Making Cross-Border Enforcement More Effective for Creditors

Author(s):  
Gilles Cuniberti
Lexonomica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-162
Author(s):  
Philipp Anzenberger

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.


2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 311-333
Author(s):  
Andrej Ekart ◽  
Sylvia Zangl

Authors discuss the admissibility of defences against the substantive claim (e.g. objection of the debtor that the enforceable claim has been discharged) in cross-border enforcement in Europe. In the context of Regulation 44/2001 in some countries, like Germany, courts have admitted such defences in exequatur proceeding. In other countries, like Slovenia and Austria, such objections have to be asserted with legal remedies of the national execution law. Debtor can defend himself against European enforcement order, order for payment and small claims judgment with legal remedies of national execution law, if he has discharged the debt after the rendering of decision. Keywords: • cross-border enforcement • European enforcement order • European order for payment • European small claims procedure • international jurisdiction • EU


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document