aspects of criminal law in the case law of the European Court of Justice.

Value-added Norms, Local Litigation, and Global Enforcement: Why the Brussels-Philosophy failed in The Hague

In the early Nineties the Hague Conference on International Private Law on initiative of the United States started negotiations on a Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Hague Convention“). In October 1999 the Special Commission on duty presented a preliminary text, which was drafted quite closely to the European Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Brussels Convention“). The latter was concluded between the then 6 Member States of the EEC in Brussels in 1968 and amended several times on occasion of the entry of new Member States. In 2000, after the Treaty of Amsterdam altered the legal basis for judicial co-operation in civil matters in Europe, it was transformed into an EC Regulation (the “Brussels I Regulation”).