Advertisement

Mutual Trust in Civil Justice Cooperation in the EU

  • Eva Storskrubb
Chapter

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Bogdan, M. (2007). The Brussels/Lugano lis pendens rule and the ‘Italian torpedo’. Scandinavian Studies in Law, 51, 89–97.Google Scholar
  4. Cambien, N. (2017). Mutual recognition and mutual trust in the internal market. European Papers, 2(1), 93–116.Google Scholar
  5. Chalmers, D., et al. (2014). European Union law (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dori, A. (2015). The EU Justice Scoreboard: Judicial evaluation as a new governance tool. Max Planck Institute Luxemburg Working Paper, no. 2.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Emaus, J. (2017). The interaction between mutual trust, mutual recognition and fundamental rights. European Papers, 2(1), 117–140.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2009). Green Paper on the review of Council Regulation. (EC) 44/2001, COM(2009) 175, Brussels, 21 April 2009.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Frackowiak-Adamska, A. (2015). Time for a European ‘full faith and credit clause’. Common Market Law Review, 52(1), 191–218.Google Scholar
  17. Hartley, T. (2015). Anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration: West Tankers still afloat. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 64(4), 965–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hartnell, E. (2002). EUstitia: Institutionalising justice in the European Union. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 23(1), 65–138.Google Scholar
  19. Hazelhurst, M. (2017). Free movement of civil judgments in the European Union and the right to a fair trial. Springer.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Kramer, X. E. (2013). Procedure matters: Construction and deconstructivism in European civil procedure. Erasmus Law Lectures, no. 33.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Nicolaïdis, K. (2007). Trusting the poles? Constructing Europe through mutual recognition. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(5), 682–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Paul, J. R. (2008). The transformation of international comity. Duke Law and Contemporary Problems, 71(19), 19–38.Google Scholar
  33. Prechal, S. (2017). Mutual trust before the court of justice of the European Union. European Papers, 2(1), 75–92.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Schmidt, S. (2007). Mutual recognition as a new mode of governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(5), 667–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Storskrubb, E. (2008). Civil procedure and EU law: A policy area uncovered. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. Storskrubb, E. (2016c). Gazprom OAO v. Lietuvos Republika: A victory for arbitration? European Law Review, 41(4), 578–589.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. Whytock, C. (2014). Faith and scepticism in private international law: Trust, governance, politics, and foreign judgments. Erasmus Law Journal, 3, 113–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Storskrubb
    • 1
  1. 1.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations