
EU Civil Procedure Law and Third Countries
Description
In den letzten Jahren hat sich die Zahl von EU-Verordnungen zum Internationalen Zivilprozessrecht stark erhöht. Die geltenden Vorschriften regeln im wesentlichen EU-interne Sachverhalte. Beziehungen zu Drittstaaten werden nur unter selektiven Gesichtspunkten geregelt. Für die Gestaltung der Justizkooperation der EU mit Drittstaaaten ist dies nicht befriedigend.
Die EU hat zwar mit einigen europäischen Staaten das Lugano-Übereinkommen geschlossen, dieses eignet sich aber nicht als globale Lösung. Im vorliegenden Band wird, gestützt auf rechtsvergleichende und länderspezifische Beiträge (aus EU-Staaten wie auch aus Drittstaaten), ein strukturiertes Modell für künftige gesetzgeberische Maßnahmen der EU, ggf, in Form von multilateralen und bilateralen Abkommen mit Drittstaaten (z.B. im Rahmen der Haager Konferenz für IPR), den Einsatz von Soft Law und ggf. koordinierte nationale Gesetzgebung entwickelt. Das Buch geht auch auf die Thematik des Brexit ein.
More details
Other editions
Additional editions

Persons
Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Alexander Trunk, Prof. Dr. Nikitas Hatzimihail, Assisted by Josephine Doll
Content
- Cover
- Introduction
- EU Law of Civil Procedure and Third Countries: The Case of the European Neighbourhood Policy
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. EU civil procedure law in the context of EU policies
- B. The European Neighbourhood Policy
- C. Mutual recognition of judgments in the association agreements
- D. Conclusion: What are the next steps?
- The Role of Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaties in the Context of EU Civil Procedure Law and Third Countries
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Introduction
- B. EU civil procedure law and third countries
- C. Example: Bilateral treaties of Greece
- D. Conclusion
- Direct Jurisdiction - What Rules (if any) for Relations with Third Countries?
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Present status of jurisdictional rules under EU civil procedure law including reference to third countries
- B. What could or should be changed?
- I. Amendments of EU civil procedure legislation
- 1. Brussels Ia Regulation
- a) General jurisdiction
- b) Specific jurisdiction
- c) Protective jurisdiction
- d) Exclusive jurisdiction
- e) Choice of forum (prorogation) agreements
- 2. Other EU legislation
- II. Conclusion of treaties with third country/countries
- III. Use of soft law?
- IV. Coordinated amendments of EU law and national law
- C. Summary and recommendations
- Residual Jurisdiction: Back to the Future?
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Introduction
- B. Residual jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation
- C. Types of exorbitant jurisdiction
- I. Protecting local claimants
- II. Providing access to justice for non-local claimants
- III. Protecting overriding substantive law principles
- 1. Human rights protection under the Alien Tort Statute
- 2. Human rights protection without special jurisdictional provisions
- 3. The 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
- 4. The 2015 Resolution of the International Law Institute
- D. Ubi ius, ibi remedium?
- E. Back to the Future?
- The Jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court: A Model for the Application of the Brussels Ia Regulation to non-EU Disputes?
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Introduction: overcoming the limited scope of harmonized bases of jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation?
- B. The UPC as a sui generis court
- C. Accommodating the UPC into the EU judicial system: Regulation No 524/2014 and the jurisdiction of "common courts"
- I. The different scope of the jurisdiction of national courts and the UPC jurisdiction and the ensuing need for coordination of proceedings
- II. The extension of the rules on jurisdiction contained in Chapter II of the Regulation to defendants domiciled in third States
- III. The special rule of extraterritorial jurisdiction applicable to third-country domiciliaries under Art. 71b para. 3 of the Regulation
- IV. The rules on provisional measures
- D. The UPC's jurisdiction as a model? Universalization at the price of fragmentation
- I. Regulation No 542/2014 and the precedent of the 2010 Commission proposal: a moderately conservative approach to the universalization of jurisdiction rules
- II. Variable geometry rules within the EU: the consequences of recourse to an unprecedented pattern of differentiated integration
- III. Variable geometry rules vis-à-vis the outer world: the limits of a purely unilateral approach
- E. Conclusion
- Lis Pendens in the Brussels Ia Regulation with Regard to Third Countries
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Introduction: purpose and subject
- B. Parallel proceedings
- I. Material scope
- II. Personal scope
- III. Temporal scope
- IV. Territorial scope
- C. Resolution of the parallelism of proceedings
- I. Basic approach
- II. National and international solutions
- D. Elements and tools for resolving the consequences of lis pendens
- I. Time limitation
- II. Definition of jurisdiction
- III. Coordination and communication
- IV. Refusal of recognition
- V. Determining the prohibition of abuse of the process
- E. Requirements for opening the Brussels system of litispendence to non-EU countries
- F. Basic question: identity of parallel proceedings
- I. Principles (maxims) of law relevant to lis pendens
- II. Identity of the subject matter and its outcome-material scope
- 1. Subject matter of the proceedings (claim), its definition and characteristics
- 2. Subject matter of the proceedings and criticism of some of its concepts
- 3. Factual and legal basis of a claim
- 4. The issue of a proper obstacle of lis pendens and an improper obstacle of lis pendens, and related proceedings
- 5. The notion of interest and its importance in defining the subject matter, and the resolution of the plea and of the consequences of lis pendens
- III. Identity of the people concerned - personal scope of lis pendens
- 1. The term 'party' and its involvement
- 2. Controversial cases
- IV. The decisive moment, the question of priority, the temporary scope
- G. Solution of the obstacle of lis pendens and its possible consequences - tools
- I. Definition of jurisdiction and instruments for its limitation
- II. Time limits for procedural decision-making
- III. Discretion of the court, prognosis of recognition, and negative conflict
- IV. Principle of prohibition of abuse of process
- H. Conclusion: Communication and coordination as an effective tool for dealing with lis pendens
- I. Considerations and recommendations with particular reference to lis pendens in third countries: Solutions de lege lata et ferenda
- II. Basic aspects
- III. Recommendations
- 1. Solutions de lege lata
- 2. Solutions de lege ferenda
- The Recognition and Enforcement of Court Decisions Between the EU and Third States
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Problem area
- B. Legal Framework and competence
- I. Different bases
- II. EU law
- III. International treaties
- IV. National law
- C. Possible solutions
- I. In general
- II. Multilateral treaties
- 1. More multilateral instruments
- 2. Lugano
- 3. Hague Conventions
- III. Bilateral treaties
- IV. Unilateral EU Regulation
- 1. Reforming the EU rules
- a) Recognition within the Brussels system
- b) Recognition and enforcement of non-Member States' judgments
- aa) Competence
- bb) Extension of the Brussels Recast Regulation
- 2. A separate Regulation on the recognition and enforcement of third State court decisions
- 3. Development of common principles
- D. Conclusion
- The Recognition of the Effects of Foreign Judgments Between the EU and Third States
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. In general - Recognition of the effects of foreign judgments in cross-border cases
- B. Recognition of the effects of judgments granted by the court of an EU Member State in a third State
- I. Judgments refusing the claim as not admissible
- II. Judgments issued in the subject matter of the case - Grounds for non-recognition
- 1. The res judicata effect
- 2. The recognition of the effects of a foreign judgment is dependent on any important conditions provided by the procedural law of the recognizing State
- C. Especially: The recognition of the effects of provisional measures
- D. Conclusion
- Commercial Litigation in the UK: A Future Outside the EU
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Introduction
- B. The future legal landscape
- I. The applicable law
- II. Jurisdiction and judgments
- III. Resort to national law
- IV. The 2005 Hague Convention
- V. The Lugano Convention
- VI. An interim conclusion
- C. London's future as a litigation hub
- I. A law and jurisdiction of choice
- II. A rational answer
- D. Two conclusions
- I. The future legal landscape
- II. London's future as a legal hub
- Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments Between the European Union and Russia: Possible Prospects
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Introduction
- B. International greements as a measure to ensure free circulation of judicial acts
- C. Relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union
- I. The main stages of development of relations in the field of legal cooperation between the Russian Federation and the European Union
- II. Negotiations: Is there light at the end of the tunnel?
- D. Possible legal models providing for mutual recognition and execution of judicial acts
- E. The possible structure of the universal treaty on judicial cooperation (jurisdiction and enforcement) between EU and Russia
- F. Conclusion
- Enhancing Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters Between the EU and Ukraine: First Steps Ahead
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Introduction
- B. General overview of the Ukrainian legal policy on judicial cooperation in civil matters with the EU. Litigation in civil matters with a foreign element
- C. The main problems of the strenghening of the judicial cooperation between the EU and Ukraine
- I. The international treaties related to judicial cooperation in civil matters
- II. The EU Regulations related to cross-border civil and commercial matters
- III. Soft law, related to civil justice and cross-border cases.
- D. Concluding remarks and proposals
- Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Decisions in Colombia
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Introduction
- B. The rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Colombian General Code of Procedure Law
- C. The requirement of reciprocity
- D. The requirement of compatibility with Colombian public policy
- E. Conclusion and evaluation from the legal policy point of view
- The European Regulations on Service of Documents and on Taking of Evidence - An Overview
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Introduction
- B. Guideline on the content of the regulations
- C. The CJEU judgments in the cases of Lippens and ProRail
- D. Scope of application
- E. Judicial cooperation with third countries
- EU Special Procedures Regulations and Third Countries - Which Perspectives for Relations with Third Countries?
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. EU Special Procedures Regulations: present state
- B. The relevance of the three Regulations for third countries: status quo and perspectives
- The European Order for Payment Procedure and Third Countries
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Introduction
- B. History
- C. Possible framework
- I. Extension of Applicability
- II. Basic concept
- III. Rules on Jurisdiction
- IV. Enforcement
- V. Statement of opposition: transformation in court litigation
- D. Conclusions
- Relationship of the Brussels Ia Regulation with Soft Law in the Field of International Civil Procedure: Some Notes on the Planned European Rules of Civil Procedure
- Abstract
- Keywords
- A. Introduction
- B. Marcel Storme's project as a precursor to codification of European Civil Procedure
- C. The ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure as an attempt to harmonize civil procedure in the transatlantic dimension
- D. The European Rules of Civil Procedure as an impulse and outline for future cooperation with third countries
- I. Beginning of the project and starting positions
- II. Structure of the European Rules of Civil Procedure
- III. The relationship between the European Rules of Civil Procedure and the Brussels Ia Regulation
- 1. Material scope
- 2. Addresses of the Rules
- 3. Territorial scope and applicability to cases with an international element
- IV. Quo Vadis - ELI/UNIDROIT Rules of Civil Procedure?
- Conclusions
- A. Summarizing the proposals of the contributors to this study
- B. Which interests: EU - third countries
- C. Which approaches to which "third countries?"
- D. Which instruments?
- I. Multilateral treaties
- II. Bilateral treaties of the EU and/or Member States
- III. Unilateral action by the EU or Member States
- IV. Which role for soft law?
- V. Combination of instruments?
- E. What problems?
- I. Direct jurisdiction
- II. Parallel proceedings
- III. Recognition and enforcement
- IV. Judicial Assistance
- F. Need/usefulness for legislative action
- G. Which fora for legislative action?
- H. Techniques of differentiation?
- I. Summary
- Bibliography
- About the Authors
- Index