Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Disorderly Infiltration of EU Law in Civil Procedure

  • Article
  • Published:
Netherlands International Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since 1968 the European Union (or the European Economic Community as it then was) has legislated in the field of civil procedure. These rules do not replace domestic laws and codes of civil procedure, but gradually take over aspects in the field: it infiltrates. The purpose of this article is to show that this infiltration is chaotic rather than logical. It discusses certain aspects of the scope of EU legislation in the field of civil procedure, provisional measures, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and systemic hurdles for a more logical delineation between the EU and domestic spheres of the law. It shows the disorderly infiltration without offering a definite solution, taking the view that such disorderliness is inescapable in light of the current state of EU law on civil procedure and political realities.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See also Baumgartner (2012), p. 570.

  2. Kramer (2013).

  3. See the Conclusions of the European Council at Tampere (15 and 16 October 1999); the Hague Programme (Council Conclusions of 4 and 5 November 2004) and the Hague Programme: 10 priorities for the next 5 years, COM(2005) 184, OJ C 236, 24 September 2005; the Stockholm Programme (Council Conclusions of 10 and 11 December 2009) and the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme of 20 April 2010, COM(2010) 171; the Conclusions of the European Council (26 and 27 June 2014).

  4. See Briggs (2013), who states at p. 46: ‘Of course, the transitional phase is bound to be untidy, as transitional phases always are’ and Clarkson and Hill (2011), who state at p. 6: ‘It should be noted, however, that the European regimes are neither completely uniform nor comprehensive’.

  5. Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast), OJ L 351, 20 December 2012, p. 1.

  6. Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 012, 16 January 2001, p. 1.

  7. Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, OJ L 338, 23 December 2003, p. 1.

  8. Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings, OJ L 160, 30 June 2000, p. 1; Regulation (EU) No. 2015/848 of 20 May 2015 on Insolvency Proceedings (Recast), OJ L 141, 5 June 2015, p. 19.

  9. Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, OJ L 7, 10 January 2009, p. 1.

  10. Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession, OJ L 201, 27 July 2012, p. 107.

  11. Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, OJ L 143, 30 April 2004, p. 15.

  12. Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, OJ L 399, 30 December 2006, p. 1. This Regulation has recently been amended by Regulation (EU) No. 2015/2421 of 16 December 2015 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, OJ L 341, 24 December 2015, p. 1. The amendments will take effect on 14 July 2017.

  13. Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, OJ L 199, 31 July 2007, p. 1. This Regulation has recently been amended by Regulation (EU) No. 2015/2421 of 16 December 2015 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, OJ L 341, 24 December 2015, p. 1. The amendments will take effect on 14 July 2017.

  14. Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014 of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 189, 27 June 2014, p. 59.

  15. Regulation (EC) No. 1393/2007 of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1348/2000, OJ L 324, 10 December 2007, p. 79.

  16. 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, OJ L 174, 27 June 2001, p. 1.

  17. For Brussels I: CJEU Case C-412/98 Group Josi Reinsurance Company SA v. Universal General Insurance Company (UGIC) [2000] ECR I-5925; Case C-281/02 Owusu v. Jackson [2005] ECR I-1383. For Brussels II bis: CJEU Case C-68/07 Sundelind Lopez v. Lopez Lizazo [2007] ECR I-10403. For the Insolvency Regulation: CJEU Case C-328/12 Schmid v. Hertel, ECLI:EU:C:2014:6; Case C-295/13 H v. HK, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2410.

  18. For a more in-depth discussion of these issues, see Kruger (2008); Nuyts and Watté (2005).

  19. Exclusive bases of jurisdiction and forum clauses.

  20. Art. 14 French Civil Code.

  21. See, inter alia, Nadelmann (1967); von Mehren (1981); Baumgartner (2012), pp. 574 and 588; Franzina (2014).

  22. See the Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation of 14 December 2010 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast), COM(2010) 748 and the Commission’s Green Paper of 21 April 2009, COM(2009) 175. See also Borrás (2012); Franzina (2014).

  23. See for instance Borrás (2012); Layton (2012); Hausmann (2012), pp. 21–27. See also Nuyts’s study on residual jurisdiction and the Hess/Pfeiffer/Schlosser Report of 2008 on the Brussels I Regulation (the Heidelberg Report).

  24. See the Report by the European Parliament, A7-0320/2012 of 15 October 2012.

  25. Nuyts and Watté (2005); Kruger (2008); Nuyts (2007).

  26. Art. 24 Brussels I bis.

  27. Arts. 6, 18(1) and 21(1) Brussels I bis.

  28. Art. 4 of Brussels I (2001 version) did not provide an exception for consumer and employee plaintiffs in the EU.

  29. Art. 25 Brussels I bis.

  30. See Art. 23 Brussels I (2001 version).

  31. Arts. 4 and 6 Brussels I bis.

  32. CJEU Case C-281/02 Owusu v. Jackson [2005] ECR I-1383. See also Francq (2014), pp. 113–117.

  33. Full text available at the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law: http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=98.

  34. See http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status2&cid=98.

  35. Ibid.

  36. Layton (2012), p. 79.

  37. Francq (2014), p. 109.

  38. Layton (2012), p. 78.

  39. Art. 33 Brussels I bis. See also Franzina (2014), pp. 65–68.

  40. Now in Art. 29 Brussels I bis.

  41. See also Rogerson (2012), p. 119, stating that the fact that the rule applies only if the third State court was seised first is ‘extremely regrettable and must be amended’.

  42. This is an effect of the Owusu judgment. See also Rogerson (2012), p. 112. For an analysis of the situation and questions prior to the judgment, see Fentiman (2005).

  43. See CJEU Case C-129/92 Owens Bank v. Bracco [1994] ECR I-117.

  44. This is a result of Arts. 6 and 7 Brussels II bis, as clarified by the CJEU in Case C-68/07 Sundelind Lopez v. Lopez Lizazo [2007] ECR I-10403.

  45. Art. 3 Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000 and Art. 3 Insolvency Regulation 2015/848.

  46. CJEU Case C-328/12 Schmid v. Hertel, ECLI:EU:C:2014:6.

  47. CJEU Case C-295/13 H v. HK, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2410.

  48. CJEU Case C-281/02 Owusu v. Jackson [2005] ECR I-1383.

  49. CJEU Case C-68/07 Sundelind Lopez v. Lopez Lizazo [2007] ECR I-10403.

  50. CJEU Case C-328/12 Schmid v. Hertel, ECLI:EU:C:2014:6.

  51. Recital 32 of the Order for Payment and Recital 38 of the Small Claims Procedure Regulation. The peculiar position of Denmark is discussed in the last section of this article (see Sect. 5.2 below).

  52. Art. 2(1) Order for Payment Regulation and Art. 2(1) Small Claims Procedure Regulation. The new Regulation 2015/2421 amending these Regulations has not substantially changed these rules.

  53. Arts. 2 and 3 Payment Order Regulation; Arts. 2 and 3 Small Claims Regulation.

  54. The material scope of this Regulation is discussed in more detail in Sect. 2.3 below.

  55. Art. 2 European Account Preservation Order Regulation.

  56. Art. 3 European Account Preservation Order Regulation.

  57. Art. 1(1) Brussels I Regulation (1347/2000, replaced by Brussels II bis).

  58. Art. 1(1) and 1(2) Brussels II bis, as well as Recital 5 of this Regulation.

  59. Art. 1(2) Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000; Art. 1(2) Insolvency Regulation 848/2015.

  60. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast) of 14 December 2010, COM(2010) 748.

  61. See Art. 37(3) and Recital 23 of the Commission’s Proposal.

  62. With respect to class actions, see Bariatti (2012), p. 328. With respect to personality rights, see Frigo (2012), p. 342.

  63. Art. 45(1)(a) Brussel I bis as opposed to para. 3.1.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Proposal; see also Frigo (2012), p. 342.

  64. Arts. 1(2)(d), 29(4) and 33(3) Brussels I bis; Recitals 11 and 20. See also the Explanatory Memorandum (1.2 and 3.1) of COM(2010) 748; Hess/Pfeiffer/Schlosser Heidelberg Report (2008), paras. 31-135.

  65. See Art. 1(2)(d) Brussels I bis.

  66. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) (the ‘New York Convention’).

  67. See the Explanatory Statement in document A7-0320/2012 of 15 October 2012.

  68. Van Houtte (2005); Dickinson (2011), p. 17; Kindler (2012).

  69. See CJEU Case C-185/07 Allianz SpA and Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA v. West Tankers Inc [2009] ECR I-663, which has sparked much debate. See also Consolo and Stella (2012); Harris and Lein (2012); Menétrey and Racine (2014).

  70. Hess/Pfeiffer/Schlosser Report (2008).

  71. CJEU Case C-185/07 Allianz SpA and Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA v. West Tankers Inc [2009] ECR I-663.

  72. CJEU Case C-536/13 Gazprom, ECLI:EU:C:2015:316.

  73. Art. 1(2) Brussels I bis.

  74. CJEU Cases C-190/89 Rich v. Società Italiana Impianti [1991] ECR I-3855 and C-391/95 Van Uden Maritime v. Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line [1998] ECR I-7091.

  75. Art. 1 European Account Preservation Order Regulation.

  76. Art. 1(2) European Account Preservation Order Regulation.

  77. Art. 35 Brussels I bis.

  78. CJEU Case C-14/08 Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL [2009] ECR I-5439; joined Cases C-226/13, C-245/13, C-247/13 and C-578/13 Fahnenbrock (and others), ECLI:EU:C:2015:383.

  79. CJEU Case C-391/95 Van Uden [1998] ECR I-7091 and Case C-99/96 Mietz [1999] ECR I-2277.

  80. Art. 20 Brussels II bis.

  81. I am not aware of any legal system that would allow provisional measures for reasons other than urgency. Legal systems impose this requirement as a filter to allow some cases into a fast lane. Allowing any case into the fast lane without any filter would lead to the fast lane no longer being fast.

  82. Art. 20(2) Brussels II bis.

  83. Art. 14 Maintenance Regulation; Art. 19 Succession Regulation.

  84. See also Borrás Report (1998), at paras. 58–59.

  85. See Art. 2 Brussels I bis, stating that the term ‘judgment’ excludes provisional and protective measures for purposes of the section on recognition and enforcement.

  86. See Art. 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, referring to the principle of the mutual recognition of judgments and decisions as the basis for judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications. See also Meeusen (2007).

  87. Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, available at http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=133. This Protocol is incorporated in the Maintenance Regulation (see Art. 15) and thus in EU law: Council Decision of 30 November 2009 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, OJ L 331, 16 December 2009, p. 17.

  88. See Recitals 11 and 12 of the Council Decision to conclude the Protocol (n. 87 above).

  89. Arts. 28–32 Brussels II bis; Arts. 43–49 Succession Regulation; Arts. 26–31 Maintenance Regulation.

  90. Arts. 22–23 Brussels II bis; Art. 40 Succession Regulation; Art. 24 Maintenance Regulation.

  91. Art. 26 Brussels II bis; Art. 41 Succession Regulation; Art. 42 Maintenance Regulation.

  92. Art. 24 Brussels II bis. This is not explicitly stated in the Succession and Maintenance Regulations, but is understood under the prohibition of a review as to the substance. As these Regulations contain completely unified rules on jurisdiction, the idea is that there will be no reason to refuse recognition and enforcement on this basis.

  93. Art. 25 Brussels II bis. This is not explicitly stated in the Succession and Maintenance Regulations, but is understood under the prohibition of a review as to the substance. The Succession Regulation contains completely unified rules on the applicable law, and the idea is that there will be no reason to refuse recognition and enforcement on this basis. (The Maintenance Regulation does not contain unified rules on the applicable law for the Member States that fall under this exequatur regime.)

  94. See the Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation of 14 December 2010 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast), COM(2010) 748. See also Hess/Pfeiffer/Schlosser Heidelberg Report (2008); Arenas (2010); Cuniberti and Rueda (2011).

  95. Art. 46 Brussels I bis.

  96. Art. 45 Brussels I bis. At this stage the court may not consider grounds for refusing the actual enforcement that may exist under national law as permitted by Art. 41(2). This provision applies only at the stage of actual enforcement and includes matters such as set-off. See Kramer (2013).

  97. Art. 17 Maintenance Regulation.

  98. Arts. 40–42 Brussels II bis.

  99. The studies on Brussels II bis ordered by the Commission have not yet been published. The case law by the Court of Justice EU gives an indication that the abolition of exequatur does not function smoothly: see for instance CJEU Case C-195/08 PPU Rinau [2008] ECR-5271; Case C-211/10 PPU Povse v. Alpago [2010] ECR I-6673; Case C-491/10 PPU Aguirre Zarraga v. Pelz [2010] ECR I-14247.

  100. Arts. 17–22 of the Maintenance Regulation provide no legal basis for requesting a declaration of enforceability. See also Couwenberg (2013), p. 192.

  101. Art. 40 Brussels I bis, introducing the rules on the abolition of exequatur, explicitly mentions in para. 2 that ‘[t]he provisions of this Section shall not prevent a holder of parental responsibility from seeking recognition and enforcement of a judgment in accordance with the provisions in Sections 1 and 2 of this Chapter.’ An illustration of this scenario is found in CJEU Case C-211/10 PPU Povse v. Alpago [2010] ECR I-6673.

  102. Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, OJ L 143, 30 April 2004, p. 15.

  103. Brijs (2010), p. 63; de Leval (1998), p. 1.

  104. Art. 41 Brussels I bis. See, with the same effect, Art. 47 Brussels II bis, Art. 41 Maintenance Regulation, Art. 46 Succession Regulation.

  105. For a comparative survey of enforcement, see de Leval (1998). Although this survey is already dated, it gives a good idea of the difference that can exist between national systems.

  106. Art. 41(1) Brussels I bis.

  107. Art. 39 Maintenance Regulation.

  108. Art. 41(2) Brussels I bis.

  109. See 4.6.1.5 and 4.7.4 of Annex I to Brussels I bis (Certificate concerning a judgment in civil and commercial matters). These sections make provision for the court of origin to fill in the exact amount of interests, or the rate of calculation plus the dates from and until when interests are due.

  110. Art. 54 Brussels I bis.

  111. On the last topic, see Fallon (2009); Fallon and Kruger (2012–2013).

  112. Art. 5(1) Treaty on European Union states: ‘The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality’.

  113. Art. 5(3) Treaty on European Union.

  114. Art. 5(4) Treaty on European Union.

  115. Protocol No. 2 (of the Treaty on European Union) on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality.

  116. Art. 5 of Protocol No. 2.

  117. See the justification by the Commission in its Proposal for the Recast of Brussels I, COM(2010) 748.

  118. Para. 3.2 on Subsidiarity in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments in matters of succession and the creation of a European Certificate of Succession, COM(2009) 154 final – 2009/0157 (COD).

  119. See Sect. 2.3 above.

  120. Recital 19 Brussels II bis.

  121. Art. 20 Treaty on European Union.

  122. This is the case for measures in international family law, Art. 81(3) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  123. Regulation (EU) No. 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (‘Rome III’), OJ L 199, 31 July 2007, p. 40. This Regulation is in force in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain.

  124. Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes, of 2 March 2016, COM(2016) 106.

  125. Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships, of 2 March 2016, COM(2016) 107.

  126. See Protocol No. 22 to the Treaty on European Union on the Position of Denmark. This Protocol allows Denmark to convert its position into the opt-in/opt-out position that the United Kingdom and Ireland have. The Danes held a referendum on the issue on 3 December 2015, but 53.1 % voted not to change the current position: uk.reuters.com, 3 December 2015.

  127. Such treaties exist for the Brussels I (bis), the Service and Maintenance Regulations.

  128. See Protocol No. 21 to the Treaty on European Union on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice. These two Member States have so far opted into most of the legislation in the field of international civil procedure. They did not opt into the Succession Regulation (Recital 82). The Maintenance Regulation is only partially applicable in the United Kingdom (i.e. the procedural parts, but not the part on the applicable law). The United Kingdom opted out of the European Account Preservation Order (Recital 50).

References

  • Arenas R (2010) Abolition of exequatur: problems and solutions. Mutual recognition, mutual trust and recognition of foreign documents: too many words in the sea. Yearb Priv Int Law 12:351–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Bariatti S (2012) Recognition and enforcement in the EU of judicial decisions rendered upon class actions: the case of U.E. and Dutch judgments. In: Pocar F, Viarengo I, Villata FC (eds) Recasting Brussels I. Cedam, Milan, pp 319–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner SP (2012) Changes in the European Union’s regime of recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments and transnational litigation in the United States. Southwest J Int Law 18:567–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrás A (1998) Explanatory report on the Convention, drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters. OJ C 221, 16 July 1998, p 27

  • Borrás A (2012) The application of the Brussels I Regulation to defendants domiciled in third states: from the EGPIL to the Commission Proposal. In: Lein E (ed) The Brussels I recast uncovered. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 57–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs A (2013) The conflict of laws, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brijs S (2010) Nieuwe Europese uitvoerbare titels: wie ziet het bos nog door de bomen? In: Dirix E (ed) Recente ontwikkelingen insolventierecht, beslagrecht en zekerheden (Themis reeks). Die Keure, Bruges, pp 59–96

  • Clarkson CMV, Hill J (2011) The conflict of laws, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Consolo C, Stella M (2012) Brussels I Regulation amendment proposals and arbitration. In: Pocar F, Viarengo I, Villata FC (eds) Recasting Brussels I. Cedam, Milan, pp 37–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Couwenberg I (2013) Brussel I-Vo: quo vadis exequatur? In: Centrum voor Beroepsvervolmaking in de Rechten (ed) CBR Jaarboek 2012–2013. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 143–210

  • Cuniberti G, Rueda I (2011) Abolition of exequatur addressing the Commission’s concerns. Rabels Z 75:286–316

    Google Scholar 

  • De Leval G (1998) Aperçu du droit de l’exécution dans les états membres de l’Union Européenne. L’Huissier de Justice/De Gerechtsdeurwaarder, pp 1–27 (this publication is bilingual French/Dutch)

  • Dickinson A (2011) The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast) (‘Brussels I bis’ Regulation), Note for Directorate General for Internal Policies. Policy Department C: Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2011/453200/IPOL-JURI_NT(2011)453200_EN.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2016

  • Fallon M (2009) L’européanisation du droit international privé: une codification en marche. In: Erauw J, Taelman P (eds) Nieuw internationaal privaatrecht: meer Europees, meer globaal. Kluwer, Mechelen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallon M, Kruger T (2012–2013) The spatial scope of the EU’s rules on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments: from bilateral modus to unilateral universality? Yearb Priv Int Law 14:1–35

  • Fentiman R (2005) National law and the European jurisdiction regime. In: Nuyts A, Watté N (eds) International civil litigation in Europe and relations with third states. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 83–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Francq S (2014) Les clauses d’élection de for dans le nouveau règlement Bruxelles I bis. In: Guinchard E (ed) Le nouveau règlement Bruxelles II bis. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 107–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzina P (2014) L’universalisation partielle du régime Européen de la compétence en matière civile et commerciale dans le règlement Bruxelles I bis: une mise en perspective. In: Guinchard E (ed) Le nouveau règlement Bruxelles II bis. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 39–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Frigo M (2012) Recognition and enforcement of judgments on matters relating to personality rights and the recast proposal of the Brussels I Regulation. In: Pocar F, Viarengo I, Villata FC (eds) Recasting Brussels I. Cedam, Milan, pp 341–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris J, Lein E (2012) A neverending story? Arbitration and Brussels I: the recast. In: Lein E (ed) The Brussels I recast uncovered. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 31–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann R (2012) The scope of the Brussels I Regulation. In: Pocar F, Viarengo I, Villata FC (eds) Recasting Brussels I. Cedam, Milan, pp 3–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B, Pfeiffer T, Schlosser P (2008) The Brussels I-Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. CH Beck, Munich (also known as the ‘Heidelberg Report’). http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_application_brussels_1_en.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2016

  • Kindler P (2012) Torpedo actions and the interface between Brussels I and international commercial arbitration. In: Pocar F, Viarengo I, Villata FC (eds) Recasting Brussels I. Cedam, Milan, pp 57–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer X (2013) Cross-border enforcement and the Brussels I-bis Regulation: towards a new balance between mutual trust and national control over fundamental rights. Neth Int Law Rev 30:343–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger T (2008) Civil jurisdiction rules of the EU and their impact on third states. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton A (2012) The Brussels I Regulation in the international legal order: some reflections on reflectiveness. In: Lein E (ed) The Brussels I recast uncovered. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 75–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Meeusen J (2007) Instrumentalisation of private international law in the European Union: towards a European conflicts revolution? Eur J Migr Law 9:287–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menétrey M, Racine J-B (2014) L’arbitrage et le règlement Bruxelles I bis. In: Guinchard E (ed) Le nouveau règlement Bruxelles II bis. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 13–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadelmann KH (1967) Jurisdictionally improper fora in treaties on recognition and enforcement of judgments. The Common Market draft. Columbia Law Rev 67:995–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuyts A (2007) Study on residual jurisdiction (review of the Member States’ rules concerning the ‘residual jurisdiction’ of their courts in civil and commercial matters pursuant to the Brussels I and II Regulations). http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_residual_jurisdiction_en.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2016

  • Nuyts A, Watté N (eds) (2005) International civil litigation in Europe and relations with third states. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson P (2012) Lis pendens and third states: the Commission’s proposed changes to the Brussels I Regulation. In: Lein E (ed) The Brussels I recast uncovered. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 103–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Houtte H (2005) Why not include arbitration in the Brussels Jurisdiction Regulation? Arbitr Int 21:509–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Mehren AT (1981) Recognition and enforcement of sister-state judgments: reflection on general theory and current practice in the European Economic Community and the United States. Columbia Law Rev 81:1044–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Personal Rights and Property Rights Research Group, Faculty of Law, University of Antwerp, 23 Venus Street, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Thalia Kruger (Honorary Research Associate)

  2. University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Thalia Kruger (Honorary Research Associate)

Authors
  1. Thalia Kruger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thalia Kruger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kruger, T. The Disorderly Infiltration of EU Law in Civil Procedure. Neth Int Law Rev 63, 1–22 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-016-0053-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-016-0053-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation