Impediments of National Procedural Law to the Free Movement of Judgments

Burkhard Hess; Pietro Ortolani

doi:10.17104/9783406795299

Zusammenfassung

Hess/Ortolani

Impediments of National Procedural Law the Free Movement of Judgments

This volume presents a comparative examination and empirical evaluation of national procedural rules and practices, and further assesses the key procedural problems that impact mutual trust and the free movement of judgments in light of national and European Court of Justice case law. It provides an exhaustive overview of the similarities and differences of civil procedure in all EU Member States, and their impact on the recognition and enforcement of judgments.

Alongside The Luxembourg Report on European Procedural Law, Volume II: Implementing EU Consumer Rights by National Procedural Law, this volume offers the most comprehensive, empirically driven comparative investigation of national civil procedure thus far undertaken in Europe. Using an extensive dataset comprising hundreds of interviews and responses to a multi-language online survey, it examines the rules of civil procedure in all EU Member States and identifies their impact on mutual trust and the free movement of judgments.

This volume will be of interest for all practitioners, academics and policymakers with a focus on judicial cooperation and civil justice and will facilitate a better understanding of the impact of national procedural laws on cross-border dispute resolution in Europe.

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Copyrightjahr: 2022
ISBN-Print: 978-3-406-73666-7
ISBN-Online: 978-3-406-79529-9
Verlag: C.H.BECK Recht - Wirtschaft - Steuern, München
Reihe: Beck International
Sprache: Englisch
Seiten: 480
Produkttyp: Sammelband

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis Kein Zugriff Seiten I - XIV
Foreword Kein Zugriff Seiten 1 - 4
1. 1. 1. 1. Standpoint Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. General findings Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Policy options and proposals Kein Zugriff
  2. 1. 1. Status quo. Summary Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals/Possible improvements Kein Zugriff
  3. 1. 1. Status quo. Summary Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals/Possible improvements Kein Zugriff
  4. 1. 1. Status quo. Summary Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals/Possible improvements Kein Zugriff
  5. 1. 1. Status quo. Summary Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals/Possible improvements Kein Zugriff
  6. 1. 1. Status quo. Summary Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals/Possible improvements Kein Zugriff
  7. 1. 1. Status quo: Summary Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals/Possible improvements Kein Zugriff
  8. 1. 1. Status quo. Summary Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals/Possible improvements Kein Zugriff
  9. 1. 1. Status quo: Summary Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals/possible improvements Kein Zugriff
  10. 1. 1. Summary: Status quo Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals/Possible improvements Kein Zugriff
  11. 1. 1. Status quo: Summary Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals/Possible improvements Kein Zugriff
    4. 4. Addenda: court fees Kein Zugriff
2. 1. 1. 1. Standpoint Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. General findings Kein Zugriff
    3. 2. Policy options and proposals Kein Zugriff
  2. 1. 1. Status quo. Summary Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals/Possible improvements Kein Zugriff
  3. 1. 1. Status quo. Summary Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals/possible improvements Kein Zugriff
1. A. Introduction to the Chapter Kein Zugriff
2. 1. 1. 1. Status quo Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and Assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals and Improvements Kein Zugriff
  2. II. The Translation of Judicial Documents Kein Zugriff
  3. 1. 1. Status quo, summary Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and Assessment Kein Zugriff
  4. 1. 1. Status quo Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and Assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals and Improvements Kein Zugriff
  5. 1. 1. Status quo Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and Assessment Kein Zugriff
  6. 1. 1. Status quo Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and Assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals and Improvements Kein Zugriff
  7. 1. 1. Status quo Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and Assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals and Improvements Kein Zugriff
  8. 1. 1. Status quo Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and Assessment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Proposals and Improvements Kein Zugriff
3. 1. 1. 1. Lack of service of the document initiating the proceedings Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Service to the wrong place Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Notification via public announcement Kein Zugriff
    4. 4. Proof of service Kein Zugriff
    5. 5. Translation requirements Kein Zugriff
    6. 6. Sufficient time period for defence Kein Zugriff
    7. 7. Lack of service of other documents Kein Zugriff
    8. 8. Possibility to challenge the default judgment Kein Zugriff
    9. 9. Other issues: Kein Zugriff
  2. II. Problems Pointed Out by Participants in the Online Survey Kein Zugriff
  3. III. Interview Results Kein Zugriff
  4. IV. Proposals and Improvements Kein Zugriff
1. 1. 1. 1. Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Availability and Grounds for Provisional Attachment Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Ex Parte Relief and Safeguards Kein Zugriff
    4. 4. Additional Procedural Divergences Kein Zugriff
  2. II. Problems and Assessment Kein Zugriff
  3. III. Proposals and Improvements Kein Zugriff
2. 1. 1. 1. Improving the Efficiency of the Judicial System Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Providing Financial Support to Impecunious Creditors Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Favouring certain categories of parties Kein Zugriff
  2. 1. 1. Availability of Provisional Payment Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Jurisdiction to Grant Provisional Payment under EU Regulations Kein Zugriff
  3. III. Proposals and Improvements Kein Zugriff
3. 1. 1. 1. Remedies Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Requirements and procedure Kein Zugriff
  2. 1. 1. The Recognition of Reports Established in other Member States Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Jurisdiction to appoint judicial experts Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Extra-territorial preservation orders Kein Zugriff
  3. III. Proposals and Improvements Kein Zugriff
1. 1. 1. 1. Parties Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Substantive jurisdiction regarding where to lodge the notice of appeal and the particulars of the appeal Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Content of the notice of appeal or particulars of appeal Kein Zugriff
    4. 4. Leave to appeal or certain value of the subject matter required for appeal Kein Zugriff
    5. 5. Gravamen Kein Zugriff
    6. 6. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
  2. 1. 1. Beginning of the time limit Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. General length of the time limit Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Extension or shortening of the time limit Kein Zugriff
    4. 4. Additional time limits Kein Zugriff
    5. 5. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
  3. III. Representation Kein Zugriff
  4. 1. 1. Review of law Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Review of facts Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Admissibility of introducing new facts/evidence Kein Zugriff
    4. 4. New claims/modification of the complaint Kein Zugriff
    5. 5. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
  5. V. Decision of the Appeal Court Kein Zugriff
  6. VI. Consequences on (Provisional) Enforcement Kein Zugriff
  7. 1. 1. Documents provided to a defendant abroad who lost her first instance case Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Information of the parties about the judgment; the question of translation Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Filing an appeal and time limits Kein Zugriff
    4. 4. Effects of the proceedings on the enforceability of the judgment Kein Zugriff
    5. 5. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
2. 1. I. General Assessment of the Second Appeal Proceedings Kein Zugriff
  2. 1. 1. Judgments subject to second appeal Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Ratione valoris limitation Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Other monetary and fiscal requirements Kein Zugriff
    4. 4. Ratione iudicati limitation Kein Zugriff
    5. 5. Leave to appeal Kein Zugriff
    6. 6. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
  3. 1. 1. Beginning of the time limit Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. General length of the time limit Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Extension or shortening of the time limit Kein Zugriff
    4. 4. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
  4. IV. Representation Kein Zugriff
  5. 1. 1. Typically a review of law Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Problems and assessment Kein Zugriff
  6. VI. The Judgment of the Supreme Court Kein Zugriff
  7. VII. Consequences on Provisional Enforcement Kein Zugriff
  8. 1. 1. Documents provided to a party abroad who lost the second instance Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Information of the parties about the judgment; the question of translation Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Filing a second appeal and time limits Kein Zugriff
    4. 4. Effects of the second appeal proceedings on the enforceability of the judgment Kein Zugriff
3. 1. I. Information of the parties about the judgment; the question of translation Kein Zugriff
  2. II. Information for the parties about legal remedies Kein Zugriff
  3. III. Time limits Kein Zugriff
  4. IV. Provisional enforcement Kein Zugriff
1. A. Introduction Kein Zugriff
2. 1. 1. 1. Competence for the certification Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Certification as EEO Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Review under Article 19 EEO Kein Zugriff
  2. 1. 1. General problems: rights of defense, review, and lack of familiarity and practice Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Specific problems Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Refusal of the certification and enforcement Kein Zugriff
  3. III. Possible Improvements Kein Zugriff
3. 1. 1. 1. Competence to issue an EOP Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Assessment made by the competent (judicial) authority Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Review under Article 20 EOP Kein Zugriff
  2. 1. 1. General problems: service and review, interaction with national law, lack of familiarity and practice Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Specific problems: competence, assessment, forms and language Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Refusal of enforcement Kein Zugriff
  3. III. Possible Improvements Kein Zugriff
4. 1. 1. 1. Competent courts Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Review procedure Kein Zugriff
  2. 1. 1. General problems: lack of knowledge and limited use Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Specific problems: competence, costs, assistance, time-limits, evidence, language, interest, service, and review Kein Zugriff
  3. III. Refusal of Enforcement Kein Zugriff
  4. IV. Possible Improvements Kein Zugriff
5. 1. 1. 1. Competence regarding maintenance claims Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Financial support Kein Zugriff
    3. 3. Legal standing Kein Zugriff
    4. 4. Provisional measures Kein Zugriff
    5. 5. Review Kein Zugriff
    6. 6. Central Authorities Kein Zugriff
  2. 1. 1. Procedural problems Kein Zugriff
    2. 2. Difficulties for practitioners Kein Zugriff
  3. III. Possible Improvements Kein Zugriff
6. F. Conclusion: General assessment of the application of these specific instruments Kein Zugriff
Index Kein Zugriff Seiten 241 - 244
Case Law Kein Zugriff Seiten 245 - 246
Bibliography Kein Zugriff Seiten 247 - 254
1. Annex I. National Reporters Kein Zugriff
2. Annex II. Full National Report Template Kein Zugriff
3. Annex III. Selected Questions and Responses from the Completed National Reports Kein Zugriff

Literaturverzeichnis (196 Einträge)

?Bibliography Google Scholar öffnen
I. Monographs, Edited Volumes and Book Sections Google Scholar öffnen
1. Books Google Scholar öffnen
Cadiet, Loic ; Jeuland, Emmanuel, Droit judiciaire privé (Litec 6th edn., 2013). Google Scholar öffnen
Crifò, Carla, Cross-Border Enforcement of Debts in the European Union, Default Judgments, Summary Judgments and Orders for Payment (Kluwer Law International 2009). Google Scholar öffnen
Dickinson, Andrew and Lein, Eva, The Brussels I Regulation Recast (OUP 2015). Google Scholar öffnen
Fasching and Konecny (Eds) Kommentar zu den Zivil prozessgesetzen (2nd ed., Manzsch’sche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchandlung, Vienna, 2010). Google Scholar öffnen
Guinchard, Serge; Ferrand, Frederique and Chainais Cecile, Procédure civile (Dalloz 32nd ed. 2014). Google Scholar öffnen
Hazelhorst, Monique, Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union and the Right to a Fair Trial, The Hague, Asser Press 2017. Google Scholar öffnen
Jeuland, Emmanuel, Introduction to French Business Litigation (1st edn., Joly editions 2016). Google Scholar öffnen
Linke, Harmut & Hau, Wolfang, Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht (C.H. Beck, 5th edn. 2015). Google Scholar öffnen
Mayer, Pierre and Heuzé, Vincent, Droit international privé (LGDJ 11th ed. 2014). Google Scholar öffnen
Nioche, Marie, La décision provisoire en droit international privé européen (Bruylant 2012). Google Scholar öffnen
Ontanu, Elena Alina, Cross-Border Debt Recovery in the EU. A Comparative and Empirical Study on the Use of European Uniform Procedures, Thesis, Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Google Scholar öffnen
Rosenberg, Leo; Schwab, Karl Heinz and Gottwald, Peter, Zivilprozessrecht (17th edn, C.H. Beck 2010). Google Scholar öffnen
Sime Stuart and French, Derek (eds) Blackstone’s Civil Practice (Oxford University Press 2014). Google Scholar öffnen
Tuo, Chiara, La rivalutazione della sentenza straniera nel regolamento Bruxelles 1: tradivieti e reciproca fiducia (CEDAM 2012). Google Scholar öffnen
Zuckerman, Adrian, Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (3rd edn., Sweet & Maxwell 2013). Google Scholar öffnen
2. Chapters in edited volumes Google Scholar öffnen
Angst, Peter and Oberhammer, Paul (eds), Exekutionsordnung (Manz 3rd edn., 2015). Google Scholar öffnen
Berger, Thomas, ‘Luxembourg’, in Newman, Lawrence W. (ed), Attachment of assets (Juris 2016). Google Scholar öffnen
Colvin, Andrew; Vigoriti, Vincenzo and Calabresi, Roberto ‘Italy’ in Layton and Mercer (general eds), European Civil Practice (Sweet & Maxwell 2004). Google Scholar öffnen
Crifò, Carla, ‘Civil Procedure in the European Order: An Overview of the Latest Developments’ in, Déirde Dwyer (ed.), The Civil Procedure Rules Ten Years On (Oxford University Press 2009). Google Scholar öffnen
Deshayes, Béatrice, ‘De la nécessité d’harmoniser les règles régissant l‘expertise en Europe: une approche comparative franco-allemande, in P. Grandjean (ed.), Expertise de justice – Quel avenir en Europe (Bruylant 2014). Google Scholar öffnen
Gottwald, Peter, ‘Review appeal to the German Federal Court after the reform of 2001’ in Ramos, Manuel Ortells (ed.), Los recursos ante Tribunales Supremos en Europa. Appeals to Supreme Courts in Europe (Difusion Juridica 2008) 96. Google Scholar öffnen
Hayaux du Tilly, Emmanuel, ‘France’ in Layton and Mercer (general eds.) European Civil Practice (Sweet & Maxwell 2004). Google Scholar öffnen
Hein, Jan von ‘Art 1, no. 51’ in Rauscher, Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, vol. 2 (Otto Schmidt 4th ed. 2015). Google Scholar öffnen
Hess, Burkhard; Raffelsieper, Katharina ‘Die Europäische Kontenpfändungsverordnung: Eine überfällige Reform zur Effektuierung grenzüberschreitender Vollstreckung im Europäischen Justizraum’, in IPRax 2015. Google Scholar öffnen
Jolowicz, John Anthony, ‘Introduction: Recourse Against Civil Judgments in the European Union: A Comparative Survey’ in Chase and Hershkoff (general eds), Civil Litigation in Comparative Context (Thomson/West 2007) 331. Google Scholar öffnen
Kern, Christoph A., ‘Comparative Civil Procedure – Fundamentals and Recent Trends’ in Gedächtnisschrift für Halftk Konuralp I (Yetkin Yayinlari 2009). Google Scholar öffnen
Kern, Christoph A., The Role of the Supreme Court, (RePro 228, ano 39, fevereiro 2014). Google Scholar öffnen
Kramer, Xandra, ‘European Procedures on Debt Collection: Nothing or Noting? Experiences and Future Prospects’ in Hess, Burkhard; Bergström, Maria and Storskrubb, Eva (eds), EU Civil Justice: Current Issues and Future Outlook (Hart Publishing 2016) 97. Google Scholar öffnen
Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung (5th edn, 2016). Google Scholar öffnen
Münchener Kommentar, Zivilprozessordnung, Vol. 3 (5th ed. C.H. Beck 2018). Google Scholar öffnen
Musielak, Zivilprozessordnung, (Beck, 10th ed 2013) EuGVO. Google Scholar öffnen
Stürner; Rolf and Kern, Christoph A., ‘Comparative Civil Procedure – Fundamentalsand Recent Trends’ in Gedächtnisschrift für Halftk Konuralp I (Yetkin Yayinlari 2009) 1002. Google Scholar öffnen
Taelman, Piet, ‘Belgium’, in L.W. Newman (ed), Attachment of assets (Juris 2016). Google Scholar öffnen
Toussaint, Guido in Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung (C.H. Beck 2016) vol. 1. Google Scholar öffnen
Uzelac, Alan; van Rhee, Cornelis Hendrik, ‘Appeals and other means of recourse against judgments in the context of the effective protection of civil rights and obligation’ in Alan Uzelac, Cornelis Hendrik van Rhee (eds), Nobody’s perfect. Comparative Essays on appeals and other means of recourse against judicial decisions in civil matters (Intersentia 2014). Google Scholar öffnen
Wautelet, Patrick, ‘Art 59 no 12.’, in Bonomi, Andrea & Wautelet, Patrick (eds), Droit européen des successions, (Bruylant 2nd ed. 2016). Google Scholar öffnen
Weiser, Irene, ‘Austria’ in Layton and Mercer (general eds), European Civil Practice (Sweet & Maxwell 2004) 37. Google Scholar öffnen
Zöller, ZPO (OttoSchmidt, 30th ed 2014). Google Scholar öffnen
3. Articles, Notes and Papers Google Scholar öffnen
Yein, Gar Ng, ‘European Payment Order and European Small Claim Online Simulation UK-Italy. Regulations (EC) No. 1896/2006 and 861/2007’, Building Interoperability for European Civil Proceedings Online, Research Conference – Bologna, 15–16 June 2012, available at http://www.irsig.cnr.it/BIEPCO/ documents/case_studies/EPO_Simulation_Gar_Yein.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
Cuniberti, Gilles, ‘L’expertise judiciaire en droit judiciaire européen’, Rev. Crit. DIP 2015, 519. Google Scholar öffnen
Kramer, Xandra; Ontanu, Elena Alina, ‘The functioning of the European Small Claims Procedure in The Netherlands: normative and empirical reflections’, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2013, 319. Google Scholar öffnen
Huet, André, Note on Cass. Civ. 1ère, 11 December 2001, Case no 00-18.547, J. Dr. Int. 2003, 152. Google Scholar öffnen
Muir Watt, Horatia, Note on Cass. Civ. 1ère, 11 December 2001, Case no 00-18.547, Rev. Crit. DIP 2002, p. 317. Google Scholar öffnen
Niggemann, Friedrich, Note on OLG München, 19 February 2014, IPRax 2015, 75. Google Scholar öffnen
Cuniberti, Gilles, Note on Court of Appeal, 15 July 2015, case no 42489, JTL Lux 2015, 179. Google Scholar öffnen
II. Reports and Studies Google Scholar öffnen
Hess, Burkhard and Pfeiffer, Thomas, Interpretation of the Public Policy Exception as referred to in EU Instruments of Private International and Procedural Law (European Parliament Study), available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2011/453189/IPOL-JURI_ET(2011)453189_EN. pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
Hess, Burkhard; Pfeiffer, Thomas and Schlosser, Peter, “The Heidelberg Report”, Study JLS/C4/2005/03 Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States, 2007, available at: http://ec. europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_application_brussels_1_en.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
Deloitte, Assessment of the socio-economic impacts of the policy options for the Future of the European Small Claims Regulation, Final Report, RDT-L05-2010, Brussels, 19.07.2013. Google Scholar öffnen
European Commission, Less bureaucracy for citizens: promoting free movement of public documents and recognition of the effects of civil status records, COM(2010) 747 final. Google Scholar öffnen
European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Google Scholar öffnen
European Economic and Social Committee on the application of the Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 of the Google Scholar öffnen
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, COM (2013) 795 final, Brussels, 19.11.2013. Google Scholar öffnen
European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Google Scholar öffnen
European Economic and Social Committee on the application of the Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 of the Google Scholar öffnen
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, COM(2013) 795 final, Brussels, 19.11.2013. Google Scholar öffnen
European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Google Scholar öffnen
European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the Google Scholar öffnen
European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, COM(2015) 495 final. Google Scholar öffnen
Cuniberti, Gilles, Civil Judicial Experts in the EU: Analysis of EU Legislation and Recommendations, Report for the Legal Committee of the European Parliament (2015). Google Scholar öffnen
Kramer, Xandra, Tuil and Tillema, Ministry of Justice Report 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
Optimity Matrix, Case study on the functioning of enforcement proceedings relating to judicial decisions in Member States, Final Report February 2015. Google Scholar öffnen
Study on the application of Articles 3(1)(C) and 3, and Articles 17 and 18 of the 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, June 2012, final_report_1206, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/final_report_1206_en.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
Study on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 on the taking of evidence on civil and commercial matters, March 2007, final_report_ec_1206_2001_a_09032007, available at http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/publications/docs/final_report_ec_1206_2001_a_09032007.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
Hess, Burkhard, Study No. JAI/A3/2002/02 on making more efficient the enforcement of judicial decisions within the European Union: Transparency of a Debtor’s Assets, Attachment of Bank Accounts, Provisional Enforcement and Protective Measures, available at: http://www2.ipr.uni-heidelberg.de/studie/. Google Scholar öffnen
III. Legislation Google Scholar öffnen
1. Treaties Google Scholar öffnen
International Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2009] OJ L 449/ 80. Google Scholar öffnen
2. EU Regulations Google Scholar öffnen
Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001. Google Scholar öffnen
Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009. Google Scholar öffnen
Council Regulation No 40/94 of 20 December 1993. Google Scholar öffnen
Regulation (EC) 1393/2007. Google Scholar öffnen
Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. Google Scholar öffnen
Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, [2006] OJ L399/1. (EOP Regulation) Google Scholar öffnen
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, [2009] OJ L 7/ 1. (Maintenance Regulation). Google Scholar öffnen
Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order foruncontested claims, [2004] L143/15. (EEO Regulation). Google Scholar öffnen
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, [2007] OJ L199/1. (ESCP Regulation). Google Scholar öffnen
Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis regulation). Google Scholar öffnen
Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 on promoting the free movement of citizens by simplifying the requirements for presenting certain public documents in the European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/ 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
Regulation (EU) 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. (EAPO Regulation). Google Scholar öffnen
3. EU Directives Google Scholar öffnen
Council Directive 2002/8/EC of 27 January 2003. Google Scholar öffnen
Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Google Scholar öffnen
Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union. Google Scholar öffnen
Directive 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. Google Scholar öffnen
IV. EU Opinions and Recommendations Google Scholar öffnen
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee of 11 May 2001, OJ 2001 C 139, 10. Google Scholar öffnen
Opinion of the Parliament, single reading, 14 March 2001, A5?0073/2001, OJ 2001 C 343, 184. Google Scholar öffnen
V. Cases Google Scholar öffnen
ECtHR, Martins Silva v. Portugal, application no 12959/10. Google Scholar öffnen
ECtHR, Augusto v. France, application no 71665/01. Google Scholar öffnen
ECtHR, Mantovanelli v. France, application no 21497/93. Google Scholar öffnen
ECtHR, Feldbrugge v. Netherlands, application no. 8562/79. 1. CJEU Google Scholar öffnen
C-94/14, Flight Refund Ltd v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, ECLI:EU:C:2016:148. Google Scholar öffnen
C-559/14, Meroni v. Recoletos Limited, ECLI:EU:C:2016:349. Google Scholar öffnen
C-511/14, Pebros Servizi Srl v. Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd [2016], ECLI:EU:C:2016:448. Google Scholar öffnen
C-70/15, Lebek v. Janusz Domino, ECLl:EU:C:2016:524. Google Scholar öffnen
C-184/14, A v. B, ECLI:EU:C:2015:479. Google Scholar öffnen
C-681/13, Diageo Brands v. Simiramida-04 EOOD, ECLI:EU:C:2015:471. Google Scholar öffnen
C-300/14, Imtech Marine Belgium NV v. Radio Hellenic SA, ECLI:EU:C:2015:825. Google Scholar öffnen
Joined cases C-119/13 and C-120/13, eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG and Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH v. Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy und Tetyana Bonchyk, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2144. Google Scholar öffnen
C-112/13, A v. B a.o., ECLI:EU :C:2014:2:195. Google Scholar öffnen
C- 302/13, flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS v. Starptautisk? lidosta R?ga VAS und Air Baltic Corporation AS, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2319. Google Scholar öffnen
C-332/11, ProRail BV v. Xpedys NV a.o., ECLI:EU:C:2013:87. Google Scholar öffnen
C-508/12, Walter Vapenik v. Josef Thurner, ECLI:EU:C:2013:790. Google Scholar öffnen
C-292/10, G v. Cornelius de Visser, ECLI:EU:C:2012:142. Google Scholar öffnen
C-514/10, Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v. SEWAR spol. s r.o., EU:C:2012:367. Google Scholar öffnen
Case C-170/11, Lippens v. Kortekaas a.o., ECLI:EU:C:2012:540. Google Scholar öffnen
C-619/10, Trade Agency Ltd v. Seramico Investments Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2012:531. Google Scholar öffnen
C-215/11, Iwona Szyrocka v. SiGer Technologie GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2012:794. Google Scholar öffnen
C-325/11, Krystyna Alder und Ewald Alder v. Sabina Or?owska und Czeslaw Or?owski, ECLI:EU:C:2012:824. Google Scholar öffnen
C-406/09, Realchemie Nederland BV v. Bayer CropScience AG, ECLI:EU:C:2011:668. Google Scholar öffnen
C-394/07, Gambazzi v. DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc. and CIBC Mellon Trust Companyi, ECLI:EU: C:2009:219. Google Scholar öffnen
C-104/03, St. Paul Dairy Industries NV v. Unibel Exser BVBA, ECLI:EU:C:2005:255. Google Scholar öffnen
C-522/03, Scania Finance France SA v. Rockinger Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co, ECLI:EU:C:2005:606. Google Scholar öffnen
C-99/96, Hans-Hermann Mietz v. Intership Yachting Sneek, BV ECLI:EU:C:1999:202. Google Scholar öffnen
C-391/95, Van Uden Maritime BV v. Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line u. a., ECLI:EU: C:1998:543. Google Scholar öffnen
C-78/95, Hendrikman v. Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:1996:380. Google Scholar öffnen
C-228/81, Pendy Plastic Products BV v. Pluspunkt Handelsgesellschaft mbH, ECLI:EU:C:1982:276. Google Scholar öffnen
C-166/80, Klomps v. Michel, ECLI:EU:C:1981:137. Google Scholar öffnen
C-125/79, Denilauler v. Couchet Frères, ECLI:EU:C:1980:130. Google Scholar öffnen
2. Austria Google Scholar öffnen
Austrian Supreme Court, 21 January 2015, 3 Ob 232/14 k, Case 14K.0121.000, ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2015:0030OB00232. Google Scholar öffnen
Austrian Supreme Court, 19 June 2013, 84/13 v, Case 13V.0619.000, ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2013:0030OB00084. Google Scholar öffnen
Austrian Supreme Court, 31 January 2007, 3 Ob 9/07 f, Case 07F.0131.000, ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2007:0030OB00009. Google Scholar öffnen
3. Belgium Google Scholar öffnen
Cass. 28 January 2005, Pasicrisie 2005, Vol. 1, 224. Google Scholar öffnen
Court of First Instance Brussels, 13 October 2004, Tijdschrift voor Belgisch burgerlijk recht 2005, 125. Google Scholar öffnen
4. Estonia Google Scholar öffnen
Estonian Supreme Court 1 December 2010, No 3-2-1-117-10. Google Scholar öffnen
5. France Google Scholar öffnen
Cass. Com, 3 April 2013, n° 11-19.000. Google Scholar öffnen
Cass. Civ. 2eme, 22 February 2012, no 10-28379. Google Scholar öffnen
Cass. Civ. 1ère, 4 June 2009, no 08-12482. Google Scholar öffnen
Cass. Civ. 1ère, 9 November 1971, n° 70-14017 Google Scholar öffnen
CA Bordeaux, 31 March 2016, n° 14/05833. Google Scholar öffnen
CA Metz, 19 April 2016, n° 14/00029. Google Scholar öffnen
CA Bordeaux, 15 May 2013, no 12/02578; Google Scholar öffnen
CA Nancy, 30 March 2015, no 14/00839; Google Scholar öffnen
CA Versailles, 2 October 2014, n° 14/01687. Google Scholar öffnen
CA Pau, 12 April 2013, n° 13/1582. Google Scholar öffnen
CA Nancy, 11 June 2013, n° 12/02657. Google Scholar öffnen
6. Germany Google Scholar öffnen
BGH, 10 September 2015, IX ZB 39/13, NJW 2016, 160–163. Google Scholar öffnen
BGH, 3 August 2011, XII ZB 187/10, NJW 2011, 3103–3106. Google Scholar öffnen
BGH 26 August 2009, XII ZB 169/07. Google Scholar öffnen
BGH, 26 November 2009, VII ZB 42/08, NJW 2010–2138. Google Scholar öffnen
BGH, 6 May 2004, IX ZB 43/03, NJW 2004, 2386–2388. Google Scholar öffnen
OLG Hamburg, 7 November 2008, 6 W 22/08, BeckRS 2009, 04375. Google Scholar öffnen
OLG Düsseldorf, 11 October 1999, 3 W 258/99, NJW 2000, 3290- 3291. Google Scholar öffnen
OLG Köln, 6 October 1994, 7 W 34/94, NJW-RR 1995, 446–448. Google Scholar öffnen
LG München, 19 January 2011, 6 T 6032/09, BeckRS 2010, 12370. Google Scholar öffnen
LG Trier, 17 October 2002, 7 HKO 140/01, NJW-RR 2003 , 287–288. Google Scholar öffnen
7. Greece Google Scholar öffnen
Greek Supreme Court 1028/2009, Civil Procedure Law Review 2010, p. 55. Google Scholar öffnen
Thessaloniki CoA 164/2010, Civil Procedure Law Review 2010, 709. Google Scholar öffnen
Athens CoA 1356/2007, Hellenic Justice 2008, 1498. Google Scholar öffnen
Thessaloniki CoA 2321/2007. Google Scholar öffnen
Thessaloniki CoA 3299/2000, Armenopoulos 2001, p. 377. Google Scholar öffnen
Thessaloniki CoA 267/1999, Armenopoulos 1999, p. 718 = Commercial law Survey 1999, p. 275. Google Scholar öffnen
Athens CoA 10698/1995, Hellenic Justice 1996, 1402. Google Scholar öffnen
District Court Thessaloniki 15948/2009 Armenopoulos 1999, p. 718. Google Scholar öffnen
Drama 1 s t Instance Court 251/2000, Armenopoulos 2001. Google Scholar öffnen
8. Italy Google Scholar öffnen
Court of Appeal Milan, Gambazzi v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc. and CIBC Mellon Trust Company, Google Scholar öffnen
14 December 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
9. Luxembourg Google Scholar öffnen
Judgment of 10 February 2011, case no 35005. Google Scholar öffnen
10. Poland Google Scholar öffnen
Polish Supreme Court, 27 November 2014, V CSK 487/13. Google Scholar öffnen
11. Romania Google Scholar öffnen
Bucharest Court of Appeal, Decision No. 3226/26.05.2010. Google Scholar öffnen
Vrancea General Court, Decision No. 63/15.06.2015. Google Scholar öffnen
Oradea General Court, Civil Section, Decision 7716, 22.09.2015. Google Scholar öffnen
General Court, Decision No. 1067/19.10.2010. Google Scholar öffnen
Bucharest General Court, Commercial Section, Decision 14351/2009. Google Scholar öffnen
12. Slovenia Google Scholar öffnen
Appellate Court in Koper, II Ip 429/2013, 17.10.2013, ECLI:SI:VSKP:2013:II.IP.429.2013. Google Scholar öffnen
Appellate Court Koper, II Ip 312/2012, 18.10.2012, ECLI:SI:VSKP:2012:II.IP.312.2012. Google Scholar öffnen
13. Spain Google Scholar öffnen
Court of Appeal of Barcelona, 4 October 2012 [AP Barcelona (19ª), 122/2012, ECLI:ES:APB:2012:7160A. Google Scholar öffnen
Court of Appeal of Madrid, 12 February 2002, JUR\2002\132026). Google Scholar öffnen
14. The Netherlands Google Scholar öffnen
Netherlands Supreme Court, ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BP0003. Google Scholar öffnen
District Court Utrecht, ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2011:BU5866. Google Scholar öffnen
Rotterdam District Court, NL:RBROT:2009:BL187. Google Scholar öffnen
District Court The Hague, ECLI:NL:RBHAA:2009:BK6667. Google Scholar öffnen
15. UK Google Scholar öffnen
MD & CT [2014] EWHC 871 (Farn) CH2FN 190. Google Scholar öffnen
Reeve & Others v Plummer [2014] EWHC 362 (QB), 18 December 2014 Google Scholar öffnen