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

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