The 50th Anniversary of the European Law of Civil Procedure

Prof. Dr. Dres. h.c. Burkhard Hess; Prof. Dr. Koen Lenaerts

doi:10.5771/9783748910619

Summary

Am 27. September 1968 unterzeichneten die sechs EG-Mitgliedstaaten das Brüsseler Übereinkommen über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und Vollstreckung gerichtlicher Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen. Anlässlich des 50. Jubiläums dieses Meilensteins veranstalteten der Europäischen Gerichtshof und das Max-Planck-Institut Luxemburg eine internationale Konferenz zu den wichtigsten Entwicklungen, Errungenschaften und Herausforderungen des europäischen Zivilprozessrechts. Dieses Buch beinhaltet Beiträge von Mitgliedern des Europäischen Gerichtshofes, etablierten Wissenschaftlern und jungen Forschern über das Brüsseler Regime. Es dient zur Veranschaulichung des Dialogs zwischen dem EuGH und den nationalen Gerichten über die Auslegung des europäischen Zivilprozessrechts, sowie dessen Einfluss auf die Europäisierung des internationalen Privatrechts. Es thematisiert Überlegungen zur Zukunft des europäischen Zivilprozessrechts und der Eignung des Brüsseler Regimes in der heutigen Zeit.

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Copyright year: 2020
Publication date: 07.08.2020
ISBN-Print: 978-3-8487-6944-5
ISBN-Online: 978-3-7489-1061-9
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Studies of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law
Volume: 22
Language: English
Pages: 558
Product type: Edited Book

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access Pages 1 - 10
Burkhard Hess
1. 1. Introduction No access Burkhard Hess
2. Burkhard Hess
  1. 2.1. The Brussels Convention (1973–1980) No access Burkhard Hess
  2. 2.2. Cross-border Proceedings in the Internal Market (1980–1998) No access Burkhard Hess
  3. 2.3. Judicial Co-operation under the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999–2009) No access Burkhard Hess
  4. 2.4. Consolidation and Challenges under the Lisbon Treaty (2009 until today) No access Burkhard Hess
3. Burkhard Hess
  1. 3.1. Autonomous Interpretation No access Burkhard Hess
  2. 3.2. Jurisdiction: Access to Justice and Legal Certainty No access Burkhard Hess
  3. 3.3. Protection of the Rights of Defence No access Burkhard Hess
  4. 3.4. Free Movement of Judgments No access Burkhard Hess
4. Burkhard Hess
  1. 4.1. Mutual Trust – a Transversal Principle of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice No access Burkhard Hess
  2. 4.2. The Growing Role of the Charter of Fundamental Rights No access Burkhard Hess
  3. 4.3. The Interplay of the Instruments on Civil Co-operation No access Burkhard Hess
  4. 4.4. EU Procedural Law and National Procedures No access Burkhard Hess
5. Burkhard Hess
  1. 5.1. Interaction between Rules and Principles No access Burkhard Hess
  2. 5.2. Comparative Law in the Brussels Regime No access Burkhard Hess
  3. 5.3. Complementary Roles of the Court and the EU Lawmaker No access Burkhard Hess
6. 6. Conclusion No access Burkhard Hess
Camelia Toader
1. 1. Introduction No access Camelia Toader
2. 2. Évolution du principe de confiance mutuelle : de sa naissance dans la logique d’un marché commun à sa consolidation avec l’abolition de l’exequatur No access Camelia Toader
3. Camelia Toader
  1. 3.1. Le principe de confiance mutuelle et la reconnaissance des décisions No access Camelia Toader
  2. 3.2. Le principe de confiance mutuelle dans l’administration de la justice et la notion de « juridiction » No access Camelia Toader
4. 4. Conclusion No access Camelia Toader
Marek Safjan, Dominik Düsterhaus
1. 1. Introduction No access Marek Safjan, Dominik Düsterhaus
2. Marek Safjan, Dominik Düsterhaus
  1. 2.1. L’ordre public (procédural) No access Marek Safjan, Dominik Düsterhaus
  2. 2.2. Les défauts de notification No access Marek Safjan, Dominik Düsterhaus
3. 3. Procéduralisation du refus d’exécution sous les auspices de la CJUE No access Marek Safjan, Dominik Düsterhaus
4. 4. Vers un contrôle strict des conditions du procès équitable? No access Marek Safjan, Dominik Düsterhaus
Maciej Szpunar
1. 1. Introduction No access Maciej Szpunar
2. 2. The consistency of the scopes of application No access Maciej Szpunar
3. 3. The consistency of the solutions No access Maciej Szpunar
Marta Requejo Isidro
1. 1. Introduction No access Marta Requejo Isidro
2. 2. Le régime Bruxelles et le système : conception et littéralité des instruments. No access Marta Requejo Isidro
3. Marta Requejo Isidro
  1. 3.1. Absence d’impératif de cohérence? No access Marta Requejo Isidro
  2. Marta Requejo Isidro
    1. 3.2.1. Argument décisif (et à suivre) No access Marta Requejo Isidro
    2. 3.2.2. Argument décisif (pour en dévier) No access Marta Requejo Isidro
  3. Marta Requejo Isidro
    1. 3.3.1. Une « fausse » mention? No access Marta Requejo Isidro
    2. Marta Requejo Isidro
      1. 3.3.2.1. Le cumul d’arguments No access Marta Requejo Isidro
      2. 3.3.2.2. Les références « de basse intensité » No access Marta Requejo Isidro
    3. 3.3.3. Au-delà : le raisonnement (en apparence ?) indépendant No access Marta Requejo Isidro
  4. Marta Requejo Isidro
    1. 3.4.1. Les précédents No access Marta Requejo Isidro
    2. 3.4.2. Le régime Bruxelles à travers les avocats généraux No access Marta Requejo Isidro
4. 4. Conclusions No access Marta Requejo Isidro
Sabine Corneloup
1. 1. Mutual Recognition of Judgments, the Fundamental Objective No access Sabine Corneloup
2. Sabine Corneloup
  1. 2.1. The Objective of Proximity No access Sabine Corneloup
  2. 2.2. The Objective of Protection No access Sabine Corneloup
3. 3. Impact on Characterization and Interpretation of Common Notions No access Sabine Corneloup
4. 4. Potential Influence of Policies in Favour of Non-Judicial Dispute Settlement Mechanisms No access Sabine Corneloup
5. 5. Towards an Integrative Approach No access Sabine Corneloup
Johan Meeusen
1. 1. Introduction No access Johan Meeusen
2. 2. Brussels I as an Integration Instrument No access Johan Meeusen
3. 3. Brussels I as a Trailblazer for the Europeanization of Private International Law No access Johan Meeusen
4. Johan Meeusen
  1. 4.1. Brussels I, Private International Law and Fundamental Rights Protection No access Johan Meeusen
  2. 4.2. Brussels I, Private International Law and the Principles of Mutual Trust and Mutual Recognition No access Johan Meeusen
5. 5. The Challenge ahead – a Future Brussels Iter Regulation as the Necessary Next Step towards Further Europeanization and Constitutionalization No access Johan Meeusen
Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe
1. 1. Introduction No access Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe
2. 2. The Preliminary Ruling Procedure as an Instrument of Cooperation between the CJEU and the National Judges No access Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe
3. Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe
  1. 3.1. Granarolo, C-196/15, 14 July 2016 No access Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe
  2. 3.2. Austro-Mechana, C-572/14, 21 April 2016 No access Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe
  3. 3.3. Hanse Yachts AG, C-29/16, 4 May 2017 No access Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe
  4. 3.4. Nogueira and Others, C-168/16 and C-169/16, 14 September 2017 No access Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe
  5. 3.5. Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan, C-194/16, 17 October 2017 No access Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe
  6. 3.6. Concurrence SARL, C-618/15, 21 December 2016 No access Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe
4. 4. Conclusion No access Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe
Wolfgang Hau
1. 1. The Early Reception of the Brussels Convention in Germany No access Wolfgang Hau
2. 2. The Halting Dialogue between the Court of Justice and German Courts No access Wolfgang Hau
3. 3. The Dialogue and the Promotion of European Civil Procedure No access Wolfgang Hau
Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
1. 1. Introduction No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
2. Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
  1. 2.1. Europeanization of Civil Procedure: Goals and State of Affairs No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
  2. 2.2. The European Civil Justice Patchwork: Legislative Disparities and the Role of the Courts No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
3. Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
  1. 3.1. Cooperation at the Centre of the EU Legal System No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
  2. 3.2. Europeanization of National Judicial Practice No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
  3. 3.3. Variable Use of the Reference Procedure in the Civil Justice Area No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
  4. 3.4. National Civil Judges as European Judges No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
  5. 3.5. (Re)formulating the Questions No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
  6. 3.6. Applying CJEU Judgments in National Cases No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
  7. 3.7. Resistance to CJEU Authority No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
4. Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
  1. 4.1. Measures at the National Level No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
  2. 4.2. Measures at the EU level No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
5. 5. Concluding Remarks and Outlook No access Xandra Kramer, Jos Hoevenaars
Loïc Cadiet
1. Loïc Cadiet
  1. 1.1. Origine de l’autonomie procédurale des Etats membres No access Loïc Cadiet
  2. 1.2. Limites de l’autonomie procédurale des Etats membres No access Loïc Cadiet
2. Loïc Cadiet
  1. 2.1. Autonomie procédurale et rapports de systèmes No access Loïc Cadiet
  2. 2.2. Autonomie procédurale et structures du droit No access Loïc Cadiet
Michail Vilaras
1. Michail Vilaras
  1. 1.1. La définition initiale des limites à l’autonomie procédurale nationale : la jurisprudence classique opérant un double contrôle d’équivalence et d’effectivité No access Michail Vilaras
  2. Michail Vilaras
    1. 1.2.1. L’intégration du contrôle au titre de la Charte au contrôle du respect du principe d’effectivité : la jurisprudence opérant un double contrôle d’équivalence et d’effectivité renforcé par la Cha... No access Michail Vilaras
    2. 1.2.2. La substitution du contrôle au titre de la Charte au contrôle du respect du principe d’effectivité : la jurisprudence opérant un double contrôle d’équivalence et au titre de la Charte No access Michail Vilaras
    3. 1.2.3. La juxtaposition du contrôle au titre de la Charte et du contrôle du respect des principes d’équivalence et d’effectivité : la jurisprudence opérant un triple contrôle d’équivalence, d’effectiv... No access Michail Vilaras
2. 2. La substitution du contrôle au titre de la Charte au contrôle traditionnel de l’effectivité : une approche exceptionnelle pour des cas particuliers? la jurisprudence supprimant le contrôle d’équiva... No access Michail Vilaras
3. 3. Propos conclusifs No access Michail Vilaras
The Brussels Convention: 50 Years of Contribution to European Integration1 No access Pages 249 - 258 Fausto Pocar
Etienne Farnoux
1. Etienne Farnoux
  1. Etienne Farnoux
    1. 1.1.1. Forum actoris through forum delicti (art. 5.3/7.2) No access Etienne Farnoux
    2. 1.1.2. Forum actoris through derived jurisdiction No access Etienne Farnoux
    3. 1.1.3. Low standard of proof at the jurisdictional stage No access Etienne Farnoux
    4. 1.1.4. Forum actoris in the specific realm of personal data protection No access Etienne Farnoux
  2. Etienne Farnoux
    1. 1.2.1. The traditional explanation: localization No access Etienne Farnoux
    2. 1.2.2. Favouring the plaintiff? No access Etienne Farnoux
2. Etienne Farnoux
  1. 2.1. Reasons to Replace the Forum Delicti by a Forum Victimae No access Etienne Farnoux
  2. 2.2. Regime of the Forum Victimae No access Etienne Farnoux
Lucilla Galanti
1. 1. Introduction No access Lucilla Galanti
2. Lucilla Galanti
  1. 2.1. The Same Situation of Fact and Law: An Early “Rigorous” Approach No access Lucilla Galanti
  2. 2.2. The Evolution of the Concept of “Same Situation of Fact and Law” No access Lucilla Galanti
  3. 2.3. The Confirmation of the Extensive Approach in Patent and Design Cases No access Lucilla Galanti
  4. 2.4. The Position of the CJEU on Cartels No access Lucilla Galanti
  5. 2.5. An Interim Conclusion No access Lucilla Galanti
3. Lucilla Galanti
  1. 3.1. Abuse and Real Claims: How to Apportion the Burden of Proof? No access Lucilla Galanti
4. 4. Some Final Remarks No access Lucilla Galanti
Cinzia Peraro
1. 1. Introduction No access Cinzia Peraro
2. 2. The Horizontal Approach: Common Principles for Collective Redress No access Cinzia Peraro
3. 3. The Sectoral Approach: Specific Rules for Collective Redress in Specific Policies No access Cinzia Peraro
4. 4. The Jurisdictional Regime for Cross-Border Collective Redress No access Cinzia Peraro
5. 5. Concluding Remarks No access Cinzia Peraro
Stephanie Law
1. 1. Introduction No access Stephanie Law
2. Stephanie Law
  1. 2.1. The Legal and Political Framework of Collective Redress and its PIL Dimensions No access Stephanie Law
  2. Stephanie Law
    1. 2.2.1. The Austrian system No access Stephanie Law
    2. 2.2.2. The Belgium system No access Stephanie Law
    3. 2.2.3. The Dutch system No access Stephanie Law
    4. 2.2.4. The system adopted in England and Wales No access Stephanie Law
  3. 2.3. Three Models of Collective Redress No access Stephanie Law
3. 3. Towards a Harmonised Approach? The 2018 Proposal of the European Commission No access Stephanie Law
4. 4. The Characteristics of the Representative Action Model Advanced by the Commission No access Stephanie Law
5. 5. The Intended Means of Operation of the Representative Action Mechanism No access Stephanie Law
6. 6. Founding Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Collective Redress No access Stephanie Law
7. 7. The Default Approach of Brussels I bis – To the Courts of the Defendant’s Domicile No access Stephanie Law
8. 8. A (First) Rule of Special Jurisdiction for Contracts No access Stephanie Law
9. 9. Protective Jurisdiction: Collective Redress and Consumer Protection No access Stephanie Law
10. 10. A (Second) Rule of Special Jurisdiction for Torts No access Stephanie Law
11. 11. Preliminary Conclusions on Jurisdiction No access Stephanie Law
Janek Tomasz Nowak
1. Janek Tomasz Nowak
  1. 1.1. Collective Redress and the Jurisdiction Rules of the Brussels Ibis Regulation No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  2. 1.2. Relevance of the Issue of Public Policy in the Reform Debate No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  3. 1.3. Argument and Plan No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
2. Janek Tomasz Nowak
  1. 2.1. Standard of Review No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  2. 2.2. National Concept No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  3. 2.3. Increasing Europeanisation of Public Policy Based on a Common Procedural Model No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
3. Janek Tomasz Nowak
  1. 3.1. The Litigation Model of the Brussels Regime No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  2. 3.2. Collective Redress, European Procedural Culture and Mutual Trust No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  3. 3.3. Research Questions No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
4. Janek Tomasz Nowak
  1. 4.1. No per se Refusal of Representative Remedial Collective Redress Decisions No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  2. Janek Tomasz Nowak
    1. 4.2.1. Different opinions on the compatibility of an opt-out system with the right to a fair trial No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
    2. Janek Tomasz Nowak
      1. 4.2.2.1. Full information about proceedings No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
      2. 4.2.2.2. Participation in adversarial proceedings No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
    3. 4.2.3. A need for appropriate safeguards No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
5. Janek Tomasz Nowak
  1. 5.1. General No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  2. Janek Tomasz Nowak
    1. 5.2.1. In relation to individual group members No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
    2. 5.2.2. In relation to the defendant No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  3. Janek Tomasz Nowak
    1. 5.3.1. Notification measures No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
    2. 5.3.2. The ability to influence proceedings No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
    3. 5.3.3. Judicial supervision No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
6. 6. Public Policy and the Application of Procedural Safeguards No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
7. Janek Tomasz Nowak
  1. 7.1. Introduction No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  2. 7.2. US Courts No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  3. 7.3. Amsterdam Court of First Instance – Ahold Class Settlement No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  4. 7.4. Ghent Court of Appeal – Lernout and Hauspie Class Settlement No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  5. 7.5. German Bundesverfassungsgericht – US Class Action Notices under the Hague Convention No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
  6. 7.6. A Number of Common Lines No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
8. 8. Concluding Remarks No access Janek Tomasz Nowak
Tobias Lutzi
1. 1. Introduction: the Technology-Neutral Brussels Framework No access Tobias Lutzi
2. Tobias Lutzi
  1. Tobias Lutzi
    1. 2.1.1. The starting point: Bier & Shevill No access Tobias Lutzi
    2. 2.1.2. The regime for online infringements of personality rights: eDate & Bolagsupplysningen No access Tobias Lutzi
    3. 2.1.3. The regime for other online torts: Wintersteiger, Pinckney, Hejduk & Concurrence No access Tobias Lutzi
  2. 2.2. The Bad: a Mosaic of Jurisdictions No access Tobias Lutzi
  3. Tobias Lutzi
    1. 2.3.1. Limited availability of centre-of-interests jurisdiction No access Tobias Lutzi
    2. 2.3.2. ‘Full’ and ‘partial’ jurisdiction No access Tobias Lutzi
    3. 2.3.3. Divisible and indivisible remedies No access Tobias Lutzi
3. 3. Fit for New Challenges? No access Tobias Lutzi
Elena Alina Onţanu
1. 1. Introduction No access Elena Alina Onţanu
2. 2. Access to Justice and ICT No access Elena Alina Onţanu
3. 3. The European Uniform Procedures No access Elena Alina Onţanu
4. Elena Alina Onţanu
  1. 4.1. e-Justice Portal No access Elena Alina Onţanu
  2. 4.2. e-CODEX No access Elena Alina Onţanu
  3. 4.3. Integrating e-Communication Solutions within the EU No access Elena Alina Onţanu
5. Elena Alina Onţanu
  1. 5.1. Interrelating Technical and Procedural Requirements No access Elena Alina Onţanu
  2. 5.2. National Technical and Organisational Infrastructures No access Elena Alina Onţanu
  3. 5.3. Interplay between National and European Rules No access Elena Alina Onţanu
  4. 5.4. Language and Legal Semantics No access Elena Alina Onţanu
  5. 5.5. Reaching the Critical Level of Knowledge and Users No access Elena Alina Onţanu
6. 6. In Search of Simplicity: Towards a Different Approach to e-Justice? No access Elena Alina Onţanu
7. 7. Concluding remarks No access Elena Alina Onţanu
Zuzanna Witek
1. 1. Introduction No access Zuzanna Witek
2. 2. The Principle of Mutual Trust as a Normative Cornerstone of the AFSJ No access Zuzanna Witek
3. 3. Loss of Mutual Trust as a Ground for Non-Recognition No access Zuzanna Witek
4. Zuzanna Witek
  1. 4.1. A “Court” Within the Meaning of EU Law No access Zuzanna Witek
  2. 4.2. Developments in the Polish Judiciary in 2015–2020 No access Zuzanna Witek
5. 5. Conclusion No access Zuzanna Witek
Table of cases No access Pages 547 - 550
Index No access Pages 551 - 558