scholarly journals Can harmonized time limits in European civil procedure enhance the effectiveness of the enforcement of EU Law? = Possono termini processuali armonizzati in materia civile incre-mentare l’ effettività nell’esecuzione del diritto dell’Unione Europea?

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 543
Author(s):  
Giovanni Chiapponi
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Provisional Measure ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract: The article focuses on the judgment Al Bosco, rendered by the ECJ on 4th October 2018. Al Bosco gives a new insight as to how the ECJ interprets the following questions: firstly, it clarifies the relationship between the doctrine of extended effects and that of equivalent effects; secondly, it underlines the importance of the principle of legal certainty; finally, it addresses issues concerning the time limit for the enforcement of a provisional measure issued in a Member State other than the Member State in which enforcement is sought. Against such a background, I will examine the pos-sibility of introducing a uniform and autonomous concept of harmonized time limits within the EU.Keywords: Time limits, provisional measures, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and com-mercial matters, civil judicial cooperation, harmonisation.Riassunto: lo scritto è di commento alla sentenza “Al Bosco”, pronunciata dalla CGUE il 4 ottobre 2018. L’arresto in parola si segnala per il quid novi introdotto dalla Corte di Lussemburgo sull’interpretazione di talune questioni: inizialmente, chiarifica il rapporto tra il principio di estensione dell’efficacia e quello di equivalenza degli effetti; sottolinea, quindi, la centralità del principio di legalità giuridica. Affronta, da ultimo, talune problematiche relative all’applicazione del termine per l’esecuzione di una misura cautelare (un sequestro conservativo) in un contesto transfrontaliero. La sentenza mi fornisce lo spunto per svolgere alcune brevi considerazioni circa l’opportunità di valutare l’introduzione di un concetto autonomo ed uniforme di termini processuali armonizzati all’interno dell’Unione Europea. Parole chiave: termini processuali, misure cautelari, riconoscimento ed esecuzione di decisioni in materia civile e commerciale, cooperazione giudiziale in materia civile, armonizzazione.

ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS IN ARBITRAL AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT IN EUROPE

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-415
Author(s):  
Ewelina Kajkowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Brussels Regulation

THE status of anti-suit injunctions in Europe has long given rise to controversy. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-536/13, Gazprom OAO [2015] All E.R. (EC) 711 sheds a new light on the relationship between anti-suit injunctions and the European jurisdiction regime embodied in the Brussels Regulation (Regulation No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). In this much anticipated judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed that, by virtue of the arbitration exclusion in Article 1(2)(d) of the Brussels Regulation, Member State courts are not precluded from enforcing anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitration tribunals and aimed at restraining the proceedings before Member State courts. Although the decision was given before the Recast Brussels Regulation came into force (Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, effective from 10 January 2015), it can be assumed that the same conclusion would have been reached under the new law.

European and Domestic Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Stirn
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
European Public ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Domestic Law

Chapter 4 turns to the domestic law of the countries of Europe, arguing that the combination within European public law of EU law, the law of the ECHR, and of domestic law cannot be conceived of along the lines of a pyramidal hierarchy. The chapter examines the ways in which the different European domestic legal systems conceive of the relationship between international law and domestic law. The chapter then looks at the relationship between international law and domestic law through a constitutional lens, an approach which more and more domestic courts in Europe seem to be adopting. The chapter then turns to the integrated legal order of the European Union, a legal order distinct both from domestic and general international law. Finally, the chapter teases out and analyses four shared guiding principles of European public law: equality and non-discrimination; proportionality; subsidiarity; and legal certainty.

9. EU law

2020 ◽  
pp. 202-225
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Maastricht Treaty ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Treaty Of Amsterdam ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Direct Applicability

This chapter discusses the primary and secondary laws of the European Union (EU). Treaties are the primary law of the EU. In addition to the treaties that originally established the three European Communities, a number of other treaties have subsequently been made. These include the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty), the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Treaty of Nice, and the Lisbon Treaty, all of which have made important amendments to the foundation treaties. Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) confers legislative power on the Union’s institutions to make secondary legislation in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. This secondary legislation may take different forms: regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations, and opinions. The chapter also discusses the concepts of direct applicability and direct effect, and the relationship between EU law and the English courts, and concludes by considering the likely enduring impact of EU law even after the UK has ceased to be a member state.

scholarly journals A question of procedural law: the principle of the inalterable nature of a tried case and the violation of EU law

2014 ◽  
pp. 101-112
Author(s):  
João Ramos Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Time Limit ◽  
The Other ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The One

The reform operated in the regime of civil appeals by the Decree-law 303/2007, from 24 August 2007, introduced a new basis for an extraordinary appeal for review. This paper states our views on the (in)conformity with EU law of the solution put forward by the Portuguese legislator in order to ensure, on the one hand, the legal certainty and, on the other hand, the validity (here entailed in the jurisprudence of the CJEU), by establishing for the extraordinary appeal for review a maximum preclusion time limit of five years from the moment the ruling under review is passed, in cases in which the decision was made by a court of last resort, that failed to fulfill its obligation to ask for a preliminary ruling.

scholarly journals Kepastian Hukum Dari Penerapan Ketentuan Batas Waktu Pengajuan Upaya Hukum Verzet (Studi Terhadap Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat Nomor 9/Pdt.Plw./2017/PN..JKT.BRT. Jo. Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Dki Jakarta Nomor 107/Pdt/2018/PT.DKI)

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 215
Author(s):  
Jonathan Santandrea ◽  
Ning Adiasih
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
District Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
High Court ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Ratio Decidendi ◽  
Legal Consequence ◽  
The Village ◽  
Case Number

As state of law, Indonesia must guarantee legal certainty in all fields including the Civil Procedure Code. Legal certainty is achieved if the rule cannot be interpreted differently and is contained in the realization of the consistency of each judge's decision. The time limit for the submission of verzet has been regulated in Article 129 Paragraph (2) HIR. However, the verdict used as study material contained inconsistencies in the decisions of judges between West Jakarta District Court in case number 9 / Pdt.Plw / 2017PN.JKT.BRT. and Jakarta High Court in case number 107 / Pdt / 2018 / PT.DKI Both have different ratio decidendi. What is the legal certainty of applying the deadline for submitting verzet legal remedies? The author uses normative legal research methods and uses interview data as supporting data. The results of the study revealed that there was no legal certainty in the application of the time limit for submitting verzet legal remedies, especially in the condition of the verstek verdict being delivered to the defendant through the village head. The legal consequence is that there are variations in the decision dictum on this matter so that it harms the plaintiff and obscures the meaning of the verstek case which is said to have been inkracht van gewijsde. It is recommended that in the revision of the Civil Procedure Law there are specific guidelines on how to calculate the deadline for submitting verzet in terms of volunteering verstek to be entrusted to the village head.

Multi-Offenders In (Double) Jeopardy – Towards Cross-Border Prosecution and Sentencing Rules for Offenders Who Have Committed Multiple Offences

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-284
Author(s):  
Nele Audenaert ◽  
Wendy De Bondt
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Double Jeopardy ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Procedural Safeguards

The European freedom of movement has led to an increase of criminal cases with a cross-border element. Offenders can easily commit multiple offences on the territory of different Member States or can easily move from one Member State to another after having committed an offence. This might result in some proportionality concerns, since being prosecuted more than once and being punished more than once might cause extra (unjustified) distress on the offender. There is thus a dire need for European rules on prosecution and sentencing in cases with a cross-border element. In this regard, several EU rules are being analysed, more specifically in the light of the prosecution and sentencing of multi-offenders. Of course, the ne bis in idem principle is one of the main rules in this context. It will appear that the ne bis in idem principle’s field of application is still too restricted, too contested and even too unexplored. Not all defendants can enjoy the procedural safeguards called to life by the ne bis in idem principle, nor does unanimity exist with regard to which offenders can invoke the principle. Unfortunately, the more recent legal instruments neither succeed in providing some more procedural safeguards and some more legal certainty for all defendants. This contribution will analyse the lack of procedural safeguards for multi-offenders due to the limited ne bis in idem principle and the non-complementary fields of application of other judicial cooperation instruments on both the prosecution and sentencing level and will make some recommendations in this regard.

scholarly journals Social devolution and the impact of European Union Law: A critical analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-206
Author(s):  
Herwig Verschueren
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Coordination System ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

This article examines the extent to which EU law impacts on the relationship between the sub-national entities of a Member State where these sub-national entities have regulatory powers in the field of social protection. More specifically, it explores whether the criteria relied on in EU law for determining the scope of the circles of solidarity in the relationship between the Member States can also be applied in the context of the relations between the sub-national entities of regionalised Member States. It appears that EU law on the free movement of persons influences these matters, more specifically the European social security coordination system that determines to which national circle of solidarity a person migrating between Member States belongs. Indeed, in its judgment in the Flemish care insurance case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) also applied these rules to some categories of persons in a cross-border situation between different regions of a single Member State. This article critically analyses this case law specifically in terms of respect for the regionalised identity of socially devolved Member States. It concludes that this kind of respect requires that in the context of the relations between sub-national entities of a regionalised Member State, the domestic constitutional rules determining the boundaries of circles of solidarity between these entities should, in all circumstances, have preference over the EU rules applicable between Member States.

Ships, sovereign immunity and the subtleties of the Brussels I regulation: Case C-641/18 LG and others v. Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale: Ships, sovereign immunity and the subtleties of Brussels I: Rina

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110059
Author(s):  
Vincent Power
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
Red Sea ◽  
State Court ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Flag State

More than 1000 passengers on a Panamanian-registered ferry drowned in the Red Sea. Some survivors and relatives of some of the victims sued the classification and certification ship society which had surveyed the ferry. Relying on the Brussels I Regulation, the plaintiffs sued the defendants in the latter’s seat (in Italy). The defendants claimed sovereign immunity as they were acting on behalf of Panama (that is, the flag state). The CJEU ruled that, generally, Article 1(1) of the Regulation means that an action for damages, brought against private-law corporations engaged in the classification and certification of ships on behalf of, and upon delegation from, a non-EU Member State, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in the Regulation. The defendants were therefore not immune. The CJEU qualified its ruling by saying that this is conditional on the activity being not exercised under ‘public powers’ (within the meaning of EU law) because then it would then be a sovereign and not a commercial activity. The CJEU thereby ruled that the customary public international law principle that foreign states have immunity from jurisdiction does not preclude an EU Member State court seised of a dispute from exercising jurisdiction under the Regulation in these circumstances.

Arbitration’s status under EU law

2012 ◽  
pp. 390-419
Author(s):  
Georgios I. Zekos
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Arbitration Process ◽  
Full Effect ◽  
The Will

The Commission is of the belief that the efficacy of arbitration agreements should be enhanced in order to give full effect to the will of the parties. According to the ECJ in the West Tankers decision, anti-suit injunctions for arbitration agreements are incompatible with the Brussels I Regulation so that they are no longer available so as to counter-attack a torpedo action brought before the courts of a Member State. Does the perplexing interference of courts in the whole arbitration process advance justice and effectiveness?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document