Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Trust in the European Union in Challenging Times pp 159–180Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Mutual Trust in Civil Justice Cooperation in the EU

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Storskrubb analyses trust between national legal systems in the context of the European Union’s policy for judicial cooperation in civil matters. The overarching and challenging question that arises is whether protection of individual rights can be sacrificed for a presumption of trust. The answer, according to the author, has implications for the broader legitimacy of the Union. Given the time it takes for legal cultures to establish confidence among institutions and actors, trust in the EU will corrode if confidence in mutual recognition is simply presumed to exist. In Storskrubb’s view, member states are not yet ready for a full harmonisation of legal procedures. Nevertheless, mutual trust would benefit from a dialogue on best practices to achieve effective legal systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term ‘civil justice’ can also be held to encompass further and broader civil procedural developments in the EU such as the procedural rules for consumer or competition matters, but the focus in this chapter is directed at cross-border civil litigation (Storskrubb, 2017a, 2017b).

  2. 2.

    See also Weller (2015) on the development of recognition of foreign judgments and the tools for retaining control in traditional bilateral or multilateral private international law cooperation.

  3. 3.

    See Article 31 of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation.

  4. 4.

    An anti-suit injunction is issued against the party in question, in personam (Storskrubb, 2016c).

  5. 5.

    See Articles 29 and 34 in the Brussels Convention. In relation to jurisdiction, the court of enforcement may only refuse enforcement if the judgment of the court of origin conflicts with exclusive grounds of jurisdiction or special protective grounds of jurisdiction has been applied correctly, according to Article 28 of the Convention.

  6. 6.

    Under the system of the Regulation, recognition and enforcement are two separate concepts. Recognition entails that a judgment can be directly invoked before the authorities of another EU member state without any special procedure of recognition being required. Nevertheless, for enforcement, a separate procedure has formerly been required under the Regulation. The grounds for refusal are the same for both. When the term ‘mutual recognition of judgments’ is used to denote a regulatory method, it may be used in a more generic sense and both concepts may be included.

  7. 7.

    See regulations (EC) No 805/2004, [2004] OJ L 143/15; (EC) No 1896/2006, [2006] OJ L 399/1; (EC) No 861/2007, [2007] OJ L 199/1; and (EU) No 655/2014, [2014] OJ L 189/59.

  8. 8.

    See regulations (EC) No 2201/2003, [2001] OJ L 12/1; and (EC) No 4/2009, [2009] OJ L 7/1.

  9. 9.

    In addition, case Pebros Servizi Srl v Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd, C-511/14, has confirmed that the notion of ‘uncontested’ in the Regulation is to be assessed autonomously.

  10. 10.

    See, for example, case C-470/07.

  11. 11.

    See inter alia case C-681/13 and C-559/14.

  12. 12.

    See case C-470/07.

  13. 13.

    See case C-61/10.

  14. 14.

    See case C-559/14.

  15. 15.

    See also cases C-211/10 and C-195/08.

  16. 16.

    See case C-491/10.

  17. 17.

    The European Law Institute (ELI) and Unidroit commenced a project in 2014 on European Principles of Civil Procedure (see: http://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/projects/). The European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee had, at the time of writing, decided to prepare its own report on the project and has also issues an own initiative report on minimum procedural standards. The European Commission has also initiated a study on national procedural laws and practices.

References

  • Andersson, T. (2005). Harmonization and mutual recognition: How to handle mutual distrust. In M. Andenas, B. Hess, & P. Oberhammer (Eds.), Enforcement agency practice in Europe. British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blobel, F., & Späth, P. (2005). The tale of multilateral trust and the European law of civil procedure. European Law Review, 30, 528–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, M. (2007). The Brussels/Lugano lis pendens rule and the ‘Italian torpedo’. Scandinavian Studies in Law, 51, 89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cambien, N. (2017). Mutual recognition and mutual trust in the internal market. European Papers, 2(1), 93–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D., et al. (2014). European Union law (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dori, A. (2015). The EU Justice Scoreboard: Judicial evaluation as a new governance tool. Max Planck Institute Luxemburg Working Paper, no. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Düsterhaus, D. (2015). Judicial coherence in the area of freedom, security and justice—Squaring mutual trust with effective judicial protection. Review of European Administrative Law, 8(2), 151–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Düsterhaus, D. (2017). In the court(s) we trust—A procedural solution to the mutual trust dilemma. Freedom Security & Justice: European Legal Studies, 1(1), 26–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emaus, J. (2017). The interaction between mutual trust, mutual recognition and fundamental rights. European Papers, 2(1), 117–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2009). Green Paper on the review of Council Regulation. (EC) 44/2001, COM(2009) 175, Brussels, 21 April 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2010). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. COM(2010) 748 final, Brussels, 14 December 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2016). Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast). COM(2016) 411 final, Brussels, 30 June 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2017). The 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2017) 167 final, Brussels, 10 April 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council. (1999). Presidency conclusions, Tampere European Council, 15–16 October. Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21059/tampere-european-council-presidency-conclusions.pdf

  • European Council. (2014). Extract from the 26–27 June 2014 European Council Conclusions concerning the area of freedom, security and justice and some related horizontal issues. OJ C 240/13, 24 July 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frackowiak-Adamska, A. (2015). Time for a European ‘full faith and credit clause’. Common Market Law Review, 52(1), 191–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, T. (2015). Anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration: West Tankers still afloat. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 64(4), 965–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartnell, E. (2002). EUstitia: Institutionalising justice in the European Union. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 23(1), 65–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelhurst, M. (2017). Free movement of civil judgments in the European Union and the right to a fair trial. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, B., & Pfeiffer, T. (2011). Interpretation of the public policy exception as referred to in EU instruments of private international and procedural law. Study commissioned by the European Parliament, PE453.189. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2011/453189/IPOL-JURI_ET(2011)453189_EN.pdf

  • Jänterä-Jareborg, M. (2016). The Nordic input on the EU’s cooperation in family and succession law: Exporting Union law through ‘Nordic exceptions’. In B. Hess, M. Bergström, & E. Storskrubb (Eds.), EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlook. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, X. E. (2011). Cross-border enforcement in the EU: Mutual trust versus fair trial? Towards principles of European civil procedure. International Journal of Procedural Law, 2, 202–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, X. E. (2013). Procedure matters: Construction and deconstructivism in European civil procedure. Erasmus Law Lectures, no. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavenex, S. (2007). Mutual recognition and the monopoly of force: Limits of the single market analogy. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(5), 762–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, K. (2015). The principle of mutual recognition in the area of freedom, security and justice. Lecture, 30 January 2015. Retrieved from http://1exagu1grkmq3k572418odoooym.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-Principle-of-Mutual-Recognition-in-the-area-of-Freedom-Security-and-Justice.pdf

  • Linton, M. (2016). Abolition of exequatur, all the name of mutual trust. In B. Hess, M. Bergström, & E. Storskrubb (Eds.), EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlook. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marguery, T. (2017). Je t’aime moi non plus the Avotiņš v. Latvia judgment: An answer from the ECrtHR to the CJEU. Review of European Administrative Law, 10(1), 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas, V. (2012). The limits of mutual trust in Europe’s area of freedom, security and justice: From automatic inter-state cooperation to the slow emergence of the individual. Yearbook of European Law, 31(1), 319–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moraru, M. (2016). ‘Mutual trust’ from the perspective of national courts: A test in creative legal thinking. In D. Gerard & E. Brouwer (Eds.), Mapping mutual trust: Understanding and informing the role of mutual trust in EU law. EUI Working Paper, no. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaïdis, K. (2007). Trusting the poles? Constructing Europe through mutual recognition. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(5), 682–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Official Journal of the European Communities. (2001). Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. 2001/C 12/02, 15 January 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, J. R. (2008). The transformation of international comity. Duke Law and Contemporary Problems, 71(19), 19–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal, S. (2017). Mutual trust before the court of justice of the European Union. European Papers, 2(1), 75–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Requejo Isidro, M. (2016). On the abolition of exequatur. In B. Hess, M. Bergström, & E. Storskrubb (Eds.), EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlook. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-H. (2017). Mutual recognition. In P. Koutrakos & J. Snell (Eds.), Research handbook on the law of the EU’s internal market. Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S. (2007). Mutual recognition as a new mode of governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(5), 667–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvestri, E. (2014). Goals of civil justice when nothing works: The case of Italy. In A. Uzelac (Ed.), Goals of civil justice and civil procedure in contemporary judicial systems. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell, J. (2014). The internal market and philosophies of integration. In C. Barnard & S. Peers (Eds.), European Union law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell, J. (2016). The single market: Does mutual trust suffice? In D. Gerard & E. Brouwer (Eds.), Mapping mutual trust: Understanding and informing the role of mutual trust in EU law. EUI Working Paper, no. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb, E. (2008). Civil procedure and EU law: A policy area uncovered. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb, E. (2011). Ordre public in EU civil justice—Lessons from arbitration? In Festskrift till Gustaf Möller—Juridisk Tidskrift Finland, no. 2–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb, E. (2016a). Mutual recognition as a governance strategy for civil justice? In B. Hess, M. Bergström, & E. Storskrubb (Eds.), EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlook. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb, E. (2016b). Mutual trust and the limits of abolishing exequatur in civil justice. In D. Gerard & E. Brouwer (Eds.), Mapping mutual trust: Understanding and informing the role of mutual trust in EU law. EUI Working Paper, no. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb, E. (2016c). Gazprom OAO v. Lietuvos Republika: A victory for arbitration? European Law Review, 41(4), 578–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb, E. (2017a). Civil justice: Constitutional and regulatory issues revisited. In M. Fletcher, E. Herlin-Karnell, & C. Matera (Eds.), The European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb, E. (2017b). Några tankar om hur EU-rättens tentakler genomtränger processrätten. In Festskrift till Dan Frände—Juridisk Tidskrift Finland, no. 2–4 (pp. 360–383).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, M. (2015). Mutual trust: In search of the future of European Union private international law. Journal of Private International Law, 11(1), 64–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whytock, C. (2014). Faith and scepticism in private international law: Trust, governance, politics, and foreign judgments. Erasmus Law Journal, 3, 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Eva Storskrubb

Authors
  1. Eva Storskrubb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt

  2. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Niklas Bremberg

  3. Department of Government, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Anna Michalski

  4. University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    Lars Oxelheim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Storskrubb, E. (2019). Mutual Trust in Civil Justice Cooperation in the EU. In: Bakardjieva Engelbrekt, A., Bremberg, N., Michalski, A., Oxelheim, L. (eds) Trust in the European Union in Challenging Times. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73857-4_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation