Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Open issues concerning the non-mandatory character of the Cross-Border Taking of Evidence Regulation

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

The CJEU has already confirmed that the European Evidence Regulation (EER) is not of a mandatory character and that a court may rely on its national law in order to obtain evidence located abroad. Nevertheless, numerous dilemmas still exist. In the author’s view the CJEU’s findings in regard to the parties examined as witnesses can be extended to proper witnesses although this is still controversial concerning the question whether coercive measures may be used. The author is also of the opinion that it is not possible to organise cross-border videoconferences without resort to the EER, and finds it questionable whether a videoconference with a party located abroad, but not for purposes of taking evidence, falls within the scope of the EER. Finally, the problem is addressed as to whether the fair trial requirements oblige the court to apply the other available methods of cross border taking of evidence if the first chosen method fails.

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. 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 [2001] OJ L 174/1.

  2. Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, concluded 18 March 1970.

  3. Case C-283/09 Weryński, EU:C:2011:85.

  4. Cf. Huber [9], p. 116 and 120; Knöfel [11], p. 234.

  5. Case C-170/11 Lippens, EU:C:2012:540.

  6. Case C-332/11 ProRail, EU:C:2013:87.

  7. On the non-exclusivity of the EER, see: Huber [9], p. 118; Hess [7], p. 464; von Hein in Rauscher [17], EG-BewVO, Art. 1, No. 18.

  8. Regulation (EC) No. 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [2007] OJ L 324/79.

  9. Case C-170/11 Lippens, EU:C:2012:540. Such view had been adopted already by Huber [9], p. 118.

  10. Case C-332/11 ProRail, EU:C:2013:87.

  11. For a typical view, see: Bach [3], p. 315. Cf. von Hein in Rauscher [17], Art. 1 EG-BewVO, No. 25; Leipold [12], p. 97; Hau [6], p. 228.

  12. Huber [9], p. 118; Hau [6], p. 229; von Hein in Rauscher [17], Art. 1 EG-BewVO, No. 25; Betetto [5], p. 143; with reservations, Leipold [12], p. 97. On the contrary, the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Order of 29.11.2012, 8 W 102/12) held that it can appoint an expert to conduct an investigation concerning construction defects at a private house in the Netherlands without giving notice or gaining the approval of the Dutch authorities.

  13. Case C-332/11 ProRail, EU:C:2013:87. For a positive evaluation, see: Slonina [18], p. 430.

  14. For a critical view, see: Bach [3], p. 316.

  15. Case C-332/11 ProRail, EU:C:2013:87.

  16. Opinion of AG Jääskinen delivered on 24 May 2012, C-170/11 Lippens, EU:C:2012:311, para. 63.

  17. For a restrictive view, see: McGuire [13], p. 844; Kern [10], p. 51.

  18. Accord, e.g. McGuire [13], p. 845.

  19. If a witness is under the control of a party (e.g. as its employee), it can be expected that the party can ensure the attendance of the witness. In many civil procedure national systems, if a witness who is not a party, but who is under the control of a party, fails to attend a hearing, and coercive measures are then applied against the party, the court would usually draw adverse inferences. At least for such cases there should be no doubts that positions reached in Lippens can be extended to them.

  20. See, e.g. Trocker [19], 268.

  21. McGuire [13], p. 842, Opinion of AG Jääskinen delivered on 24 May 2012, C-170/11 Lippens, para. 29.

  22. E.g. Bach [2], p. 833; von Hein in Rauscher [17], Art. 1 EG-BewVO No. 20; Betetto [5], I-142, Nagel/Gottwald [14], para. 8, No. 7; McGuire [13], pp. 842–844. For a different opinion, see: Hess/Müller [8], p. 176.

  23. Opinion of AG Jääskinen delivered on 24 May 2012, C-170/11 Lippens, EU:C:2012:311, para. 54.

  24. Opinion of AG Jääskinen delivered on 24 May 2012, C-170/11 Lippens, EU:C:2012:311, para. 65. See also McGuire [13], p. 844; Kern [10], p. 51, who conclude that the positions in ProRail concerning coercive measures cannot be extended to proper witnesses.

  25. For a critical view, see: Knöfel [11], p. 232; Kern [10], p. 50.

  26. Opinion of AG Jääskinen delivered on 24 May 2012, C-170/11 Lippens, EU:C:2012:311, para. 55.

  27. See, e.g. Besso [4], p. 72; Knöfel [11], p. 231 and the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH [16], pp. 1–10.

  28. On the need to adopt EU-uniform standards concerning cross-border taking of evidence in order to ensure proper safeguards for the persons concerned, see: Hess [7], p. 475.

  29. The Koper Court of Appeal (Višje sodišče v Kopru), Decision I Cp 1182/2005, 27.2.2007.

  30. BGH, Order (Beschluss), 24.7.2013-IV ZR 110/12.

  31. Case C-491/10 Aguirre Zarraga, EU:C:2010:828.

  32. Council 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, repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2000 [2003] OJ L 338/1.

  33. Notwithstanding a judgment of non-return pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (in casu: issued by a German court), any subsequent judgment that requires the return of the child issued by a court having jurisdiction on the merits under the Brussels II Regulation (in casu: the Spanish court) is directly enforceable, without any possibility to object to enforcement in the country of enforcement (Art. 11). Nevertheless, the court of origin must, prior to issuing the certificate of direct enforceability, examine whether certain conditions have been met—in particular whether the child had an opportunity to be heard (Art. 42).

  34. It is a different issue whether the abducting parent could ask for a “safe harbour order” when it comes to the enforcement of decisions ordering the return of the child. Safe harbour orders provide for arrangements whereby the child will return to a safe environment and that the abducting parent, if she is a primary carer, will be able to accompany him or her without exposing him or herself to criminal prosecution and arrest or, alternatively, to leave the country after having handed over the child. Another question is what measures should be adopted in the sphere of criminal proceedings. Initiating criminal proceedings against the abducting parent in the state of origin may namely, practically speaking, influence the decision-maker towards not returning the child. For the effectiveness of the return of the child, initiating criminal proceedings against the child abductor, pending the child’s return to the country of origin, is therefore advised against. See: the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH [15], p. 7.

  35. For such a view—and consequently for a not very strict differentiation between the examination of the party for purposes of evidence and the hearing of the party for the purpose of submitting further procedural material—see also von Hein in Rauscher [17], Art. 1 EG-BewVO at No. 15; Hess [7], p. 464.

  36. Case C-332/11 ProRail, EU:C:2013:87.

  37. Accord Hess [7], 474; von Hein in Rauscher [17], Art. 1 EG-Bew VO, No. 22. For a different view, see: Nagel/Gottwald [14], para. 8, No. 124.

  38. Case C-325/11 Alder, EU:C:2012:824.

  39. For an analysis of the Alder case (and its consequences for the national, in casu Greek, civil procedure), see Anthimos [1], pp. 3–34.

  40. Cf. Bach [2], p. 833.

References

  1. Anthimos, A.: Fictitious service of process in the EU. Czech Yearb. Int. Law 8, 3–34 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bach, I.: Kein obligatorischer Charakter der EuBeweisVO bei Vernehmung eines ausländischen Zeugen – Anmerkung zu EuGH, 6. September 2012, C-170/11 (Lippens). EuZW. 833-835 (2012)

  3. Bach, I.: Kein obligatorischer Charakter der EuBeweisVO bei grenzüberschreitendem Einsatz eines Sachverständigen – Anmerkung zu EuGH, 21. Februar 2013, C-332/11 (ProRail). EuZW, pp. 315–316 (2013)

  4. Besso, C.: Cooperation in the taking of evidence: the European attitude. Int. J. Proced. Law 2(1), 68–87 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Betetto, N.: Introduction and practical cases on Council Regulation (EC) No. 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. Eur. Leg. Forum 4, 137–144 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hau, W.: Grenzüberschreitende Beweisaufnahme im Europäischen Justizraum. ERA Forum 2, 224–231 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hess, B.: Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht. C.F. Múller, Heidelberg (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hess, B., Müller, A.: Die Verordnung 1206/01/EG zur Beweisaufnahme. Z. Ziv.proz. Int. 6, 149–178 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Huber, S.: Die Europäische Beweisaufnahmeverordnung (EuBVO) – Überwindung der traditionellen Souveränitätsvorbehalte? Z. Priv.r. Eur. Union (GPR) 1(3), 115–122 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kern, C.A.: Die ausländische Partei als Zeuge im Europäischen Beweisrecht, Anmerkung zu EuGH, 6.9.2012, Rs. C-170/11 (Lippens u.a./Kortekaas u.a.). Z. Priv.r. Eur. Union (GPR) 10(1), 49–52 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Knöfel, O.: Freier Beweistransfer oder ‘Exklusivität’ der Rechtshilfe in Zivilsachen. IPRax, Prax. Int. Priv.- Verfahr.r 3, 231–234 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Leipold, D.: Das neue Europaische Beweisrecht. Ritsumeikan Law Rev., Int. Ed. 20, 85–100 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  13. McGuire, M.: §23 Europäische Beweisaufnahmeverordnung. In: Leible, S., Terhechte, J.P. (eds.) Europäisches Rechtsschutz- und Verfahrensrecht, pp. 831–872. Nomos, Baden Baden (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nagel, H., Gottwald, P.: In: Internationales Zivilprozessrecht, Beck, München (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Permanent Bureau of the HCCH: Guide to Good Practice under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Part IV. Enforcement. The Hague (2010)

  16. Permanent Bureau of the HCCH: The Mandatory / Non-mandatory Character of the Evidence Regulation, Preliminary Document No. 10 of December 2008 for the attention of the Special Commission of February 2009 on the practical operation of the Hague Apostille, Service, Evidence and Access to Justice Conventions. The Hague (2008)

  17. Rauscher, T.: Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht. EG VollstrTitelVO, EG-MahnVO, EG-BagatellVO, EG-ZustVO2007, EG BewVO, EG-InsVO. Seillier Verlag, München (2010). 2010

    Google Scholar 

  18. Slonina, M.: Unmittelbarkeit statt Souveränität. Ecolex 5, 428–431 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Trocker, N.: From ALI–Unidroit Principles to common European rules on access to information and evidence? A preliminary outlook and some suggestions. Unif. Law Rev. 19(2), 239–291 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Aleš Galič

Authors
  1. Aleš Galič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleš Galič.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Galič, A. Open issues concerning the non-mandatory character of the Cross-Border Taking of Evidence Regulation. ERA Forum 18, 213–228 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-017-0475-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-017-0475-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation