Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union and the Right to a Fair Trial pp 345–412Cite as

Facilitating Enforcement of Civil Judgments Across European Union Member States

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 531 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses what an efficient EU mechanism for obtaining cross-border enforcement of a civil judgment (‘judgment import’) could look like. It discusses how to balance the judgment creditors’ right to enforcement with safeguards that should ensure that judgment debtors’ rights are respected. To this end, refusal grounds in the State of enforcement should be combined with an effective procedure for obtaining, in the Member State of origin, permission for cross-border enforcement. This chapter begins by identifying the requirements for an effective enforcement procedure that follow from the right to a fair trial. In then discusses the various mechanisms currently in force in EU legislation to determine which most effectively addresses these requirements. It concludes that a mechanism such as the European Enforcement Order, which relies on self-examination by the court of origin, is unlikely to effectively protect creditor’s and debtor’s rights. The chapter also contains a number of suggestions for improvement of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Maintenance Regulation and the uniform European procedures. On the Brussels II bis Regulation, it concludes that the child’s best interests, rather than the parents’ right to a fair trial, should be paramount

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   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
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.

    Conclusion to Part II.

  2. 2.

    Conclusion to Part II.

  3. 3.

    ECtHR Avotins v. Latvia, appl. no. 17502/07, 25 February 2014.

  4. 4.

    CJEU Case C-101/01 Criminal proceedings against Bodil Lindqvist ECLI:EU:C:2003:596.

  5. 5.

    CJEU Case C-399/11 Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal ECLI:EU:C:2013:107.

  6. 6.

    CJEU Case C-283/05 ASML Netherlands BV v Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS) ECLI:EU:C:2006:787; Fitchen (2015) pp. 459–460.

  7. 7.

    Section 2.3.2.1, in relation to the Brussels I bis Regulation.

  8. 8.

    ECtHR Hornsby v. Greece, appl. no. 18357/91 ECHR 1997-II.

  9. 9.

    ECtHR Saccoccia v. Austria, appl. no. 69917/01, 18 December 2008.

  10. 10.

    ECtHR Hornsby v. Greece, para 57.

  11. 11.

    ECtHR Hornsby v. Greece, paras 61–62.

  12. 12.

    ECtHR Hornsby v. Greece, para 63.

  13. 13.

    ECtHR Hornsby v. Greece, paras 73–76; see for a discussion 4.3.6 of this thesis.

  14. 14.

    ECtHR Hornsby v. Greece, para 76; the Court cites ECtHR Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 2), appl. no. 16970/90 ECHR 1998-I and ECtHR Valová and others v. Slovakia, appl. no. 44925/98.

  15. 15.

    The Court cites ECtHR Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), appl. no. 64336/01 and ECtHR Speil v. Austria (dec.), appl. no. 42057/98.

  16. 16.

    ECtHR Saccoccia v. Austria, para 77.

  17. 17.

    ECtHR Saccoccia v. Austria, para 78.

  18. 18.

    Section 4.3.2.7.

  19. 19.

    ECtHR Matrakas and others v. Poland and Greece, appl. no. 47268/06.

  20. 20.

    ECtHR Romanczyk v. France, appl. no. 7618/05.

  21. 21.

    New York Convention of 20 June 1956 on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance.

  22. 22.

    The European Order for Payment (EOP) and judgments resulting from a European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) may only be enforced when all procedural guarantees contained in those Regulations are complied with (CJEU Joined Cases C-119/13 and C-120/13 eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy and Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH v Tetyana Bonchyk, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2144). Because these guarantees apply to the entire procedure, and are not simply prerequisites for enforcement, they are discussed separately, in Sect. 8.5 of this chapter.

  23. 23.

    Council of Europe, Commission of Ministers, Recommendation Rec(2003)17 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on enforcement (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 September 2003 at the 851st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) Rec(2003)17.

  24. 24.

    European Commission on the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing Council of Europe’s Recommendation on Enforcement, adopted by the CEPEJ at its 14th plenary meeting (Strasbourg, 9–10 December 2009) CEPEJ(2009)11REV2.

  25. 25.

    No. 9–12.

  26. 26.

    No. 15.

  27. 27.

    No. 17–22.

  28. 28.

    No. 66–71.

  29. 29.

    Oberhammer (2010) p. 198; Arenas Garcia (2010) p. 359.

  30. 30.

    Hess (2012) p. 1102; Oberhammer (2010) p. 199.

  31. 31.

    Kramer (2014) p. 368.

  32. 32.

    Hovaguimian (2015) p. 229.

  33. 33.

    Article 51(1) Brussels I bis.

  34. 34.

    Kramer (2014) p. 356; Hovaguimian (2015) p. 231.

  35. 35.

    Hovaguimian (2015) p. 231.

  36. 36.

    This is indeed what happens in Dutch first instance courts, for example District Court Rotterdam 25 March 2015, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2015:2487.

  37. 37.

    According to CSES (2010) p. 147, of the EUR 2,208 average costs of cross-border enforcement in simple cases, EUR 53 constituted court fees.

  38. 38.

    Hovaguimian (2015) p. 243; according to the CSES Report, EUR 1,205 of the total cost of EUR 2,208 are lawyer’s fees; CSES (2010) p. 147.

  39. 39.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 525; 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) COM(2010) 748 final, p. 4; European Commission, Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme, COM(2010)171 final, p. 5.

  40. 40.

    Hovaguimian (2015) p. 238; Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 315.

  41. 41.

    Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 315.

  42. 42.

    CEPEJ Guidelines, Nos. 66–67.

  43. 43.

    Hess et al. (2007) para 52; Sect. 2.2.4.1.

  44. 44.

    Kramer (2015) p. 427.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., p. 428.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., p. 428.

  47. 47.

    See Recital 32; Kramer (2015) p. 429.

  48. 48.

    Stadler (2012).

  49. 49.

    CJEU Case C-619/10 Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd ECLI:EU:C:2012:531.

  50. 50.

    Fitchen (2015) p. 504.

  51. 51.

    Council Regulation (EC) 4/2009 of 18 December 2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, OJ L7/1.

  52. 52.

    Section 2.2.4.

  53. 53.

    Section 3.2.6.1.

  54. 54.

    For instance, in the Netherlands Article 430(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that judgments are served on the person against whom enforcement is sought prior to enforcement measures being taken.

  55. 55.

    See for a discussion of the instrument Bittman (2008); Zilinsky (2005, 2006).

  56. 56.

    No evaluation of the EEO Regulation has yet been announced, despite this being required, despite it having entered into force in 2004. No other legislative developments (such as proposals for amendment) have yet occurred.

  57. 57.

    Additionally, Article 19 provides that debtors should have the right, under national law, to apply for a review of the judgment itself in exceptional situations. Such exceptional situations may arise where (a) service was effected in accordance with Article 14 (without proof of receipt) but not in sufficient time to enable the debtor to arrange for his defence, or (b) where the debtor was unable to object to the claim by reason of force majeure or due to extraordinary circumstances without any fault on his part. This Article concerns a right to review of the judgment, not of the certificate; and it does not in itself create a right to review, but merely requires that national law does. The remedies of Articles 10 and 19 are discussed further on in this section.

  58. 58.

    The matter of impartiality of the judge who checks the minimum requirements for enforceability is discussed further on in this section.

  59. 59.

    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 (service of documents) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, OJ L 324/79.

  60. 60.

    ECtHR Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, appl. nos. 7942/05 24838/05 ECHR 2014, para 83.

  61. 61.

    ECtHR Zavodnik v. Slovenia, appl. no. 36261/08 ECHR 2013, paras 79–81.

  62. 62.

    ECtHR Godorozea v. Moldova, appl. no. 17023/05 ECHR 2009, para 31, and Russu v. Moldova, appl. no. 7413/05 13 November 2008.

  63. 63.

    It may be noted that an earlier proposal did include a hierarchy between methods of service (Zilinsky (2005) p. 159); this appears to have been replaced with the implied hierarchy of Article 19. It may be mentioned that hierarchy between service methods is common in domestic civil procedure law, such as Dutch law (Articles 45 and 46 of the Civil Procedure Code, respectively) and Germany (Sects. 176–178 ZPO).

  64. 64.

    ECtHR F.C.B. v. Italy, appl, no. 12151/86 ECHR A208-B para 32.

  65. 65.

    CJEU Case C-292/10 G v Cornelius de Visser ECLI:EU:C:2012:142, para 55. Article 26(2) of Brussels I allows a court to stay proceedings “so long as it is not shown that the defendant has been able to receive the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence, or that all necessary steps have been taken to this end”.

  66. 66.

    Zilinsky (2006) p. 483. See for an interpretation Ptak (2014) pp. 130–131.

  67. 67.

    ECtHR Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, para 85.

  68. 68.

    Stadler (2004) p. 806; also Ptak (2014) p. 122.

  69. 69.

    Stadler (2004) p. 806 makes the comparison with Article 8 of the Service Regulation, which requires the person who affects the service to ascertain whether the person on whom the document is served ‘understands the language’ of the document. According to Stadler, both requirements are equally impracticable.

  70. 70.

    See also Ptak (2014) pp. 126–127.

  71. 71.

    Zilinsky (2006) p. 482.

  72. 72.

    Stadler (2004) p. 805.

  73. 73.

    See also Ptak (2014) p. 239.

  74. 74.

    CJEU Case C-519/13 Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd ECLI:EU:C:2015:603, para 32; CJEU Case C-325/11 Alder ECLI:EU:C:2012:824, paras 35 and 41.

  75. 75.

    Section 8.5.2.6.

  76. 76.

    E.g. Rechtbank Haarlem 15 December 2009, ECLI:NL:RBHAA:2009:BK6667; Rechtbank ’s-Hertogenbosch 9 September 2009, ECLI:NL:RBSHE:2009:BJ7558; Gerechtshof Amsterdam 10 April 2012, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2012:BW1284.

  77. 77.

    On 31 March 2016, a search in the Dutch case law database http://www.rechtspraak.nl for the European Enforcement Order Regulation yielded 60 results.

  78. 78.

    A survey of judgments concerning the EEO Regulation published in the case law database shows that, since the EEO became available 40 out of 57 requests for an EEO were rejected.

  79. 79.

    Article 53 Brussels I bis, Article 6(1) EEO Regulation.

  80. 80.

    Fitchen (2015) p. 504; Zilinsky recommends for these reasons that Member States implement the Regulation in such a way as to ensure that these tasks are indeed performed by the same judge; Zilinsky (2005) p. 155.

  81. 81.

    Stadler (2004) p. 805.

  82. 82.

    Ptak reaches the same conclusion based on an analysis of Article 6 ECHR: Ptak (2014) p. 238.

  83. 83.

    See 4.3.6.

  84. 84.

    ECtHR Morel v. France, appl. no. 34130/96 ECHR 2000-VI; ECtHR Nortier v. the Netherlands, appl. no. 13924/88 ECHR A267; ECtHR Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal, appl. no. 15651/89 ECHR A286-B; ECtHR Fey v. Austria, appl. no. 14396/88 ECHR A255-A.

  85. 85.

    Kuijer (2004) p. 347.

  86. 86.

    ECtHR Indra v. Slovakia, appl. no. 46845/99.

  87. 87.

    ECtHR De Haan v. The Netherlands, appl. no. 22839/93 ECHR 1997-IV.

  88. 88.

    Recital 10.

  89. 89.

    Recital 17.

  90. 90.

    It is not always self-evident when a party acts in his capacity as a consumer or within his trade or profession. The CJEU has ruled that the same criteria should be applied under the EEO Regulation as under the Brussels I bis Regulation to ascertain whether a person acts as a consumer: CJEU C-508/12 Walter Vapenik v Josef Thurner ECLI:EU:C:2013:790.

  91. 91.

    ECtHR Indra v. Slovakia, para 52.

  92. 92.

    Ibid.

  93. 93.

    Article 139 Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Rv).

  94. 94.

    Article 46 Rv.

  95. 95.

    Article 47(1) Rv.

  96. 96.

    Rb Groningen, ECLI:NL:RBGRO:2006:AZ7764.

  97. 97.

    Rb Middelburg, ECLI:NL:RBMID:2010:BN9802.

  98. 98.

    ECtHR San Leonard Band Club v. Malta, appl. no. 77562/01 ECHR 2004-IX.

  99. 99.

    Paras 61–62.

  100. 100.

    Paras 63–65.

  101. 101.

    Judgment, para 76; the Court cites ECtHR Jacobsson (no. 2) and ECtHR Valová and others v. Slovakia.

  102. 102.

    The Court cites Varela Assalino v. Portugal and Speil v. Austria.

  103. 103.

    The Dutch case law repository offers one judgment involving an EEO requested after the entry into force of Brussels I bis, though considering the low numbers of usage of the EEO prior to that development, this is perhaps not statistically significant.

  104. 104.

    Zilinsky (2005) p. 168.

  105. 105.

    Case C-139/10 Prism Investments v. Jaap Anne van der Meer ECLI:EU:C:2011:653.

  106. 106.

    Cour de cassation, chambre civile 2, Audience publique du vendredi 6 janvier 2012 N° de pourvoi: 10-23518.

  107. 107.

    CJEU Joined Cases C-119/13 and C-120/13 eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy and Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH v Tetyana Bonchyk, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2144, discussed below.

  108. 108.

    See also Ptak (2014) p. 241.

  109. 109.

    Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the Application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, COM(2015) 495 final.

  110. 110.

    Rylski (2012) p. 145–190 (“Polish Report”); The Baltic States Report (note 126); for the Netherlands, see Kramer et al. (2012) p. 112 onwards. The 2015 European Commission Report was prepared on the basis of a number of Member State reports, but these mostly concern the implementation into legislation of the procedure, along with some case law; see http://www.acj.si/en/project-results, last accessed 04/12/2015.

  111. 111.

    European Commission Report, 2015, p. 3; see references to the Polish report and experiences in Sweden, Austria and Denmark in Mánko (2013) (p. 5); this shows that 35 applications for an EOP were made in Sweden, and 94 in the UK; see also the Baltic States Report, which reports that Latvian courts had issued 9 EOPs until 2012 (p. 325) the Estonian courts ‘carried out’ (what this means is unclear) 94 decisions on the basis of the EOP Regulation (p. 694) and that Lithuanian figures ranged between 3 EOPs issued (in 2006) to 19 in 2011 (p. 382).

  112. 112.

    2010 Eurobarometer.

  113. 113.

    European Commission Report, 2015, pp. 8–9.

  114. 114.

    Kramer et al. (2012) p. 114.

  115. 115.

    European Commission Report, 2015, p. 7.

  116. 116.

    European Commission Report, 2015, p. 8.

  117. 117.

    Chainais (2010) p. 647.

  118. 118.

    European Commission Report, 2015, p. 7.

  119. 119.

    Mankó (2013) p. 5.

  120. 120.

    Baltic States Report (2012) p. 425 concerning Lithuania especially.

  121. 121.

    CJEU Joined Cases C-119/13 and C-120/13 eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy and Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH v Tetyana Bonchyk, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2144.

  122. 122.

    Article 13, ESCP Regulation.

  123. 123.

    See also Kramer (2010) p. 25, citing Hess and Bittman (2008) and Storme (2009).

  124. 124.

    View of Advocate General Bot, delivered on 9 April 2014, Joined Cases C 119/13 to C 121/13 eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG (C 119/13) v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy, Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH (C 120/13) v Tetyana Bonchyk and Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft (C 121/13) v Xceed Holding Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2014:248, para 45.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., para 27.

  126. 126.

    See also Hess and Raffelsieper (2015) p. 402.

  127. 127.

    Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the Application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, COM(2015) 495 final, p. 9.

  128. 128.

    As Sect. 8.5.2.6, discusses, the 2015 Regulation amending the ESCP and EOP Regulations does address this problem for the ESCP Regulation by widening the scope of the review procedure.

  129. 129.

    Case C-245/14 Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH ECLI:EU:C:2015:715.

  130. 130.

    Case C-324/12 Novontech-Zala ECLI:EU:C:2013:205.

  131. 131.

    Section 4.3.7.2.

  132. 132.

    Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 341/1.

  133. 133.

    Section 2.3.7.

  134. 134.

    Assessment of the socio-economic impacts of the policy options for the future of the European Small Claims Regulation. Final Report, European Commission—Directorate-General for Justice, July 2013 (“Deloitte Report 2015”) available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/document/index_en.htm (last accessed 29 April 2016). Note that this Report consists of 2 parts: I: “Evaluation of the Small Claims Procedure”, and II: “Assessment of the socio-economic impacts of the policy options for the future of the Small Claims Regulation”. These parts are referenced as “Part I: Evaluation” and “Part 2: Assessment of the policy options”, respectively.

  135. 135.

    European Commission—Directorate-General for Justice, Special Eurobarometer 395: The European Small Claims Procedure, April 2013, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_395_en.pdf (last accessed 29 April 2016).

  136. 136.

    European Commission—Directorate-General for Justice, Special Eurobarometer 351: Civil Justice, October 2010, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_351_en.pdf (last accessed 29 April 2016).

  137. 137.

    ECC-Net (2013).

  138. 138.

    CEC-ZEV (2011).

  139. 139.

    Kramer and Ontanu (2013); Kramer (2014).

  140. 140.

    Baltic States Report (2012).

  141. 141.

    See http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/130318_en.htm (last accessed 29 April 2016).

  142. 142.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European Enforcement Order, COM (2013) 794 final.

  143. 143.

    Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 341/1.

  144. 144.

    Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure’ COM (2013) 794 final—2013/0403 (COD) OJ C 226/08, p. 45.

  145. 145.

    Deloitte Report, Part I: Evaluation, p. v. Data concerning the Dutch experience corroborate these findings: see Kramer and Ontanu (2013) p. 324. As does the Baltic States Report (2012): this shows the following numbers: 6 cases in Latvia (which is “comparatively rarely” according to the researchers; p. 327); 1 case in Estonia (p. 676); and none for Lithuania, because no data were collected on the use of the ESCP (though the answers to the questionnaires show that 1 judge answered “yes” to the question whether he had experience with the ESCP (p. 386)). The Lithuanian reports stated that they “intended to receive a lot more statistical information on Lithuanian court activities regarding the application of Regulations, yet this was not the case” (p. 383).

  146. 146.

    Also observed in submissions to the public consultation, e.g. BEUC (2013) p. 6; Lawyer Ireland (2013) p. 12; the Law Society (2013) proposes that claim forms be standardized and automatically translated (p. 3).

  147. 147.

    Article 15a, Proposal for amendment of the ESCP Regulation, 2013. See for example the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, point 4.4 and 4.5, which pointed out that court fees are calculated differently across Member States, and that a cap of 10 % of the claim may actually have negative consequences in Member States where fees do not reach this level. See also Kramer (2014) p. 108.

  148. 148.

    Deloitte Report, Part I: Evaluation, p. 82.

  149. 149.

    Kramer and Ontanu (2013) p. 325.

  150. 150.

    CBBE (2013) p. 5; Bar Council England and Wales (2013) p. 2; BEUC (2013) p. 5; Business Europe (2013) p. 2.

  151. 151.

    Deloitte Report, Part I: Evaluation, p. 83.

  152. 152.

    Kramer and Ontanu (2013) p. 326.

  153. 153.

    A problem that was also encountered by the Dutch researchers: Kramer and Ontanu (2013) p. 326.

  154. 154.

    ECC-Net (2013); see also BEUC (2013) p. 8.

  155. 155.

    Eurobarometer 351 (2010) pp. 38–43.

  156. 156.

    ESCP Regulation, as amended by Regulation 2015/2421, Article 11. Experiences with the ESCP show that even though it contains a provision requiring Member States to provide assistance, many Member States simply do not provide the required information. See for example BEUC (2013) p. 3.

  157. 157.

    Deloitte Report (2015) Part I: Evaluation, p. 80.

  158. 158.

    ECC-Net (2013) p. 22. See also the submissions to the public consultation, among others BEUC (2013) p. 7; Business Europe (2013) p. 2; ECC-Portugal (2013) p. 4 proposes that videoconferencing should be made available whenever its costs are lower than the travel costs.

  159. 159.

    Deloitte Report (2015) Part II: Assessment of the policy options, p. 116.

  160. 160.

    Deloitte Report (2015) Part II: Assessment of the policy options, p. xxii. Submissions to the Public Consultation also suggested that procedural safeguards, in particular the right to an oral hearing or a right to appeal, should be more ‘robust’ if the maximum amount was raised: Bar Council England and Wales (2013) p. 3.

  161. 161.

    BEUC (2013) p. 7.

  162. 162.

    EESC Opinion, no. 5.1.

  163. 163.

    Article 5(1) European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European Enforcement Order, COM (2013) 794 final.

  164. 164.

    See Sect. 4.3.2.6.

  165. 165.

    Deloitte Report (2015) Part II: Assessment of the policy options, p. xii.

  166. 166.

    Kramer and Ontanu (2013) p. 326.

  167. 167.

    BEUC (2013) p. 5.

  168. 168.

    ECC-Poland (2013) p. 5.

  169. 169.

    CJEU Joined Cases C-119/13 and C-120/13, eco cosmetics & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy and Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH v Tetyana Bonchyk ECLI:EU:C:2014:2144.

  170. 170.

    ESCP Regulation as amended by Regulation 2015/2421, Article 18.

  171. 171.

    Section 4.3.4.

  172. 172.

    Section 4.3.3.

  173. 173.

    Section 4.3.2.7.

  174. 174.

    As the CJEU ruled in eco cosmetics/Raiffeisenbank, review would not be suitable for such cases because the EOP should not have been issued to begin with. See the discussion under 8.5.1.1 above.

  175. 175.

    See 8.4.1 for a discussion on how the permitted methods of service could be improved.

  176. 176.

    The difference with the extended possibility for opposition in case of ineffective service, as proposed, is of course that opposition offers the defendant all procedural rights provided for in Article 16 of the EOP Regulation, and that he is allowed to contest the claim in its entirety. Recital 25 to the EOP Regulation provides that the review mechanism should not entail a second opportunity for the defendant to contest the claim (Kramer (2014) p. 101, shows that Dutch courts indeed interpret the provision strictly). As A-G Bot concluded in eco cosmetics/Raiffeisenbank, the consequence of a failure to effect service of an EOP should be that the EOP is considered invalid; opposition where service was not effected should avoid this consequence. See View of A-G Bot in eco cosmetics/Raiffeisenbank, paras 51–52.

  177. 177.

    This would have the additional advantage of harmonising the requirements for review as contained in the ESCP and EOP Regulations with Article 19(1) of the Maintenance Regulation. As the European Commission states in its 2013 Proposal for amendment of the ESCP and EOP Regulations, There is no reason why these provisions on review, which pursue. exactly the same objective, are formulated differently in the various European regulations” (p. 9).

  178. 178.

    Section 3.4.1.

  179. 179.

    This section does not discuss the (non-)recognition of judgments relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment (Article 22) or judgments relating to parental responsibility (Article 23). The reason is that the grounds for refusal of recognition of these categories of judgments are identical to those of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which is discussed in detail in 2.2.2. Though this does not mean that the interpretation of those grounds will be identical in the context of Brussels II bis, and that these grounds are sufficient or necessary to protect fundamental rights in that context, the lack of reforms and controversy on this point renders an in-depth discussion rather superfluous. See for a discussion of the grounds for refusal Borrás (1998) paras 67–73; Siehr (2012) pp. 261–286. See for a recent view of their application in the Netherlands Curry-Sumner (2014).

  180. 180.

    Though this section refers to ‘parents’, it is of course possible that other persons or organisations exercise custody rights over the child. In such a case, this person of organisation will be the party to the abduction proceedings. 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, Article 3(a); Brussels II bis Regulation, Article 11(1).

  181. 181.

    Neither the Brussels II bis Regulation nor the 1980 Hague Convention distinguish between categories of persons who may wrongfully remove a child; the abductor may therefore equally be a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or a person unrelated to the child.

  182. 182.

    Dyer (1978) paras 19–20.

  183. 183.

    Pérez-Vera (1982) p. 35.

  184. 184.

    Pérez-Vera (1982) pp. 16–17.

  185. 185.

    See for a discussion of all instruments relevant in Europe Kruger (2011) pp. 111–130.

  186. 186.

    Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

  187. 187.

    Because the 1980 Convention remains in force within the EU, the following discussion on the child abduction regime in the EU refers where relevant also to that Convention. See also Article 62(2) of Brussels II bis that provides that “The conventions mentioned in Article 60, in particular the 1980 Hague Convention, continue to produce effects between the Member States which are party thereto” unless the Brussels II bis Regulation takes precedence.

  188. 188.

    Perez-Vera (1982) para 34.

  189. 189.

    Schuz (2013) p. 273.

  190. 190.

    Vlaardingerbroek (2014) p. 13.

  191. 191.

    Schuz (2013) p. 175. The 2015 European Commission Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation shows that habitual residence is a problematic issue under that Regulation as well (p. 42).

  192. 192.

    Article 7(1).

  193. 193.

    Article 10.

  194. 194.

    For instance ECtHR X. v. Latvia, appl. no. 27853/09, ECHR 2013; see Beaumont and Walker (2013).

  195. 195.

    ECtHR Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, appl. no. 41615/07, ECHR 2010.

  196. 196.

    Keller and Heri (2015) p. 284; Beaumont and Walker (2013) pp. 17–30; see Vlaardingerbroek (2014) p. 15.

  197. 197.

    ECtHR X. v. Latvia, para 106.

  198. 198.

    Ibid.

  199. 199.

    ECtHR X. v. Latvia para 106. See Beaumont, Trimmings et al. (2015) p. 43.

  200. 200.

    Keller and Heri (2015) p. 287; Beaumont, Trimmings et al. (2015) p. 43.

  201. 201.

    Beaumont and Walker (2011) argue that there is an increasing discrepancy in the interpretation of the 1980 Convention between the CJEU and the ECtHR, with the CJEU placing too much confidence mutual trust whereas the ECtHR overemphasizes the child’s best interests (p. 231). See for the CJEU’s view Lenaerts (2013).

  202. 202.

    See Sect. 8.6.1.

  203. 203.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) p. 33.

  204. 204.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) p. 31.

  205. 205.

    McEleavy (2004) p. 510.

  206. 206.

    Scott (2015) pp. 28–29.

  207. 207.

    Scott (2015) p. 28.

  208. 208.

    See Chap. 4.

  209. 209.

    Other rights or interests could be identified. For example, although it is not expressly recognised by the Brussels II bis Regulation, the 1980 Convention, or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) it has been argued that the child additionally enjoys a ‘right to identity’. This right is relevant to child abduction since the removal of certain (family) ties meaningful to the child affects his or her identity. See Ronen (2004) p. 160.

  210. 210.

    In literature on international child abduction, there is a discussion on the question whether the best interests standard of the child should be seen as an expression of the independent rights of the child. The recognition of children’s rights, and the idea of children as independent rights holders, is in a state of development. See Schuz (2013) p. 112.

  211. 211.

    When the party that applies for a child’s return is not a parent, but for instance a child protection agency, this factor changes, as these types of organisations’ relationship with the child has not been found to be protected by Article 8 ECHR; however, the rights of foster or adoptive parents have been found to come within the scope of this Article. ECtHR Jolie and Lebrun v. Belgium, appl. no. 11418/85, 14 May 1986; European Commission on Human Rights X v. France, appl. no. 9993/82 DR 31, p. 241; Kilkelly (2003) p. 18.

  212. 212.

    Section 7.5.

  213. 213.

    Article 42(2) Brussels II bis Regulation.

  214. 214.

    Section 8.4.2 of this chapter; Stadler (2004) p. 805.

  215. 215.

    Section 8.4.2.

  216. 216.

    ECtHR Indra v. Slovakia, para 52.

  217. 217.

    Ibid.

  218. 218.

    ECtHR San Leonard Band Club.

  219. 219.

    Article 13, 1980 Convention; see also Sect. 8.6.1 of this chapter.

  220. 220.

    Section 3.5.

  221. 221.

    Kruger (2011) pp. 37–39.

  222. 222.

    Kruger (2011) p. 37.

  223. 223.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) p. 43.

  224. 224.

    Study on the assessment of the Brussels II bis Regulation (2015) p. 48.

  225. 225.

    Scott (2015) p. 32.

  226. 226.

    Scott (2015) p. 199.

  227. 227.

    http://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/projects/current-projects/ (last accessed 04/12/2015).

  228. 228.

    See the reports of Kezmah and Bostjan, published as part of the Access to Justice Project at http://www.acj.si/en/project-results (last accessed 04/12/2015).

  229. 229.

    As one of many examples, see the e-Codex project, http://www.e-codex.eu/home.html (last accessed 04/12/2015).

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont P, Walker L (2011) Shifting the Balance Achieved by the Abduction Convention: the Contrasting Approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. J Private Int Law 7:231–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont P, Walker L (2013) Post Neulinger Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on the Child Abduction Convention. In: The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 2013. A Commitment to Private International Law. Essays in honour of Hans van Loon. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 17–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont P, Trimmings K, Walker L, Holliday J (2015) Child abduction: recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Int Comp Law Q 64:39–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bittman D (2008) Vom Exequatur zum qualifizierten Klausererteilungsverfahren. Die Implementierung des Europäischen Vollstreckungstitels für unbestrittene Forderungen in den nationalen Zivilprozessordnungen. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Borràs 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 (approved by the Council on 28 May 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs AISBL (BEUC) (2013) European Small Claims. BEUC Response to European Commission Consultation. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/130318_en.htm. Accessed 29 April 2016

  • Business Europe (2013) Reaction to the consultation on the European Small Claims Procedure. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/130318_en.htm. Accessed 29 April 2016

  • Centre Européen de Consommation/Zentrum für Europäische Verbraucherschutz e.V. (2011) Procedure de Règlement des petits litiges et injonction de payer Européenne. Des procédures simplifiées pas si simples dans la pratique. http://www.europe-consommateurs.eu. Accessed 29 April 2016

  • Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES) (2010) Data Collection and Impact Analysis, Certain Aspects of a Possible Revision of Council Regulation No 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Final Report. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/study_cses_brussels_i_final_17_12_10_en.pdf. Accessed 29 April 2016

  • Chainais C (2010) L’injonction de payer francaise, modèle d’une protection juridictionelle monitoire. De l’art de concilier légalisme procédural et humanisme processual. In: Guinchard S (ed) Justices et droit du procès. Du légalisme procédural à l’humanisme processual. Dalloz, Paris, pp 621–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Conseil des barreaux Européens (2013) Response to the public consultation on the European Small Claims Procedure. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/130318_en.htm. Accessed 29 April 2016 (referred to as “CBBE”)

  • Cuniberti G, Rueda I (2011) Abolition of Exequatur: Addressing the Commission’s Concerns. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 75:286–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curry-Sumner I (2014) Rules on the recognition of parental responsibility decisions: a view from the Netherlands. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 32(4):545–558

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte and Coffey (2015) Study on the assessment of Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 and the policy options for its amendment. Final report—evaluation, study for the European Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer A (1978) Report on international child abduction by one parent, Prelim. Doc. No. 1 of August 1978. In: Hague Conference on Private International Law. Actes et Documents de 14ième Session (Child Abduction), vol 3, p 312

    Google Scholar 

  • ECC-Net (2013) European Small Claims Procedure Report. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/small_claims_210992012_en.pdf. Accessed 29 April 2016

  • European Commission (2015) Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the Application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, COM(2015)495 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Consumer Centre Poland (2013) Response to the public consultation on the European Small Claims Procedure. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/130318_en.htm. Accessed 29 April 2016

  • Fitchen J (2015) The Recognition and Enforcement of Member State judgments—arts. 45–57. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 432–519

    Google Scholar 

  • General Council of the Bar of England and Wales (2013) Bar Council response to the European Commission’s consultation on the European Small Claims Procedure. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/130318_en.htm. Accessed 29 April 2016

  • Hess B (2012) The Brussels I Regulation: recent case law of the Court of Justice and the Commission’s proposed recast. Common Market Law Rev 48:1075–1112

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B, Bittman D (2008) Die Verordnungen zur Einführung eines Europäischen Mahnverfahrens und eines Europäischen Verfahrens für geringfügige Forderungen – ein substantieller Integrationsschritt im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht. Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht (IPRax) 28:305–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B, Raffelsieper K (2015) Schuldnerschutz bei fehlender Zustellung eines EU-Mahnbescheids: Regelungslücken der EuMahnVO. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 35:401–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B, Pfeiffer T, Schlosser P (2007) Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States. Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovaguimian P (2015) The enforcement of foreign judgments under Brussels I bis: false alarms and real concerns. J Private Int Law 11:212–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacevska I, Rudevska B, Mizaras V, Brazdeikis A, Torga M (2012) Practical Application of European Union Regulations relating to European Union Level Procedure in Civil Cases: the Experience in Baltic States (Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn). TM 2012/04/EK. http://www.just.ee. (referred to as ‘Baltic States Report’). Accessed 4 April 2014

  • Keller H, Heri C (2015) Protecting the Best Interests of the Child: International Child Abduction and the European Court of Human Rights. Nordic Journal of International Law 84:270–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilkelly U (2003) The right to respect for private and family life. A guide to the implementation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer X (2015) The Recognition and Enforcement of Member State judgments—Arts. 39–44. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 403–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2010) Enhancing Enforcement in the European Union. The European Order for Payment Procedure and Its Implementation in the Member States, Particularly in Germany, The Netherlands and England. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Enforcement and Enforceability. Tradition and Reform. Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford/Portland, pp. 17–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2014) Ervaringen met Europese civiele procedures in Nederland: een terugblik en wenkend toekomstperspectief. Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2014(4):99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE, Ontanu EA (2013) The Functioning of the European Small Claims Procedure in the Netherlands: normative and empirical reflections. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 31(3):319–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE, Tuil ML, Tillema I (2012) Verkrijging van een executoriale titel in incassozaken (study for the Ministry of Security and Justice). WODC, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger T (2011) International Child Abduction. The Inadequacies of the Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuijer M (2004) The blindfold of Lady Justice. Judicial Independence and Impartiality in Light of the Requirements of Article 6 ECHR. E.M. Meijers Institute of Legal Studies of Leiden University, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Society of England and Wales (referred to as “the Law Society”) (2013) European Small Claims Procedure. Response to public consultation. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/130318_en.htm. Accessed 29 April 2016

  • Lawyer Ireland (2013) Submission on European Small Claims Procedure. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/130318_en.htm. Accessed 29 April 2016

  • Lenaerts K (2013) The Best Interests of the Child Always Come First: The Brussels II bis Regulation and the European Court of Justice. Jurisprudence (Jurisprudencija) 20:1302–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankó R (2013) Research briefing: Orders for payment in the EU. National procedures and the European order for payment. European Parliament Research Service

    Google Scholar 

  • McEleavy P (2004) Current developments: 1. Brussels IIbis: Matrimonial Matters, Parental Responsibility, Child Abduction and Mutual Recognition. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 53:503–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2010) The abolition of exequatur. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 30:197–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Vera E (1982) Explanatory Report on the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. Acts and Documents of the Fourteenth Session (1980), tome III, Child abduction

    Google Scholar 

  • Ptak P (2014) Der Europäische Vollstreckungstitel und das rechtliche Gehör des Schuldners. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronen Y (2004) Redefining the child’s right to identity. Int J Law Policy Family 18:147–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rylski P (2012) Europejski nakaz zaplaty w praktyce sadowej (European order for payment in court practice). Prawo w Dzialaniu - Sprawy Cywilne 12:145–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuz R (2013) The Hague Child Abduction Convention. A Critical Analysis. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott J (2015) A question of trust? Recognition and enforcement of judgments. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 33(1):27–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehr K (2012) Article 22 and Article 23. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels IIbis Regulation. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 256–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler A (2004) Kritische Anmerkungen zur Europäischen Vollstreckungstitel. Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 12:801–808

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler A (2012) Practical Obstacles in Cross-Border Litigation and Communication between (EU) Courts. Erasmus Law Review 5:151–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storme H (2009) Europese betalingsbevelprocedure. Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad 98

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlaardingerbroek P (2014) Internationale Kinderontvoering en het EHRM. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 32(1):12–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilinsky M (2005) De Europese Executoriale Titel: Tijdige tenuitvoerlegging van vermogensrechtelijke beslissingen in de Europese Unie bezien vanuit verschillende internationale instrumenten. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilinsky M (2006) Abolishing exequatur in the European Union: the European Enforcement Order. Netherlands International Law Review 53:471–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Judicial Assistant at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Monique Hazelhorst

Authors
  1. Monique Hazelhorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monique Hazelhorst .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hazelhorst, M. (2017). Facilitating Enforcement of Civil Judgments Across European Union Member States. In: Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union and the Right to a Fair Trial. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-162-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-162-3_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-161-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-162-3

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation