Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 81 [Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters]

(ex-Article 65 TEC)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – A Commentary

Part of the book series: Springer Commentaries on International and European Law ((SCIEL))

  • 1749 Accesses

Abstract

The Preamble of the TEU declares that the establishment of an area of freedom, security, and justice (AFSJ) will facilitate the free movement of persons while ensuring the safety and security of people in the Union. Judicial cooperation in civil matters is one of the three pillars of this area, which is dealt with in one and only provision, Article 81 TFEU. This article crystallises five decades of cooperation among Member States. Throughout these years, the legal basis for cooperation in civil matters has evolved and the legislative procedure to adopt these texts has been modified. Today, the AFSJ is built on a pattern of variable geometry where Member States may be involved to different degrees. As a result, the AFSJ is a complex area of cooperation where the pursuance of concurring policies (i.e. ensuring mutual recognition, fulfilling the internal market and granting access to justice) makes it difficult to identify a clear constitutional design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, O.J. L 299/32 (1972); Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, O.J. C 59 (1979).

  2. 2.

    Kerameus (2007), para 7.

  3. 3.

    Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, O.J. C 189/25 (1990).

  4. 4.

    Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland acceded the Convention on 9 October 1978 (Report: O.J. C 59 (1979)), Greece on 25 October 1982 (Report: O.J. C 298 (1986)), Spain and Portugal on 26 May 1989 (Report: O.J. C 189 (1990)) and finally, Austria, Finland and Sweden on 29 November 1996.

  5. 5.

    Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, O.J. L 319/9 (1988).

  6. 6.

    Preamble of the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, O.J. C 27/34 (1998), consolidated version; Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations by Mario Giuliano, Professor, University of Milan, and Paul Lagarde, Professor, University of Paris I, O.J. C 282/1 (1980).

  7. 7.

    First Protocol on the interpretation of the 1980 Convention by the Court of Justice (O.J. C 27/47 (1998), consolidated version) and Second Protocol conferring on the Court of Justice powers to interpret the 1980 Convention (O.J. C 27/52 (1998) consolidated version).

  8. 8.

    The Convention on insolvency proceedings of 23 November 1995 never entered into force.

  9. 9.

    Convention on the service in the Member States of the European Union of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters of 26 May 1997 –and its Protocol on the interpretation of the Convention by the ECJ (O.J. C 261/2 (1997)); Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters of 28 May 1998 –and its corresponding Protocol on the interpretation of the Convention by the ECJ (O.J. C 221/2 (1998)).

  10. 10.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings, O.J. L 160/1 (2000).

  11. 11.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses, O.J. L 160/19 (2000).

  12. 12.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, O.J. L 160/37 (2000).

  13. 13.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, O.J. L 12/1 (2001).

  14. 14.

    Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999, Presidency conclusions. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_en.htm.

  15. 15.

    European Council, TheHague Programme: Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, (2005/C 53/01) O.J. C 53/1 (2005). This programme was followed some months later by the “Action plan implementing The Hague Programme on Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union” where the specific measures to be adopted were listed. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52005XG0812%2801%29.

  16. 16.

    Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European small claims procedure, O.J. L 199/1 (2007).

  17. 17.

    Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), O.J. L 199/40 (2007).

  18. 18.

    Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), O.J. L 177/6 (2008).

  19. 19.

    Lenaerts (2015), pp. 3–4; Storskrubb (2016), p. 19; Brouwer (2016), p. 60.

  20. 20.

    Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0171.

  21. 21.

    Rapport Borrás du Groupe de Travail X: “Liberté, securité et justice”, point II.

  22. 22.

    C-14/08, Roda Golf & Beach Resort (ECJ 25 June 2009) para 56.

  23. 23.

    Peers (2016), p. 348.

  24. 24.

    Peers (2016), p. 349.

  25. 25.

    Storskrubb (2011), p. 304.

  26. 26.

    Monar (2010), pp. 573–574.

  27. 27.

    Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32001Y0115(01).

  28. 28.

    European Council, TheHague Programme: Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, (2005/C 53/01) O.J. C 53/1 (2005).

  29. 29.

    European Council, TheHague Programme: Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, (2005/C 53/01) O.J. C 53/1 (2005), point 3.

  30. 30.

    In Cases C-256/09, Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez (ECJ 17 July 2010) para 70–74; C-403/09 PPU, Jasna Detiček v Maurizio Sgueglia (ECJ 23 December 2009) para 45; C-4/14, Christophe Bohez v Ingrid Wiertz (ECJ 9 September 2015) para 43-44; or C-428/15, Child and Family Agency v J. D. (ECJ 27 October 2016) para 57.

  31. 31.

    European Council, TheHague Programme: Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, (2005/C 53/01) O.J. C 53/1 (2005), point 3.4.2.

  32. 32.

    Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, N.S. (ECJ 21 December 2011) para 83.

  33. 33.

    Opinion 2/13, accession to the ECHR (ECJ 18 December 2014) para 191.

  34. 34.

    Opinion 2/13, accession to the ECHR (ECJ 18 December 2014) para 192.

  35. 35.

    Gerard (2016), p. 77.

  36. 36.

    Lenaerts (2015), p. 29

  37. 37.

    Meeusen (2019), pp. 662–662.

  38. 38.

    C-435/06, C. (ECJ 27 November 2007) para 45.

  39. 39.

    C-256/09, Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez (ECJ 17 July 2010) para 70–74.

  40. 40.

    C-4/14, Christophe Bohez v Ingrid Wiertz (ECJ 9 September 2015) para 43–44.

  41. 41.

    C-428/15, Child and Family Agency (ECJ 27 October 2016) para 57.

  42. 42.

    See namely, Cases C-456/11, Gothaer Versicherung AG and others v Samskip GmbH (ECJ 15 November 2012) para 28–29; C-619/10, Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd (ECJ 6 September 2012) para 40; C-157/12, Salzgitter (ECJ 26 September 2013) para 36; C-452/12, Nipponkoa Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd v Inter-Zuid Transport BV (ECJ 19 December 2013) para 37–38; C-302/13, FlyLAL Lithuanian Airlines AS v Starptautiska Iidosta Riga VAS and Air Baltic Corporation (ECJ 23 October 2014) para 45; C-536/13, Gazprom (ECJ 13 May 2015) para 39; C-681/13, Diageo Brands BV v Simiramida-04-EOOD (ECJ 16 July 2015) para 63; C-559/14, Rudolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited (ECJ 25 May 2016) para 47.

  43. 43.

    Garcimartín (2006), pp. 186–198.

  44. 44.

    Case C-491/10 PPU, Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga v Simone Pelz (ECJ 22 December 2010); Case C-211/10 PPU, Doris Povse v Mauro Alpago (ECJ 1 July 2010).

  45. 45.

    Appl. No. 45036/98, Bosphorus v Ireland, (ECtHR Grand chamber 30 June 2005). This judgment was greeted with relieve since it was expected that after Opinion 2/13 of the ECJ, the ECtHR could have adopted a more confrontational approach to the European Union.

  46. 46.

    Appl. No. 45036/98, Bosphorus (ECtHR 30 June 2005) para 153.

  47. 47.

    Appl. No. 45036/98, Bosphorus (ECtHR 30 June 2005) para 155 and 156.

  48. 48.

    Appl. No. 3890/11, Povse v Austria, (ECtHR 18 June 2013); Case C-211/10 PPU, Doris Povse v Mauro Alpago (ECJ 1 July 2010).

  49. 49.

    Appl. No. 3890/11, Povse v Austria, (ECtHR 18 June 2013) para 86.

  50. 50.

    Sceptical on this point, Hazelhorst (2014), p. 33.

  51. 51.

    Appl. No. 17502/07, Avotins v Latvia (ECtHR Grand Chamber 23 May 2016).

  52. 52.

    Appl. No. 17502/07, Avotins v Latvia (ECtHR Grand Chamber 23 May 2016) para 112.

  53. 53.

    Appl. No. 17502/07, Avotins v Latvia (ECtHR 23 May 2016) para 114.

  54. 54.

    Appl. No. 17502/07, Avotins v Latvia (ECtHR 23 May 2016) para 116.

  55. 55.

    Appl. No. 17502/07, Avotins v Latvia (ECtHR 23 May 2016) para 121–122.

  56. 56.

    Weller (2017), p. 17.

  57. 57.

    Agreement of 19 October 2005 between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (hereafter the Agreement), concluded by Council Decision 2006/325/EC and subsequent amendments of this text on 12 June 2009 (OJ L149/80) as a result of the adoption of Regulation 4/2009 and on 21 March 2013 (OJ L79/4) as a result of the recast of Regulation 44/2001 into Regulation 1215/2012.

  58. 58.

    Monar (2010), p. 572.

  59. 59.

    Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, O.J. L 343/10 (2010).

  60. 60.

    Council Regulation (EU) No 2016/1103 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes, OJ L 183/1 (2016).

  61. 61.

    Council Regulation (EU) No 2016/1104 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships, O.J. L 183/30 (2016).

  62. 62.

    Opinion 1/03, Lugano convention (ECJ Grand Chamber 7 February 2006).

  63. 63.

    Opinion 1/2013Hague convention 1980 on international child abduction (ECJ Grand Chamber 14 October 2014).

  64. 64.

    Case 22/70, ERTA (ECJ 31 March 1971).

  65. 65.

    Opinion 1/94, WTO agreement (ECJ 15 November 1994).

  66. 66.

    Case C-476/98, Commission v Germany (ECJ 5 November 2002).

  67. 67.

    Opinion 1/03, Lugano convention (ECJ Grand Chamber 7 February 2006) para 116–117.

  68. 68.

    Opinion 1/03, Lugano convention (ECJ Grand Chamber 7 February 2006) para 160–161 and 172.

  69. 69.

    European Council, TheHague Programme: Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, (2005/C 53/01) O.J. C 53/1 (2005), point 3.4.5.

  70. 70.

    The EC became member of the Hague Conference on 3 April 2007: Available at https://www.hcch.net/es/news-archive/details/?varevent=129”.

  71. 71.

    Regulation (EC) No 662/2009 establishing a procedure for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements between Member States and third countries on particular matters concerning the law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations, O.J. L 200/25 (2009).

  72. 72.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 664/2009 establishing a procedure for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements between Member States and third countries concerning jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments and decisions in matrimonial matters, matters of parental responsibility and matters relating to maintenance obligations, and the law applicable to matters relating to maintenance obligations, O.J. L 200/46 (2009).

  73. 73.

    Opinion 1/2013, Hague convention 1980 on international child abduction (ECJ Grand Chamber 14 October 2014) para 88.

  74. 74.

    Guzmán Zapater (2014), pp. 254–255.

  75. 75.

    Monar (2010), p. 569.

  76. 76.

    Monar (2010), pp. 569 and 572.

  77. 77.

    On a more positive note, in the context of the Brexit withdrawal, one should at least acknowledge the efforts to ensure the position of individuals who relied on the application of EU rules after the transition period. Under Articles 66 to 69 of the Withdrawal Agreement, ongoing proceedings initiated before the end of the transition period will still benefit from continued cooperation between the UK and the EU.

  78. 78.

    Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999, Presidency conclusions. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_en.htm, para 28.

  79. 79.

    Monar (2010), p. 552.

  80. 80.

    Herlin-Karnell (2014), p. 39.

  81. 81.

    Storskrubb (2011), p. 320.

  82. 82.

    Meeusen (2019), pp. 674–675.

  83. 83.

    Rapport Borrás du Groupe de Travail X: “Liberté, securité et justice”, point II.

  84. 84.

    Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, O.J. L 143/15 (2004).

  85. 85.

    Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 establishing a European account preservation order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters, O.J. L 159/89 (2014).

  86. 86.

    Regulation (EU) No 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings (recast), O.J. L 141/19 (2015).

  87. 87.

    Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 onmutual recognitionof protection measures in civil matters, O.J. L 181/4 (2013).

  88. 88.

    Article 81.2 subparagraphs (b) and (d) will be the legal basis for the revised Regulation, following the Proposal of 31st May 2018 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) (COM/2018/379 final).

  89. 89.

    Article 81.2 subparagraph (d) TFEU will be the legal basis for the revised Regulation, following the Proposal of 31st May 2018 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (COM/2018/378 final).

  90. 90.

    Aguilar Grieder (2010), p. 325.

  91. 91.

    Storskrubb (2011), p. 314.

  92. 92.

    Council Directive 2002/8/EC to improveaccess to justicein cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, O.J. L 26/41 (2003), and the complementary Commission Decision No 2005/630/EC establishing a form for the transmission of legal aid applications under Council Directive 2003/8/EC, O.J. L 225/23 (2005) and Commission Decision No 2004/844/EC establishing a form for legal aid applications under Council Directive 2003/8/EC to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, O.J. L 365/27 (2004).

  93. 93.

    Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/document/index_en.htm.

  94. 94.

    Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999, Presidency conclusions. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_en.htm, para 29 and 30.

  95. 95.

    Peers (2016), p. 351.

  96. 96.

    The Regulations have been revised by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, O.J. L 341/1 (2015) is in force.

  97. 97.

    European Council, TheHague Programme: Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, (2005/C 53/01) O.J. C 53/1 (2005), point 3.4.2.

  98. 98.

    Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, O.J. L 136/3 (2008).

  99. 99.

    European Council, TheHague Programme: Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, (2005/C 53/01) O.J. C 53/1 (2005), point 3.2.

  100. 100.

    Council Decision No 2001/470/EC establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, O.J. L 174 (2001).

  101. 101.

    Available at http://www.ejtn.eu.

  102. 102.

    Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/tools-judicial-cooperation/european-e-justice-portal_en.

  103. 103.

    Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast), O.J. L 178/1 (2019).

  104. 104.

    Rapport Borrás du Groupe de Travail X: “Liberté, securité et justice”, point IV.

  105. 105.

    All cited internet sources in this comment have been accessed on 9 December 2019.

References

All cited internet sources in this comment have been accessed on 9 December 2019.

  • Aguilar Grieder, H. (2010). La cooperación judicial internacional en materia civil en el Tratado de Lisboa. Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, 2(1), 308–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, E. (2016). Mutual trust and judicial control in the area of freedom, security, and justice: An anatomy of trust. In E. Brouwer & D. Gerard (Eds.), Mapping mutual trust: Understanding and framing the role of mutual trust in EU law (pp. 59–68). EUI Working Papers, MWP 2016/13. Retrieved from http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/41486/MWP_2016_13.pdf

  • Garcimartín, F. (2006). El título ejecutivo europeo. Cizur Menor: Aranzadi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerard, D. (2016). Mutual trust as constitutionalism? In E. Brouwer & D. Gerard (Eds.), Mapping mutual trust: Understanding and framing the role of mutual trust in EU law (pp. 69–79). EUI Working Papers, MWP 2016/13. Retrieved from http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/41486/MWP_2016_13.pdf).

  • Guzmán Zapater, M. (2014). La dimension externa de la cooperación judicial en material civil (I): ¿Un instrumento más para la gobernanza mundial? In F. Aldecoa, C. Fernández Liesa, & M. Abad (Eds.), Gobernanza y reforma internacional tras la crisis financiera y económica: el papel de la Unión Europea (pp. 233–256). Madrid: Marcial Pons.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelhorst, M. (2014). The ECtHR’s decision in Povse: Guidance for the future of the abolition of exequatur for civil judgments in the EU. Netherlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, 1, 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herlin-Karnell, E. (2014). Constitutional principles in the area of freedom, security and justice. In D. Acosta Arcarazo & C. C. Murphy (Eds.), EU security and justice law: After Lisbon and Stockholm (pp. 38–53). Oxford & Portland: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerameus, K. (2007). Article 38. In U. Magnus & P. Makowski (Eds.), Brussels I Regulation (European commentaries on Private international law). München: Sellier, European Law Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, K. (2015). The Principle of Mutual Recognition in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. The Fourth Annual Sir Jeremy Lever Lecture. All Souls College, University of Oxford, 30 January 2015. Retrieved from http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/41486/MWP_2016_13.pdf

  • Meeusen, J. (2019). Comparing interstate and European conflict of laws from a constitutional perspective: Can the United States inspire the European Union? American Journal of Comparative Law, 67(3), 637–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monar, J. (2010). The area of freedom, security and justice. In A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Principles of European constitutional law (pp. 551–585). Oxford: Hart/Beck/Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers, S. (2016). EU justice and home affairs law. Volume II: EU criminal law, policing and civil law (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb, E. (2011). Civil Justice – A newcomer and an unstoppable wave? In G. De Búrca & P. Craig (Eds.), The evolution of EU law (2nd ed., pp. 299–321). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb, E. (2016) Mutual trust and the limits of abolishing Exequatur in Civil Justice. In E. Brouwer & D. Gerard (Eds.), Mapping mutual trust: Understanding and framing the role of mutual trust in EU law (pp. 15–22). EUI Working Papers, MWP 2016/13. Retrieved from http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/41486/MWP_2016_13.pdf

  • Weller, M. (2017). Mutual trust within judicial cooperation in civil matters: A normative cornerstone – A factual chimera – A constitutional challenge. Netherlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, 1, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Elena Rodríguez Pineau

Authors
  1. Elena Rodríguez Pineau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Rodríguez Pineau .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. Università degli Studi di Teramo, Teramo, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

List of Cases

List of Cases

1.1 CJEU

  • ECJ 31.3.1971, 22/70, ERTA, ECR I-263 [cit. in para 23]

  • ECJ 15.11.1994, Opinion 1/94, Agreement Establishing the WTO, ECR I-5267 [cit. in para 23]

  • ECJ 5.11.2002, Case C-476/98, Commission v Germany, ECR I-09855 [cit. in para 23]

  • ECJ 7.2.2006, Opinion 1/03, Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, ECLI:EU:C:2006:81 [cit. in paras 23, 24]

  • ECJ 27.11.2007, C-435/06, C., ECR I-10141 [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 25.6.2009, C-14/08, Roda Golf & Beach Resort, ECR I-05439 [cit. in para 9]

  • ECJ 23.12.2009, C-403/09 PPU, Jasna Detiček v Maurizio Sgueglia, ECR I-12193 [cit. in para 11]

  • ECJ 1.7.2010, C-211/10 PPU, Doris Povse v Mauro Alpago, ECR I-06673 [cit. in para 13, 16]

  • ECJ 17.7.2010, C-256/09, Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez, ECR I-07353 [cit. in para 11, 12]

  • ECJ 22.12.2010, C-491/10 PPU, Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga v Simone Pelz, ECR I-14247 [cit. in para 13]

  • ECJ 21.12.2011, C-411/10 and C-493/10, N.S. v Secretary of State Home Department and M.E. et al. v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, ECR I-13905 [cit. in para 11]

  • ECJ 6.9.2012, C-619/10, Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2012:531 [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 15.11.2012, C-456/11, Gothaer Versicherung AG and Others v Samskip GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2012:719 [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 26.9.2013, C-157/12, Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA, ECLI:EU:C:2013:597 [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 19.12.2013, C-452/12, Nipponkoa Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd v Inter-Zuid Transport BV, ECLI:EU:C:2013:858 [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 14.10.2014, Opinion 1/2013,Hague Convention 1980 on International Child Abduction, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2303 [cit. in para 24]

  • ECJ 23.10.2014, C-302/13, FlyLAL Lithuanian Airlines AS v Starptautiska Iidosta Riga VAS and Air Baltic Corporation AS, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2319 [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 18.12.2014, Opinion 2/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454 [cit. in para 11]

  • ECJ 13.5.2015, C-536/13, Gazprom OAO v Lietuvos Respublika, ECLI:EU:C:2015:316 [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 16.7.2015, C-681/13, Diageo Brands BV v Simiramida-04-EOOD, ECLI:EU:C:2015:471 [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 25.5.2016, C-559/14, Rudolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited, ECLI:EU:C:2016:349 [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 9.9.2015, C-4/14, Christophe Bohez v Ingrid Wiertz, ECLI:EU:C:2015:563 [cit. in para 11, 12]

  • ECJ 27.10.2016, C-428/15, Child and Family Agency v J. D., ECLI:EU:C:2016:819 [cit. in para 11, 12]

1.2 ECtHR

  • ECtHR 30.6.2005, 45036/98, Bosphorus Hava Yolan Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [cit. in para 15, 17]

  • ECtHR 18.6.2013, 3890/11, Povse v. Austria [cit. in para 16]

  • ECtHR 23.5.2016, 17502/07, Avotins v. Latvia [cit. in para 17–19]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rodríguez Pineau, E. (2021). Article 81 [Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters]. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – A Commentary. Springer Commentaries on International and European Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_82

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_82

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43509-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43511-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation