Cover of book: EU Civil Procedure Law and Third Countries
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Edited Book No access

EU Civil Procedure Law and Third Countries

Which Way Forward?
Editors:
Publisher:
 2021

Summary

In den letzten Jahren hat sich die Zahl von EU-Verordnungen zum Internationalen Zivilprozessrecht stark erhöht. Die geltenden Vorschriften regeln im wesentlichen EU-interne Sachverhalte. Beziehungen zu Drittstaaten werden nur unter selektiven Gesichtspunkten geregelt. Für die Gestaltung der Justizkooperation der EU mit Drittstaaaten ist dies nicht befriedigend. Die EU hat zwar mit einigen europäischen Staaten das Lugano-Übereinkommen geschlossen, dieses eignet sich aber nicht als globale Lösung. Im vorliegenden Band wird, gestützt auf rechtsvergleichende und länderspezifische Beiträge (aus EU-Staaten wie auch aus Drittstaaten), ein strukturiertes Modell für künftige gesetzgeberische Maßnahmen der EU, ggf, in Form von multilateralen und bilateralen Abkommen mit Drittstaaten (z.B. im Rahmen der Haager Konferenz für IPR), den Einsatz von Soft Law und ggf. koordinierte nationale Gesetzgebung entwickelt. Das Buch geht auch auf die Thematik des Brexit ein.

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2021
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-7956-7
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-2340-4
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Language
English
Pages
331
Product type
Edited Book

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 6
  2. Introduction No access 7 - 14 Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
  3. Jürgen Basedow
    1. Abstract No access Jürgen Basedow
    2. Keywords No access Jürgen Basedow
    3. A. EU civil procedure law in the context of EU policies No access Jürgen Basedow
    4. B. The European Neighbourhood Policy No access Jürgen Basedow
    5. C. Mutual recognition of judgments in the association agreements No access Jürgen Basedow
    6. D. Conclusion: What are the next steps? No access Jürgen Basedow
  4. Elina N. Moustaira
    1. Abstract No access Elina N. Moustaira
    2. Keywords No access Elina N. Moustaira
    3. A. Introduction No access Elina N. Moustaira
    4. B. EU civil procedure law and third countries No access Elina N. Moustaira
    5. C. Example: Bilateral treaties of Greece No access Elina N. Moustaira
    6. D. Conclusion No access Elina N. Moustaira
  5. Alexander Trunk
    1. Abstract No access Alexander Trunk
    2. Keywords No access Alexander Trunk
    3. A. Present status of jurisdictional rules under EU civil procedure law including reference to third countries No access Alexander Trunk
    4. Alexander Trunk
      1. Alexander Trunk
        1. Alexander Trunk
          1. a) General jurisdiction No access Alexander Trunk
          2. b) Specific jurisdiction No access Alexander Trunk
          3. c) Protective jurisdiction No access Alexander Trunk
          4. d) Exclusive jurisdiction No access Alexander Trunk
          5. e) Choice of forum (prorogation) agreements No access Alexander Trunk
        2. 2. Other EU legislation No access Alexander Trunk
      2. II. Conclusion of treaties with third country/countries No access Alexander Trunk
      3. III. Use of soft law? No access Alexander Trunk
      4. IV. Coordinated amendments of EU law and national law No access Alexander Trunk
    5. C. Summary and recommendations No access Alexander Trunk
  6. Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
    1. Abstract No access Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
    2. Keywords No access Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
    3. A. Introduction No access Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
    4. B. Residual jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation No access Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
    5. Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
      1. I. Protecting local claimants No access Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
      2. II. Providing access to justice for non-local claimants No access Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
      3. Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
        1. 1. Human rights protection under the Alien Tort Statute No access Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
        2. 2. Human rights protection without special jurisdictional provisions No access Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
        3. 3. The 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights No access Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
        4. 4. The 2015 Resolution of the International Law Institute No access Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
    6. D. Ubi ius, ibi remedium? No access Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
    7. E. Back to the Future? No access Michael Stürner, Friederike Pförtner
  7. Alberto Miglio
    1. Abstract No access Alberto Miglio
    2. Keywords No access Alberto Miglio
    3. A. Introduction: overcoming the limited scope of harmonized bases of jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation? No access Alberto Miglio
    4. B. The UPC as a sui generis court No access Alberto Miglio
    5. Alberto Miglio
      1. I. The different scope of the jurisdiction of national courts and the UPC jurisdiction and the ensuing need for coordination of proceedings No access Alberto Miglio
      2. II. The extension of the rules on jurisdiction contained in Chapter II of the Regulation to defendants domiciled in third States No access Alberto Miglio
      3. III. The special rule of extraterritorial jurisdiction applicable to third-country domiciliaries under Art. 71b para. 3 of the Regulation No access Alberto Miglio
      4. IV. The rules on provisional measures No access Alberto Miglio
    6. Alberto Miglio
      1. I. Regulation No 542/2014 and the precedent of the 2010 Commission proposal: a moderately conservative approach to the universalization of jurisdiction rules No access Alberto Miglio
      2. II. Variable geometry rules within the EU: the consequences of recourse to an unprecedented pattern of differentiated integration No access Alberto Miglio
      3. III. Variable geometry rules vis-à-vis the outer world: the limits of a purely unilateral approach No access Alberto Miglio
    7. E. Conclusion No access Alberto Miglio
  8. Luboš Tichý
    1. Abstract No access Luboš Tichý
    2. Keywords No access Luboš Tichý
    3. A. Introduction: purpose and subject No access Luboš Tichý
    4. Luboš Tichý
      1. I. Material scope No access Luboš Tichý
      2. II. Personal scope No access Luboš Tichý
      3. III. Temporal scope No access Luboš Tichý
      4. IV. Territorial scope No access Luboš Tichý
    5. Luboš Tichý
      1. I. Basic approach No access Luboš Tichý
      2. II. National and international solutions No access Luboš Tichý
    6. Luboš Tichý
      1. I. Time limitation No access Luboš Tichý
      2. II. Definition of jurisdiction No access Luboš Tichý
      3. III. Coordination and communication No access Luboš Tichý
      4. IV. Refusal of recognition No access Luboš Tichý
      5. V. Determining the prohibition of abuse of the process No access Luboš Tichý
    7. E. Requirements for opening the Brussels system of litispendence to non-EU countries No access Luboš Tichý
    8. Luboš Tichý
      1. I. Principles (maxims) of law relevant to lis pendens No access Luboš Tichý
      2. Luboš Tichý
        1. 1. Subject matter of the proceedings (claim), its definition and characteristics No access Luboš Tichý
        2. 2. Subject matter of the proceedings and criticism of some of its concepts No access Luboš Tichý
        3. 3. Factual and legal basis of a claim No access Luboš Tichý
        4. 4. The issue of a proper obstacle of lis pendens and an improper obstacle of lis pendens, and related proceedings No access Luboš Tichý
        5. 5. The notion of interest and its importance in defining the subject matter, and the resolution of the plea and of the consequences of lis pendens No access Luboš Tichý
      3. Luboš Tichý
        1. 1. The term ‘party’ and its involvement No access Luboš Tichý
        2. 2. Controversial cases No access Luboš Tichý
      4. IV. The decisive moment, the question of priority, the temporary scope No access Luboš Tichý
    9. Luboš Tichý
      1. I. Definition of jurisdiction and instruments for its limitation No access Luboš Tichý
      2. II. Time limits for procedural decision-making No access Luboš Tichý
      3. III. Discretion of the court, prognosis of recognition, and negative conflict No access Luboš Tichý
      4. IV. Principle of prohibition of abuse of process No access Luboš Tichý
    10. Luboš Tichý
      1. I. Considerations and recommendations with particular reference to lis pendens in third countries: Solutions de lege lata et ferenda No access Luboš Tichý
      2. II. Basic aspects No access Luboš Tichý
      3. Luboš Tichý
        1. 1. Solutions de lege lata No access Luboš Tichý
        2. 2. Solutions de lege ferenda No access Luboš Tichý
  9. Dieter Martiny
    1. Abstract No access Dieter Martiny
    2. Keywords No access Dieter Martiny
    3. A. Problem area No access Dieter Martiny
    4. Dieter Martiny
      1. I. Different bases No access Dieter Martiny
      2. II. EU law No access Dieter Martiny
      3. III. International treaties No access Dieter Martiny
      4. IV. National law No access Dieter Martiny
    5. Dieter Martiny
      1. I. In general No access Dieter Martiny
      2. Dieter Martiny
        1. 1. More multilateral instruments No access Dieter Martiny
        2. 2. Lugano No access Dieter Martiny
        3. 3. Hague Conventions No access Dieter Martiny
      3. III. Bilateral treaties No access Dieter Martiny
      4. Dieter Martiny
        1. Dieter Martiny
          1. a) Recognition within the Brussels system No access Dieter Martiny
          2. Dieter Martiny
            1. aa) Competence No access Dieter Martiny
            2. bb) Extension of the Brussels Recast Regulation No access Dieter Martiny
        2. 2. A separate Regulation on the recognition and enforcement of third State court decisions No access Dieter Martiny
        3. 3. Development of common principles No access Dieter Martiny
    6. D. Conclusion No access Dieter Martiny
  10. Dimitrios Tsikrikas
    1. Abstract No access Dimitrios Tsikrikas
    2. Keywords No access Dimitrios Tsikrikas
    3. A. In general – Recognition of the effects of foreign judgments in cross-border cases No access Dimitrios Tsikrikas
    4. Dimitrios Tsikrikas
      1. I. Judgments refusing the claim as not admissible No access Dimitrios Tsikrikas
      2. Dimitrios Tsikrikas
        1. 1. The res judicata effect No access Dimitrios Tsikrikas
        2. 2. The recognition of the effects of a foreign judgment is dependent on any important conditions provided by the procedural law of the recognizing State No access Dimitrios Tsikrikas
    5. C. Especially: The recognition of the effects of provisional measures No access Dimitrios Tsikrikas
    6. D. Conclusion No access Dimitrios Tsikrikas
  11. Richard Fentiman
    1. Abstract No access Richard Fentiman
    2. Keywords No access Richard Fentiman
    3. A. Introduction No access Richard Fentiman
    4. Richard Fentiman
      1. I. The applicable law No access Richard Fentiman
      2. II. Jurisdiction and judgments No access Richard Fentiman
      3. III. Resort to national law No access Richard Fentiman
      4. IV. The 2005 Hague Convention No access Richard Fentiman
      5. V. The Lugano Convention No access Richard Fentiman
      6. VI. An interim conclusion No access Richard Fentiman
    5. Richard Fentiman
      1. I. A law and jurisdiction of choice No access Richard Fentiman
      2. II. A rational answer No access Richard Fentiman
    6. Richard Fentiman
      1. I. The future legal landscape No access Richard Fentiman
      2. II. London’s future as a legal hub No access Richard Fentiman
  12. Vladimir Yarkov
    1. Abstract No access Vladimir Yarkov
    2. Keywords No access Vladimir Yarkov
    3. A. Introduction No access Vladimir Yarkov
    4. B. International greements as a measure to ensure free circulation of judicial acts No access Vladimir Yarkov
    5. Vladimir Yarkov
      1. I. The main stages of development of relations in the field of legal cooperation between the Russian Federation and the European Union No access Vladimir Yarkov
      2. II. Negotiations: Is there light at the end of the tunnel? No access Vladimir Yarkov
    6. D. Possible legal models providing for mutual recognition and execution of judicial acts No access Vladimir Yarkov
    7. E. The possible structure of the universal treaty on judicial cooperation (jurisdiction and enforcement) between EU and Russia No access Vladimir Yarkov
    8. F. Conclusion No access Vladimir Yarkov
  13. Iryna Izarova
    1. Abstract No access Iryna Izarova
    2. Keywords No access Iryna Izarova
    3. A. Introduction No access Iryna Izarova
    4. B. General overview of the Ukrainian legal policy on judicial cooperation in civil matters with the EU. Litigation in civil matters with a foreign element No access Iryna Izarova
    5. Iryna Izarova
      1. I. The international treaties related to judicial cooperation in civil matters No access Iryna Izarova
      2. II. The EU Regulations related to cross-border civil and commercial matters No access Iryna Izarova
      3. III. Soft law, related to civil justice and cross-border cases. No access Iryna Izarova
    6. D. Concluding remarks and proposals No access Iryna Izarova
  14. Michael Stöber
    1. Abstract No access Michael Stöber
    2. Keywords No access Michael Stöber
    3. A. Introduction No access Michael Stöber
    4. B. The rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Colombian General Code of Procedure Law No access Michael Stöber
    5. C. The requirement of reciprocity No access Michael Stöber
    6. D. The requirement of compatibility with Colombian public policy No access Michael Stöber
    7. E. Conclusion and evaluation from the legal policy point of view No access Michael Stöber
  15. Henriette-Christine Boscheinen-Duursma
    1. Abstract No access Henriette-Christine Boscheinen-Duursma
    2. Keywords No access Henriette-Christine Boscheinen-Duursma
    3. A. Introduction No access Henriette-Christine Boscheinen-Duursma
    4. B. Guideline on the content of the regulations No access Henriette-Christine Boscheinen-Duursma
    5. C. The CJEU judgments in the cases of Lippens and ProRail No access Henriette-Christine Boscheinen-Duursma
    6. D. Scope of application No access Henriette-Christine Boscheinen-Duursma
    7. E. Judicial cooperation with third countries No access Henriette-Christine Boscheinen-Duursma
  16. Alexander Trunk
    1. Abstract No access Alexander Trunk
    2. Keywords No access Alexander Trunk
    3. A. EU Special Procedures Regulations: present state No access Alexander Trunk
    4. B. The relevance of the three Regulations for third countries: status quo and perspectives No access Alexander Trunk
  17. Azar Aliyev
    1. Abstract No access Azar Aliyev
    2. Keywords No access Azar Aliyev
    3. A. Introduction No access Azar Aliyev
    4. B. History No access Azar Aliyev
    5. Azar Aliyev
      1. I. Extension of Applicability No access Azar Aliyev
      2. II. Basic concept No access Azar Aliyev
      3. III. Rules on Jurisdiction No access Azar Aliyev
      4. IV. Enforcement No access Azar Aliyev
      5. V. Statement of opposition: transformation in court litigation No access Azar Aliyev
    6. D. Conclusions No access Azar Aliyev
  18. Nazar Panych
    1. Abstract No access Nazar Panych
    2. Keywords No access Nazar Panych
    3. A. Introduction No access Nazar Panych
    4. B. Marcel Storme’s project as a precursor to codification of European Civil Procedure No access Nazar Panych
    5. C. The ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure as an attempt to harmonize civil procedure in the transatlantic dimension No access Nazar Panych
    6. Nazar Panych
      1. I. Beginning of the project and starting positions No access Nazar Panych
      2. II. Structure of the European Rules of Civil Procedure No access Nazar Panych
      3. Nazar Panych
        1. 1. Material scope No access Nazar Panych
        2. 2. Addresses of the Rules No access Nazar Panych
        3. 3. Territorial scope and applicability to cases with an international element No access Nazar Panych
      4. IV. Quo Vadis – ELI/UNIDROIT Rules of Civil Procedure? No access Nazar Panych
  19. Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
    1. A. Summarizing the proposals of the contributors to this study No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
    2. B. Which interests: EU – third countries No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
    3. C. Which approaches to which “third countries?” No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
    4. Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
      1. I. Multilateral treaties No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
      2. II. Bilateral treaties of the EU and/or Member States No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
      3. III. Unilateral action by the EU or Member States No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
      4. IV. Which role for soft law? No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
      5. V. Combination of instruments? No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
    5. Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
      1. I. Direct jurisdiction No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
      2. II. Parallel proceedings No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
      3. III. Recognition and enforcement No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
      4. IV. Judicial Assistance No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
    6. F. Need/usefulness for legislative action No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
    7. G. Which fora for legislative action? No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
    8. H. Techniques of differentiation? No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
    9. I. Summary No access Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail
  20. Bibliography No access 307 - 326
  21. About the Authors No access 327 - 330
  22. Index No access 331 - 331

Bibliography (285)

  1. Aden, Menno, ‘Internationale Notzuständigkeit’ (2007) 106 Zeitschrift für ver¬g⁠l⁠e⁠i¬chende Rechtswissenschaft, 490–497. Open Google Scholar
  2. Adolphsen, Jens, Europäisches Zivilverfahrensrecht (2nd edn, Springer, Berlin 2015), 394 p. Open Google Scholar
  3. Alberti, Jacopo, ‘New developments in the EU system of judicial protection: the creation of the Unified Patent Court and its future relations with the CJEU’ (2017) 24, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 6–24. Open Google Scholar
  4. Alberti, Jacopo, ‘Verso un sistema giurisdizionale a ‘specializzazione decentrata’? Brevi note sulle forme di specializzazione del sapere giudiziario dell’Unione all’indomani della riforma del Tribunale’, in Amalfitano and Condinanzi (eds), La Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea oltre i Trattati: la riforma organizzativa e processuale del triennio 2012-2015 (Milano 2018), 373. Open Google Scholar
  5. Althammer, Christoph, Streitgegenstand und Interesse (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2012), 813 p. Open Google Scholar
  6. Althammer, Christoph, ‘Mindeststandards und zentrale Verfahrensgrundsätze im deutschen Recht’, in Weller and Althammer (eds), Mindeststandard im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht (Tübingen 2015), 3–30. Open Google Scholar
  7. Althammer, Christoph and Tolani, Madeleine, ‘Neue Perspektiven für einen gemeineuropäischen Rechtskraftbegriff des EuGH zur EuGVVO?’ (2014) 19 Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International, 227–250. Open Google Scholar
  8. Amort, Matthias, ‘Zur Vorlageberechtigung des Europäischen Patentgerichts: Rechtsschutzlücke und ihre Schließung’ (2017) 52 Europarecht, 56–79. Open Google Scholar
  9. Anthimos, Apostolos, Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards [in Greek] (Sakkoulas Publishers, Athina – Thessaloniki 2014). Open Google Scholar
  10. Anthimos, Apostolos, ‘Recognition of Russian Personal Status Judgments in Greece: A Case Law Survey’ (2014) 2 Russian Law Journal, 49. Open Google Scholar
  11. Asser, T.M.C., ‘De l’effet ou de l’exécution des jugements rendus à l’étranger en matière civile et commerciale’ (1869) 1 Revue de droit international et de législation comparée, 82–99. Open Google Scholar
  12. Audit, Bernard and Bermann, George, ‘The Application of Private International Law Norms to ‘Third Countries’: The Jurisdiction and Judgments Example’, in Nuyts and Watté (eds), International Civil Litigation in Europe and Relations with Third States (Bruylant, Bruxelles 2005), 55. Open Google Scholar
  13. Bach, Ivo, ‘Deine Rechtskraft? Meine Rechtskraft’ (2013) 56 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 56–59. Open Google Scholar
  14. Baldan, Federica and van Zimmeren, Esther, ‘The Future Role of the Unified Patent Court in Safeguarding Coherence in the European Patent System’ (2015) 52 Common Market Law Review, 1529–1577. Open Google Scholar
  15. Baratta, Roberto, ‘National Courts as ‘Guardians’ and ‘Ordinary Courts’ of EU Law: Opinion 1/09 of the ECJ’ (2011) 38 Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 297. Open Google Scholar
  16. Baratta, Roberto, ‘The Unified Patent Court – What is the ‘common’ trait about?’, in Honorati (ed), Luci e ombre del nuovo sistema UE di tutela brevettuale – The EU Patent Protection. Lights and Shades of the New System (Giappichelli, Torino 2014). Open Google Scholar
  17. Basedow, Jürgen, ‘The Communitarization of the Conflict of Laws under the Treaty of Amsterdam’ (2000) 37 Common Market Law Review, 687–708. Open Google Scholar
  18. Basedow, Jürgen, ‘Institut de droit international: Resolution Adopted by the Institute at Its Tallinn Session, 30.08.2015: Universal Civil Jurisdiction with regard to Reparation for International Crimes (1st Commission)’ (2016) 80 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 151. Open Google Scholar
  19. Basedow, Jürgen, ‘Zuständigkeitsderogation, Eingriffsnormen und ordre public’, in Mankowski and Wurmnest (eds), Festschrift für Ulrich Magnus zum 70. Ge¬b⁠u⁠r⁠t⁠s¬tag (München 2014), 337. Open Google Scholar
  20. Basedow, Jürgen, ‘EU-Nachbarschaftspolitik und justizielle Zusammenarbeit’ (2017) 17 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 361–362. Open Google Scholar
  21. Battifol, Henri, Traité elementaire de droit international privé (3rd edn, Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, Paris 1959), 224 p. Open Google Scholar
  22. Baumgartner, Samuel, ‘How Well Do U.S. Judgments Fare in Europe?’ (2007) 40 The George Washington International Law Review, 173. Open Google Scholar
  23. Bäumer, Annette, Die ausländische Rechtshängigkeit und ihre Auswirkungen auf das internationale Zivilverfahrensrecht (Heymanns, Köln 1999), 221 p. Open Google Scholar
  24. Beaumont, Paul, ‘The Revived Judgments Project in The Hague’ (2014) 4 Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, 532–539. Open Google Scholar
  25. Beaumont, Paul and Walker, Lara, ‘Recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters in the Brussels I Recast and some lessons from it and the recent Hague Conventions for the Hague Judgments Project’ (2015) 11 Journal of Private International Law, 31–63. Open Google Scholar
  26. Bertele, Joachim, Souveränität und Verfahrensrecht (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1998), 660 p. Open Google Scholar
  27. Bettinger, Nicole Jasmin, Prozessmodelle im Zivilverfahrensrecht: Erfolg des Hauptverhandlungsmodells auch in der Schweiz? (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2016), 314 p. Open Google Scholar
  28. Boguslawskij, Mark M. and Trunk, Alexander, Reform des Zivil- und Wirt¬s⁠c⁠h⁠a⁠f⁠t⁠s¬prozessrechts in den Mitgliedstaaten der GUS (Gieseking 2004), 183 p. (cited as: Author in: Boguslawskij and Trunk, Reform des Zivil- und Wirtschafsprozessrechts in den Mitgliedstaaten der GUS). Open Google Scholar
  29. Bonomi, Andrea, ‘The Opportunity and Modalities of the Introduction of erga omnes Rules on Jurisdiction’, in Malatesta, Bariatti and Pocar (eds), The External Dimension of EC Private International Law in Family and Succession Matters (Padova 2008), 149. Open Google Scholar
  30. Bonomi, Andrea, ‘Possible Extension of the Lugano System in the Area of Family and Succession Law’, in Furrer, Markus, Pretelli (eds), Die Herausforderungen des europäischen Zivilverfahrensrechts für Lugano- und Drittstaaten (Zürich 2016), 91. Open Google Scholar
  31. Bonomi, Andrea, ‘European Private International Law and Third States’ (2017) 37 Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 184–193. Open Google Scholar
  32. Brandt, Verena, Das englische Disclosure-Verfahren: Ein Modell für Zugang zu Information und Beweis im deutschen Zivilprozess? (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2015), 394 p. Open Google Scholar
  33. Briggs, Adrian, Private International Law in English Courts (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014). Open Google Scholar
  34. Branovitskiy, Konstantin, Approximation (harmonization) of civil procedural law within the European Union and in the post-Soviet space (Statue, Moscow 2018), 399 p. [in Russian]. Open Google Scholar
  35. Carbone, Sergio M., ‘What About the Recognition of Third States’ Foreign Judgments?’, in Pocar, Viarengo and Villata (eds), Recasting Brussels I (Padova 2012), 299. Open Google Scholar
  36. Cimiotta, Emanuele, ‘The Relevance of Erga Omnes Obligations in Prosecuting International Crimes’ (2016) LXXVI Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 687–713. Open Google Scholar
  37. Coester-Waltjen, Dagmar, ‘Die Bedeutung des EuGVÜ und des Luganer Abkommens für Drittstaaten’, in Heldrich and Uchida, Festschrift für Hideo Nakamura zum 70. Geburtstag (Seibundo, Tokyo 1996), 89. Open Google Scholar
  38. Lord Collins of Mapesbury, Lawrence and Harris, Jonathan (gen.eds), Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, London 2012), 2385 p. Open Google Scholar
  39. Contartese, Cristina, ‘The autonomy of the EU legal order in the ECJ’s external relations case law: From the ‘essential’ to the ‘specific characteristics’ of the Union and back again’ (2017) 54 Common Market Law Review, 1627–1671. Open Google Scholar
  40. Crifò, Carla, Cross-border enforcement of debts in the European Union, Default Judgments, Summary Judgments and Orders for Payment (Alphen aan den Rijn 2009), 439 p. Open Google Scholar
  41. Dauses, Manfred A., Ludwigs, Markus, Gudeljevik, Mirjana and Grell, Johannes (eds.), Handbuch des EU-Wirtschaftsrechts, Band 2 (München 2019) (cited as: Author in: Dauses/Ludwigs, Handbuch des EU-Wirtschaftsrechts, Vol 2.). Open Google Scholar
  42. Dehousse, Franklin, The Unified court on patents: The new oxymoron of European law (Academia Press, Gent 2013), 41 p. Open Google Scholar
  43. De Miguel Asensio, Pedro A., ‘Regulation (EU) No. 542/2014 and the International Jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court’ (2014) 45 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 868–888. Open Google Scholar
  44. De Visscher, Fernand, ‘European Unified Patent Court: Another More Realistic and More Equitable Approach Should Be Examined’ (2012) 61 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil, 214–224. Open Google Scholar
  45. De Witte, Bruno, ‘Old-Fashioned Flexibility: International Agreements between Member States of the European Union’, in De Burca and Scott (eds), Constitutional Change in the EU – From Uniformity to Flexibility? (Oxford 2000), 31–58. Open Google Scholar
  46. De Witte, Bruno, ‘A Selfish Court? The Court of Justice and the Design of International Dispute Settlement beyond the European Union’, in Cremona and Thies (eds), The European Court of Justice and External Relations Law: Constitutional Challenges (Oxford 2014), 33–46. Open Google Scholar
  47. De Witte, Bruno, ‘An undivided Union? Differentiated integration in post-Brexit times’ (2018) 55 Common market law review, 227–250. Open Google Scholar
  48. De Witte, Bruno and Martinelli, Thibault, ‘Treaties between EU Member States as Quasi-Instruments of EU Law’, in Cremona and Kilpatrick (eds), EU Legal Acts: Challenges and Transformations (Oxford 2018), 157. Open Google Scholar
  49. Domej, Tanja, ‘Das Verhältnis nach „außen“. Europäische v. Drittstaatensachverhalte’, in von Hein and Rühl (eds), Kohärenz im Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht der Europäischen Union (Tübingen 2016), 90. Open Google Scholar
  50. Domej, Tanja, ‘Die Neufassung der EuGVVO’ (2014) 78 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 508–550. Open Google Scholar
  51. Domej, Tanja, ‘Rechtshängigkeit und in Zusammenhang stehende Verfahren, Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen, einstweilige Maßnahmen’, in Bonomi and Schmid (eds), Revision der Verordnung 44/2001 (Brüssel I) (Geneva 2011), 105. Open Google Scholar
  52. Ehrenzeller, Sabine Kofmel, Der vorläufige Rechtsschutz im internationalen Verhältnis: Grundlagen (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2005), 606 p. Open Google Scholar
  53. Elbalti, Béligh, ‘Reciprocity and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments: a lot of bark but not much bite’ (2017) 13 Journal of Private International Law, pp. 184–218. Open Google Scholar
  54. Erauw, Johan, ‘Relación entre el Acuerdo sobre el Tribunal de la patente unificada europea y el nuevo reglamento de Bruselas I sobre competencia y reconocimiento’ (2013) 13 Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional Privado, 101–125. Open Google Scholar
  55. Ervo L., ‘Party Autonomy and Access to Justice’, in Ervo, Gräns and Jokela (eds), Europeanization of Procedural Law and the New Challenges to Fair Trial (Europa Law Publishing, 2009), 21–41. Open Google Scholar
  56. Ereciński, Tadeusz and Weitz, Karol, ‘Internationale Notzuständigkeit im polni¬s⁠c⁠h⁠e⁠n Internationalen und Europäischen Zivilverfahrensrecht’, in Geimer and Schütze (eds) Festschrift für Athanassios Kaissis zum 65. Geburtstag (Köln 2012), 187. Open Google Scholar
  57. Fallon, Marc, Kinsch, Patrick and Kohler, Christian (eds), Le droit international privé en construction – Building European Private International Law (Intersentia, Cambridge 2011). Open Google Scholar
  58. Fentiman, Richard, International Commercial Litigation (2nd edn, Oxford University Presss, Oxford 2015), 816 p. Open Google Scholar
  59. Fentiman, Richard, ‘The Harmonisation of Civil Jurisdiction’ in Arnull and Chalmers (eds), The Oxford Handbook of EU Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015). Open Google Scholar
  60. Fernandez Arroyo, Diego, ‘Exorbitant and Exclusive Grounds of Jurisdiction in European Private International Law: Will They Ever Survive?’, in Mansel, Pfeiffer, Kronke, Kohler and Hausmann (eds), Festschrift für Erik Jayme (München 2004), 169. Open Google Scholar
  61. Ferrand, Frédérique, ‘Der ALI-UNIDROIT-Entwurf über Transnationale Prinzi¬p⁠i⁠e⁠n und Regeln im Zivilverfahrensrecht’ (2004) 3 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht, 616–630. Open Google Scholar
  62. Fötschl, Andreas, ‘National report for Germany with references to Austria’, in Pretelli and Heckendorn Urscheler (eds), Possibility and terms for applying Brussels I Regulation (recast) to extra-EU disputes – Study for the JURI Committee (Brussels 2014), 80. Open Google Scholar
  63. Fötschl, Andreas, ‘National report for Denmark with references to Norway and Sweden’, in Pretelli and Heckendorn Urscheler (eds), Possibility and terms for applying Brussels I Regulation (recast) to extra-EU disputes – Study for the JURI Committee. Open Google Scholar
  64. Franzina, Pietro, ‘L’universalisation partielle du régime européen de la compétence en matière civile et commerciale dans le règlement Bruxelles I bis: une mise en perspective’, in Guinchard (ed), Le nouveau règlement Bruxelles I bis (Brussels 2014), 39. Open Google Scholar
  65. Franzina, Pietro, ‘The Interplay of EU Legislation and International Developments in Private International Law’, in Franzina (ed), The External Dimension of EU Private International Law after Opinion 1/13 (Cambridge 2017), 183. Open Google Scholar
  66. Gandía Sellens, María Aránzazu, ‘The Relationship between the Brussels I Recast and the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, Specially Focusing on Patent Infringement: When Reality Exceeds Fiction’, in Bergé, Francq and Gardenes Santiago (eds), Boundaries of European Private International Law (Brussels 2015), 619. Open Google Scholar
  67. Gandía Sellens, María Aránzazu, ‘The Viability of the Unitary Patent Package after the UK’s Ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court’ (2018) 49 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 136–152. Open Google Scholar
  68. Gaudemet-Tallon, Hélène, ‘Les frontières extérieures de l’espace judiciaire européen : quelques repères’ in Borras, Bucher, Struycken and Verwilghen (eds), E Pluribus Unum: Liber Amicorum Georges Droz (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague 1996), 85–104. Open Google Scholar
  69. Gaudemet-Tallon, Hélène, ‘La refonte du Règlement Bruxelles I’, in Douchoy-Oudot and Guinchard (eds), La justice civile européenne en marche (Paris 2012), 435. Open Google Scholar
  70. Gaudemet-Tallon, Hélène, ‘L'”internationalisation” du règlement Bruxelles I’, in Essays in honour of Spyridon Vl. Vrellis (Athēna 2014), 297. Open Google Scholar
  71. Gebauer, Martin, ‘Lis Pendens, Negative Declaratory-Judgement Actions and the First-in-time Principle’, in Eckart, Michaels, Rühl and von Hein (eds), Conflict of Laws in a Globalized World (Cambridge 2007), 89. Open Google Scholar
  72. Gebauer, Martin, ‘Das Prorogationsstatut im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht’, in Kronke and Thorn (eds), Grenzen überwinden — Prinzipien bewahren, Festschrift für Bernd von Hoffmann zum 70. Geburtstag (Bielefeld 2011), 577. Open Google Scholar
  73. Geimer, Reinhold, Anerkennung ausländischer Entscheidungen in Deutschland (C.H. Beck, München 1995), 243 p. Open Google Scholar
  74. Geimer, Reinhold, ‘Europäische Urteile zur internationalen Unzuständigkeit’, in Geimer and Schütze (eds) Festschrift für Athanassios Kaissis zum 65. Geburtstag (Köln 2012), 301. Open Google Scholar
  75. Geimer, Reinhold, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht (7th edn, Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln 2015), 1744 p. Open Google Scholar
  76. Geimer, Reinhold, ‘Menschenrechte im internationalen Zivilverfahrensrecht’ (1994) 33 Aktuelle Probleme des Menschenrechtsschutzes, Berichte der Deutsches Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht, 213–276. Open Google Scholar
  77. Geimer, Reinhold and Schütze, Rolf A. (eds), Europäisches Zivilverfahrensrecht (4th edn, C.H. Beck, München 2020) (cited as: Author in: Geimer and Schütze (eds), Europäisches Zivilverfahrensrecht). Open Google Scholar
  78. Geimer, Reinhold and Schütze, Rolf A. (eds), Internationaler Rechtsverkehr in Zivil- und Handelssachen (München 2018). Open Google Scholar
  79. Gerasimchuk, Eleonora, Die Urteilsanerkennung im deutsch-russischen Rechtsverkehr (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2007), 285 p. Open Google Scholar
  80. Gillies, Lorna E., ‘Private International Law in a Post-Brexit UK: The Role of Residual Jurisdiction and Forum Non Conveniens’ (2019), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3373869 (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  81. Gottschalk, Eckart, ‘Buchbesprechung: Frédérique Ferrand (Hg.): La Procédure Civile Mondiale Modélisée. Le projet de l'American Law Institute et d'Unidroit de Principes et Règles de procédure civile transnationale. Actes du colloque de Lyon du 12 juin 2003, Paris: Éditions juridiques et techniques 2004. 351 p.’ (2006) 4 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht, 951 (cited as: Gottschalk, ‘Buchbesprechung: F. Ferrand: La Procédure’ (2006) 4 ZEuP, para. 951). Open Google Scholar
  82. Gottwald, Peter, ‘Grundfragen der Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Entscheidungen in Zivilsachen’ (1990) 103 Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess, 257–293. Open Google Scholar
  83. Grolimund, Pascal, Drittstaatenproblematik des europäischen Zivilverfahrensrechts (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2000), 311 p. Open Google Scholar
  84. Gruber, Joachim, ‘Das Einheitliche Patentgericht: vorlagebefugt kraft eines völkerrechtlichen Vertrags?’ (2015) 64 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil, 323–327. Open Google Scholar
  85. Haedicke, Maximilian, ‘Rechtsfindung, Rechtsfortbildung und Rechtskontrolle im Einheitlichen Patentsystem’ (2013) 62 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil, 609–617. Open Google Scholar
  86. Halfmeier, Axel, ‘Menschenrechte und internationales Privatrecht im Kontext der Globalisierung’ (2004) 68 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 653–686. Open Google Scholar
  87. Haluschenko, Herman, Pytannia mizhnarodnoho pryvatnoho prava г mozhnarodnyh dogovorah Ukrainy pro pravovu dopomohu [Issues of international private law in international agreements of Ukraine on legal aid] (Kyiv 2005), 472 p. Open Google Scholar
  88. Hartley, Trevor, ‘Introduction to the Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention’, Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law (1996), 232. Open Google Scholar
  89. Hartley, Trevor and Dogauchi, Masato, Explanatory Report on the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention (2005). Open Google Scholar
  90. Hartmann, Constantin, ‘Haftung von Unternehmen für Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Ausland aus Sicht des Internationalen Privat- und Zivilverfahrensrechts’, in Krajewski and Saage-Maaß (eds), Die Durchsetzung menschenrechtlicher Sorg¬f⁠a⁠l⁠t⁠s¬pflichten von Unternehmen. Zivilrechtliche Haftung und Berichterstattung als Steuerungsinstrumente (Baden-Baden 2018), 290. Open Google Scholar
  91. Hartnell, Helen, ‘EUstitia: Institutionalizing Justice in the European Union’ (2002) 65 NW J. Int`l. Law & Bus, 65–138. Open Google Scholar
  92. Hatzimihail, Nikitas, ‘General Report: Transnational Civil Litigation Between European Integration and Global Aspirations’ in Nuyts & Watté (eds), International Civil Litigation in the European Judicial Area and in Relations with Third States (Bruylant, 2005), 595–675. Open Google Scholar
  93. Hatzimihail, Nikitas, ‘Cyprus’ in Beaumont, Danov, Trimmings and Yükcel (eds), Cross-Border Litigation in Europe (Hart, Oxford 2017), 273–284. Open Google Scholar
  94. Hatzimihail, Nikitas, ‘Brexit – the view from Cyprus’ (2017) 14 Zeitschrift für das Privatrecht der Europäischen Union, 209 et seq. Open Google Scholar
  95. Hatzimihail, Nikitas, ‘The EU Private International Law and Civil Litigation Involving Third Countries, at Fifty‘ in Esplugues et al. (eds), 50 Años de Derecho Internacional Privado de la Unión Europea en el Diván (Tirant lo blanch, Valencia 2019), pp. 139–148. Open Google Scholar
  96. Hau, Wolfgang, ‘Grundlagen der internationalen Notzuständigkeit im Europäischen Zivilverfahrensrecht’, in Geimer and Schütze (eds) Festschrift für Athanassios Kaissis zum 65. Geburtstag (Köln 2012), 355. Open Google Scholar
  97. Hau, Wolfgang, ‘BGH vom 20.2.2013 (internationale Notzuständigkeit für die Ehescheidung in sog. Malta-Fällen)’ (2013) Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht, 689–690. Open Google Scholar
  98. Hay, Peter, ‘Recognition of a Recognition Judgment Within the European Union: “Double Exequatur” and the Public Policy Barrier’, in Hay and Varady (eds), Resolving International Conflicts: Liber Amicorum Tibor Várady (Budapest, 2009), 143. Open Google Scholar
  99. Hay, Peter, Selected essays on comparative law and conflict of laws (C.H. Beck, München, 2015), 893 p. Open Google Scholar
  100. Hay, Peter, ‘Notes on the European Union's Brussels-I 'Recast' Regulation – An American Perspective’ (2013) 1 The European Legal Forum, 1–36. Open Google Scholar
  101. Heesen, Julia, Interne Abkommen: völkerrechtliche Verträge zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union (Springer, Berlin 2015), 473 p. Open Google Scholar
  102. Heinze, Christian, ‘Unitary intellectual property rights and jurisdiction’, in Basedow, Rühl, Ferrari and De Miguel Asensio (eds), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Private International Law (Northampton 2017), 1792. Open Google Scholar
  103. Heinze, Christian and Dutta, Anatol, ‘Ungeschriebene Grenzen für europäische Zuständigkeiten bei Streitigkeiten mit Drittstaatenbezug’ (2005) 25 Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 224. Open Google Scholar
  104. Hess, Burkhard, Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht (Müller, Heidelberg 2010), 752 p. Open Google Scholar
  105. Hess, Burkhard and Bittmann, David, ‘Die Verordnungen zur Einführung eines Europäischen Mahnverfahrens und eines Europäischen Verfahrens für geringfügige Forderungen – ein substantieller Integrationsschritt im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht’ (2008) 4 IPRax, 305–314. Open Google Scholar
  106. Hess, Burkhard, Pfeiffer, Thomas and Schlosser, Peter, The Brussels I Regulation 44/2001 – Application and Enforcement in the EU (C.H. Beck, München, 2008), 229 p. Open Google Scholar
  107. Hess, Burkhard, Pfeiffer, Thomas and Schlosser, Peter, The Brussels I Regulation 44/2001. The Heidelberg Report, access at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.193.7688&rep=rep1&type=pdf (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  108. Hess, Burkhard, ‘Unionsrechtliche Synthese: Mindeststandards und Verfahrensgrundsätze im acquis communautaire/Schlussfolgererungen für European Principles of Civil Procedure’, in Weller and Althammer (eds), Mindeststandard im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht (Tübingen 2015), 221. Open Google Scholar
  109. Honorati, Costanza, ‘Der einheitliche Patentschutz in der Europäischen Union: Gerichtsbarkeit und anwendbares Recht’ (2017) 29 Jahrbuch für italienisches Recht, 3–26. Open Google Scholar
  110. Izarova, Iryna (ukr.), Theoretical Foundations of the European Union Civil Process (Dakor, Kyiv 2015), 336 p. (cited as: Izarova, Theoretical Foundations). Open Google Scholar
  111. Izarova, Iryna, ‘Harmonization of Civil Procedure: First Steps of Ukraine to a Genuine European Area of Justice’ (2016) 7 Civil Procedure Review, 100–118, access at: http://www.civilprocedurereview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=548%3Aharmonization-of-civil-procedure-first-steps-of-ukraine-to-a-genuine-european-area-of-justice-iryna-izarova-&catid=92%3Apdf-revista-n3-2016&Itemid=61&lang=en (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  112. Izarova, Iryna, ‘Strengthening Judicial cooperation in civil matters between the EU and neighboring countries: the example of Ukraine and the Baltic states’ (2019) 12 (2) Baltic Journal of Law &Politics, 115–133. Open Google Scholar
  113. Jaeger, Thomas, ‘All back to square one? An assessment of the latest proposal for a patent and court for the internal market and possible alternatives’ (2012) 43 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 286–308. Open Google Scholar
  114. Jaeger, Thomas, ‘Shielding the Unitary Patent from the ECJ: A Rash and Futile Exercise’ (2013) 44 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 389–391. Open Google Scholar
  115. Jayme, Erik, ‘Völkerrecht und Internationales Privatrecht – eine entwicklungsgeschichtliche Betrachtung’, in Leible and Ruffert (eds), Völkerrecht und IPR (Jena 2006), 23. Open Google Scholar
  116. Jöks, Eve, ‘Some Problems of International Judicial Assistance from an Estonian Perspective’ (1999) 4 Juridica International, access at: https://www.juridicainternational.eu/public/pdf/ji_1999_1_80.pdf (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  117. Juenger, Friedrich, ‘Judicial Jurisdiction in the United States and in the European Communities: A Comparison’ (1984) 82 Michigan Law Review, 1195–1212. Open Google Scholar
  118. Junker, Abbo, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht (München 2012), 407 p. Open Google Scholar
  119. Kirshner, Judie, ‘A Call for the EU to Assume Jurisdiction over Extraterritorial Corporate Human Rights Abuses’ (2015) 13 Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 1. Open Google Scholar
  120. Klabbers, Jan, Treaty Conflict and the European Union (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009), 260 p. Open Google Scholar
  121. Koch, Harald, ‘Einführung in das europäische Zivilprozessrecht’ (2003) 2 Juristische Schulung, 105–111 (cited as: Koch, Einführung in das europäische Zivilprozessrecht’ (2003) 2 JuS). Open Google Scholar
  122. Koeth, Wolfgang, ‘The ‘Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements’: An appropriate response by the EU to the challenges in its Neighbourhood’ (2014) Eipascope, 23–30. Open Google Scholar
  123. Kofmel Ehrenzeller, Sabine, Der vorläufige Rechtsschutz im internationalen Verhältnis: Grundlagen, Habilitation Thesis (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2005), p. 606 Open Google Scholar
  124. Kramer, Xandra, Ontanu, Alina and de Rooij, Michiel, ‘The application of Brussels I (Recast) in the legal practice of EU Member States’ Synthesis Report; access at: https://www.asser.nl/media/5018/m-5797-ec-justice-the-application-of-brussels-1-09-outputs-synthesis-report.pdf (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  125. Kramer, Xandra, Ontanu, Alina and de Rooij, Michiel, ‘The application of Brussels I (Recast) in the legal practice of EU Member States’, Synthesis Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in 25 Member States (Study JLS/C4/2005/03), 2008, access at: https://www.asser.nl/media/5018/m-5797-ec-justice-the-application-of-brussels-1-09-outputs-synthesis-report.pdf (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  126. Kramer Xandra, Procedure Matters: Construction and Deconstructivism in European Civil Procedure Erasmus Law Lectures 33 (Inaugural Lecture) (Eleven International Publishing, Rotterdam 2013), 30 p. Open Google Scholar
  127. Kreß, Claus, ‘Universal Jurisdiction over International Crimes and the Institut de Droit international’ (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice, 561–585. Open Google Scholar
  128. Krief-Semitko, Katrin, ‘O priznanii i ispolnenii inostrannykh reshenii v Rossii (russko-frantsuzskaia problematika) [On Recognition and Execution of Foreign Judgements in Russia (Russian-French Issues)] (2008) 2 Vestnik Federalnoi palaty advokatov RF [Bulletin of the Federal Chamber of Lawyers of the Russian Federation], 141 [in Russian]. Open Google Scholar
  129. Kropholler, Jan and v. Hein, Jan, Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht (20st edn, Frankfurt am Main 2020), 1350 p. Open Google Scholar
  130. Kropholler, Jan and von Hein, Jan, Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht (9th edn, Frankfurt am Main 2011), 1328 p. Open Google Scholar
  131. Kruger, Thalia, Civil jurisdiction rules of the EU and their impact on third States (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008). Open Google Scholar
  132. Kuipers, Jan‐Jaap, ‘The Law Applicable to Divorce as a Test Ground for Enhanced Cooperation’ (2012) 18 European Law Journal, 201–229. Open Google Scholar
  133. Kurzynsky-Singer, Eugenia, ‘Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)’, in Basedow, Hopt and Zimmermann (eds), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of European Private Law (Oxford 2012), 267. Open Google Scholar
  134. Lamping, Matthias, ‘Enhanced Cooperation – A Proper Approach to Market Integration in the Field of Unitary Patent Protection?’ (2011) 42 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 879–937. Open Google Scholar
  135. Lapin, Boris, ‘Zur Konzeption eines Modellgesetzbuches für Zivilverfahren in den Ländern der Gemeinschaft Unabhängiger Staaten’, in Mark M. Boguslawskij and Alexander Trunk (eds), Reform des Zivil- und Wirtschaftsprozessrechts in den Mitgliedstaaten der GUS (Gieseking, Bielefeld 2004), p. 33 et seq. Open Google Scholar
  136. Lein, Eva, McCorquodale, Robert, McNamara, Lawrence, Kupelyants, Hayk and del Rio, José, Factors Influencing International Litigants’ Decisions to Bring Commercial Claims to the London Based Courts (Ministry of Justice Analytical Series 2015), see at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396343/factors-influencing-international-litigants-with-commercial-claims.pdf (last access at: 17.08.2020). Open Google Scholar
  137. Lock, Tobias, The European Court of Justice and International Courts (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015), 304 p. Open Google Scholar
  138. Lowenfeld, Andreas F., International Economic Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008), 1016 p. Open Google Scholar
  139. Linke, Hartmut and Hau, Wolfgang, Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht (7th edn, Köln 2018), 357 p. Open Google Scholar
  140. Luginbuehl, Stefan and Stauder, Dieter, ‘Application of Revised Rules on Jurisdiction under Brussels I Regulation to Patent Lawsuits’ (2015) 10 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 135–144. Open Google Scholar
  141. Laugwitz, Helena C., Die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung drittstaatlicher Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2016), 531 p. Open Google Scholar
  142. Magnus, Ulrich and Mankowski, Peter, ‘Brussels I on the verge of reform’ (2010) 109 Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, 1–41. Open Google Scholar
  143. Magnus, Ulrich and Mankowski, Peter, Brussels I bis Regulation (2nd edn, Köln 2016) (cited as: Author in: Magnus and Mankowski (eds)). Open Google Scholar
  144. Mańko, Rafał, Die Europäisierung des Zivilverfahrens: Auf dem Weg zu gemeinsamen Mindestnormen? Eingehende Analyse (Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Europäischen Parlaments, Brüssel 2015), 38 p. Open Google Scholar
  145. Mankowski, Peter, ‘Die neuen Regeln über gemeinsame Gerichte in Artt. 71a-71d Brüssel Ia-VO’ (2014) Zeitschrift für das Privatrecht der Europäischen Union, 330–342. Open Google Scholar
  146. Mankowski, Peter, ‘Anmerkung zu BGH 28.10.1996 – X ARZ 1071/96’ (1997) 11 Juristische Rundschau, 464. Open Google Scholar
  147. Marongiu Buonaiuti, Fabrizio, ‘The Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Unified Patent Court Agreement: Towards an Enhanced Patent Litigation System?’, in Ferrari and Ragno (eds), Cross-border Litigation in Europe: The Brussels I Recast Regulation as a panacea? (Verona 2015) 265. Open Google Scholar
  148. Martiny, Dieter, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Germany and Europe’, in Basedow, Baum and Nishitani (eds), Japanese and European Private International Law in Comparative Perspective (Tübingen 2008), 377. Open Google Scholar
  149. Martiny, Dieter, ‘Das Günstigkeitsprinzip bei der Koordination unterschiedlicher Regeln für die Anerkennung ausländischer Entscheidungen’, in Schütze (ed), Fairness Justice Equity: Festschrift für Reinhold Geimer zum 80. Geburtstag (C.H. Beck, München 2017), 451. Open Google Scholar
  150. Matscher, Franz, ‘Grundfragen der Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Entscheidungen in Zivilsachen’ (1990) 103 Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess, 294–321. Open Google Scholar
  151. Mayer, Franz C., ‘Vier kurze Gedanken zum Europaschulen-Beschluss des BVerfG’, in Verfassungsblog, 29.08.2018, access at: https://verfassungsblog.de/vier-kurze-gedanken-zum-europaschulen-beschluss-des-bverfg/ (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  152. Mayr, Peter G., ‘Das europäische Mahnverfahren und Österreich‘ (2008) 130/08 Juristische Blätter, 513–517. Open Google Scholar
  153. McGuire, Mary-Rose, ‘Das neue Europäische Mahnverfahren (EuMVVO): Über das (Miss-) Verhältnis zwischen Effizienz und Schuldnerschutz’ (2007) 6/07 GPR, 303–308. Open Google Scholar
  154. Meier, Niklaus, ‘Neue Haager Konvention’, in Furrer and Pretelli (eds), Die Herausforderungen des europäischen Zivilverfahrensrechts für Lugano- und Drittstaaten (Zürich 2016), 191. Open Google Scholar
  155. Merrett, Louise, ‘La reconnaissance et l’exécution en Angleterre des jugements venant des États de l’Union européenne, post-Brexit’ (2019) 2 Revue Critique de Droit International Privé, 385–404. Open Google Scholar
  156. Miglio, Alberto, ‘Differentiated Integration and the Principle of Loyalty’ (2018) 14 European Constitutional Law Review, 475–498. Open Google Scholar
  157. Miguel, Asensio Pedro Alberto de, ‘Convenios Internacionales y Unificación del Derecho Internacional Privado de la Unión Europea’, in Mota, Moreno and Fons (eds), Nuevas fronteras de la Unión Europea (Liber amicorum José Luis Iglesias Buhigues) (Valencia 2012), 57–77. Open Google Scholar
  158. Miguel Asensio, Pedro Alberto de, ‘Comentario a la Ley 29-2015 de cooperación jurídica internacional en materia civil’ (27.8.2015), access at: http://pedrodemiguelasensio.blogspot.com.es/2015/08/comentario-la-ley-292015-de-cooperacion.html (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  159. Mills, Alex, ‘Private international law and EU external relations: Think local act global, or think global act local?’ (2016) 65 International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 541–579. Open Google Scholar
  160. Musielak, Hans-Joachim and Voit, Wolfgang (eds), Zivilprozessordnung (10th edn, München 2011) (cited as: Author in: Musielak and Voit, ZPO (2011)). Open Google Scholar
  161. Musielak, Hans-Joachim and Voit, Wolfgang (eds), Zivilprozessordnung (15th edn, München 2018) (cited as: Author in: Musielak and Voit, ZPO (2018)). Open Google Scholar
  162. Musielak, Hans-Joachim and Voit, Wolfgang (eds), Zivilprozessordnung (17th edn, München 2020) (cited as: Author in: Musielak and Voit, ZPO). Open Google Scholar
  163. Nadelmann, Kurt H., ‘Jurisdictionally Improper Fora in Treaties on Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments: The Common Market Draft’ (1967) 67 Columbia Law Review, 995–1023. Open Google Scholar
  164. Nagel, Heinrich and Gottwald, Peter, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht (7th edn, Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln 2013), 1099 p. Open Google Scholar
  165. Navrotskiy, Andriy and Sykaluk, Dimitry, ‘Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von deutschen Urteilen in der Ukraine’, in AHK – Delegation der deutschen Wirtschaft in der Ukraine (ed) Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen und Investi¬t⁠i⁠o⁠n⁠s¬schutz in der Ukraine (Kiew 2015), 14. Open Google Scholar
  166. Neuhaus, Paul Heinrich, ‘Internationales Zivilprozessrecht und Internationales Privatrecht – Eine Skizze’ (1955) 20 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 201–269. Open Google Scholar
  167. Nikisch, Arthur, Zivilprozessrecht (2nd edn, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1952), 629 p. Open Google Scholar
  168. Nolte, Georg, ‘Das Weltrechtsprinzip in Zivilverfahren – Notizen zum Urteil des US Supreme Court im Fall Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain’, in Grote, Härtel, Hain, Schmidt, Schmitz, Schuppert and Winterhoff (eds), Die Ordnung der Freiheit: Festschrift für Christian Starck zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (Tübingen 2007), 847. Open Google Scholar
  169. Norros, Merja, ‘Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters with Russia and Methods of Evaluation’ (2020), access at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47745827_Judicial_Cooperation_in_Civil_Matters_with_Russia_and_Methods_of_Evaluation (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  170. Norrgård, Marcus, ‘Alternatives to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Field of Intellectual Property Law’, in Micklitz and Wechsler (eds), The Transformation of Enforcement: European Economic Law in Global Perspectives (Oxford 2016), 179. Open Google Scholar
  171. Nunner-Krautgasser, Bettina, ‘Die Neuregelung der ausschließlichen Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung in der EuGVVO’ (2014) 127 Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess, 461–482. Open Google Scholar
  172. Nuyts, Arnaud, L’exception de forum non conveniens (Bruylant, Brussels 2003), 974 p. Open Google Scholar
  173. Nuyts, Arnaud, ‘Les Frontières extérieures de l’espace judicaire européen: La théorie de l’effet réflexe’ in de Leval and Storme (eds), Le Droit processuel et judiciaire européen: colloque du Centre interuniversitaire de droit judiciaire (Le Charte, Brussels 2003), pp. 73–89. Open Google Scholar
  174. Nuyts, Arnaud, Study on Residual Jurisdiction: Review of the Member States’ Rules Concerning the “Residual Jurisdiction” of their Courts in Civil and Commercial Matters pursuant to the Brussels I and II Regulations (Brüssel 2007), 156 p. Open Google Scholar
  175. Nuyts, Arnaud, General Report: Study on Residual Jurisdiction (2017), available at http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_residual_jurisdiction_en.pdf (last access at: 24.09.2020). Open Google Scholar
  176. Ohly, Ansgar and Streinz, Rudolf, ‘Can the UK stay in the UPC system after Brexit?’ (2017) 66 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil, 1–11. Open Google Scholar
  177. Pagenberg, Jochen, ‘Unitary Patent and Unified Court – What Lies Ahead?’ (2013) 8 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 480–485. Open Google Scholar
  178. Izarova, Iryna, Khanyk-Pospolitak, Roksolana, Panych, Nazar and Kovtun, Anastasia Scientific and Practical Commentary to the Civil Procedure Legislation of the EU (Dakor, Kyiv 2018). Open Google Scholar
  179. Pataut, Etienne, ‘International Jurisdiction and Third States: A View from the EC on Family Matters’, in Malatesta, Bariatti and Pocar (eds), The External Dimension of EC Private International Law in Family and Succession Matters (Padova 2008), 123. Open Google Scholar
  180. Pataut, Etienne, ‘The External Dimension of Private International Family Law’, in Cremona and Micklitz (eds), Private Law in the External Relations of the EU (Oxford 2016), 119. Open Google Scholar
  181. Pfeiffer, Thomas, ‘Falscher vorauseilender Gehorsam in eine richtige Richtung – Zur Lugano-freundlichen Auslegung des autonomen österreichischen Zu¬s⁠t⁠ä⁠n¬digkeitsrechts durch den OGH’ (1996) Praxis des Internationalen Privat und Verfahrensrechts, 90–197. Open Google Scholar
  182. Pfeiffer, Thomas, ‘Die Fortentwicklung des Europäischen Prozessrechts durch die neue EuGVO’ (2014) 127 Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess, 409–430. Open Google Scholar
  183. Pfeiffer, Thomas, ‘Transnationale Synthese: ALI/UNIDROIT-Principles of Civil Procedure und rechtsvergleichende Lehren’, in Althammer and Weller (eds), Mindeststandards im europäischen Zivilprozessrecht – Grundvoraussetzung für gegenseitiges Vertrauen (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2015), 115. Open Google Scholar
  184. Plomer, Aurora, ‘The Unified Patent and Unified Patent Court: Past, Present and Future’, in Cremona, Thies and Wessel (eds), The European Union and International Dispute Settlement (Oxford 2017), 275. Open Google Scholar
  185. Pocar, Fausto, ‘Étude comparative des règles de conflit de juridictions dans les États membres de la C.E.E.’, in Rigaux (ed), L'influence des Communautés européennes sur le droit international privé des États membres (Brussels 1981) 77. Open Google Scholar
  186. Pocar, Fausto, ‘The ‘Communitarization’ of Private International Law and its Impact on the External Relations of the European Union’, in Malatesta, Bariatti and Pocar (eds), The External Dimension of EC Private International Law in Family and Succession Matters (Padova 2008) 3. Open Google Scholar
  187. Pretelli, Ilaria, ‘Proposed amendments to Regulation 1215/2012 in order to regulate jurisdiction over Non-EU disputes’, in Pretelli and Heckendorn Urscheler (eds), Possibility and terms for applying Brussels I Regulation (recast) to extra-EU disputes – Study for the JURI Committee (Brussels 2014), 45. Open Google Scholar
  188. Prodi, Romano, ‘A Wider Europe: A proximity policy as the key to stability’, Speech 02/619, Brussels 5-6.12.2002, reproduced on the website of the European Commission, Press releases database, access at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_02_619 (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  189. Qisheng, He, ‘The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Between the United States and China: A Study of Sanlian v. Robinson’ (2013) 6 Tsinghua China Law Review, 23–44. Open Google Scholar
  190. Raphael, Thomas, The Anti-Suit Injunction (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2018), 483 p. Open Google Scholar
  191. Rauscher, Thomas (ed), Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht (EuZPR/EuIPR) Vol. 1 (4rd edn, Köln 2015) (cited as: Author in: Rauscher (ed), Europä¬i⁠s⁠c⁠h⁠e⁠s Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht: EuZPR/EuIPR Vol. 1 (2015)). Open Google Scholar
  192. Rauscher, Thomas (ed.), Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, EuZPR/EuIPR Kommentar, Vol. 2 (4th edn, Köln 2015) (cited as: Author in: Rauscher (ed), Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht: EuZPR/EuIPR Vol. 2 (2015)). Open Google Scholar
  193. Rauscher, Thomas and Krüger, Wolfgang (eds), Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung mit Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen, Vol. 1 (5th edn, München 2016) (cited as: Author in: MüKo-ZPO, Vol. 1 (2016)). Open Google Scholar
  194. Rauscher, Thomas and Krüger, Wolfgang (eds), Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung mit Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen, Vol. 3 (5th edn, München 2017) (cited as: Author in: MüKo-ZPO, Vol. 3 (2017)). Open Google Scholar
  195. Rauscher, Thomas and Krüger, Wolfgang (eds.), Münchner Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung mit Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen, Vol. 3 (6th edn, München 2020) (cited as: Author in: MüKo-ZPO, Vol. 3 (2020)). Open Google Scholar
  196. Reynolds, Lauren and Zimmer, Mark, ‘Haften Unternehmen nach dem US-amerikanischen Alien Tort Statute?’ (2012) 3 Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft, 139–146. Open Google Scholar
  197. Reyes, Anselmo, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2019), 416 p. Open Google Scholar
  198. Rogerson, Pippa, ‘Litigation Post-Brexit’ (2016) New Law Journal, see at: https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/litigation-post-brexit-0 (last access at: 17.08.2020). Open Google Scholar
  199. Roorda, Lucas and Ryngaert, Cedric, ‘Business and Human Rights Litigation in Europe and Canada: The Promises of Forum of Necessity Jurisdiction’ (2016) 80 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 783–816. Open Google Scholar
  200. Rosenberg, Leo, Schwab, Karl Heinz and Gottwald, Peter, Zivilprozessrecht (18th edn, München 2010), 1239 p. Open Google Scholar
  201. Roth, Herbert, ‘Buchbesprechung: Schack, Haimo Internationales Zivilverfahr⁠e⁠n⁠srecht. Ein Studienbuch (3rd edn)’ (2003) 58 Juristenzeitung, 201. Open Google Scholar
  202. Rühl, Gisela, ‘Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters after Brexit: Which way forward?’ (2018) 67 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 99–128. Open Google Scholar
  203. Saenger, Ingo (ed), Zivilprozessordnung: Familienverfahren, Gerichtsverfassung, Europäisches Verfahrensrecht: Handkommentar (8th edn, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2019) (cited as: Author in: Saenger, Zivilprozessordnung (2019). Open Google Scholar
  204. Schack, Haimo, ‘The new Hague Judgment Convention’ (2020) Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax), 1 et seq. Open Google Scholar
  205. Schack, Haimo, Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht (7th edn, C.H. Beck, München 2017), 635 p. Open Google Scholar
  206. Schack, Haimo, ‘Anmerkung zu BGH 2.7.1991 – XI ZR 206/90 – zum Vermögensgerichtsstand’ (1992) Juristenzeitung, 54–56. Open Google Scholar
  207. Schack, Haimo, ‘Internationale Zuständigkeit und Inlandsbeziehung’, in Heldrich and Uchida (eds), Festschrift für Hideo Nakamura zum 70. Geburtstag (Seibundo, Tokyo 1996), 491. Open Google Scholar
  208. Schack, Haimo, ‘Europäische Rechtskraft’, in Schütze (ed), Fairness Justice Equity: Festschrift für Reinhold Geimer zum 80. Geburtstag (München 2017), 617. Open Google Scholar
  209. Schack, Haimo, Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht: mit internationalem Insolvenz- und Schiedsverfahrensrecht: ein Studienbuch (7th edn, C.H. Beck, München, 2017), 635 p. Open Google Scholar
  210. Schack, Haimo, ‘Wiedergänger der Haager Konferenz für IPR: neue Perspektiven eines weltweiten Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommens?’ (2014) 4 Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht, 824–842. Open Google Scholar
  211. Schmehl, Christine, Parallelverfahren und Justizgewährung (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2011), 424 p. Open Google Scholar
  212. Schütze, Rolf A., ‘Die Notzuständigkeit im deutschen Recht’, in Bittner and Klicka (eds), Festschrift für Walter H. Rechberger zum 60. Geburtstag (Springer, Wien 2005), 567. Open Google Scholar
  213. Schwab, Karl Heinz, Der Streitgegenstand im Zivilprozeß (C.H. Beck, München 1954), 200 p. Open Google Scholar
  214. Schwartz, Ivo, ‘Voies d’uniformisation du droit dans la Communauté européenne: règlements de la Communauté ou conventions entre Etats membres?’ (1978) JDI, 751–804. Open Google Scholar
  215. Schweizer, Mark, Beweiswürdigung und Beweismaß: Rationalität und Intuition (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2015), 678 p. Open Google Scholar
  216. Simotta, Daphne-Ariane, ‘Zur materiellen Nichtigkeit von Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen (Art. 23 Abs. 1 S. 1 EuGVVO)’, in Geimer, Kaissis and Thümmel (eds), Ars aequi et boni in mundo: Festschrift für Rolf A. Schütze zum 80. Geburtstag (München 2014), 541. Open Google Scholar
  217. Smith, Karen E., ‘The Outsiders: The European Neighbourhood Policy’ (2005) 81 International Affairs, 757–773. Open Google Scholar
  218. Solenik, Daria, ‘National report for France’, in Pretelli and Heckendorn Urscheler (eds), Possibility and terms for applying Brussels I Regulation (recast) to extra-EU disputes – Study for the JURI Committee (Brussels 2014), 64. Open Google Scholar
  219. Stadler, Astrid and Klöpfer, Matthias, ‘EuGH-Rechtsprechung zur EuGVVO aus den Jahren 2015 und 2016’ (2017) ZEuP, 890–935. Open Google Scholar
  220. Stein, Friedrich and Jonas, Martin, Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, Vol. 1 (23rd edn, Tübingen 2014) (cited as: Author in: Stein and Jonas, ZPO Vol. 1). Open Google Scholar
  221. Stein, Friedrich and Jonas, Martin, Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, Vol. 5 (22rd edn, Tübingen 2006) (cited as: Author in: Stein and Jonas, ZPO Vol. 5). Open Google Scholar
  222. Steinitz, Maya, The Case for an International Court of Civil Justice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2018), 242 p. Open Google Scholar
  223. Storme, Marcel, Rapprochement du droit judiciaire de l'Union européenne: Approximation of judiciary law in the European Union (Martinus Nijhoff Publ., Dordrecht 1994), 225 p. Open Google Scholar
  224. Storme, Marcel, ‘Rechtsvereinheitlichung in Europa: Ein Plädoyer für ein einheitliches europäisches Prozeßrecht’ (1992) 56 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 290–299. Open Google Scholar
  225. Storme, Marcel, Approximation of Judiciary Law in the European Union/ Rapprochement du Droit Judiciaire de l’Union européenne (Kluwer, Dordrecht 1994), 244 p. Open Google Scholar
  226. Storme, Marcel, Procedural Laws in Europe: Towards harmonization (Maklu Publishers, Antwerp/Apeldoorn 2003), 472 p. Open Google Scholar
  227. Storme, Marcel, A Single Civil Procedure for Europe: A Cathedral Builders’ Dream, access at: http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/cg/law/lex/rlr22/STORME.pdf (last access at: 20.03.2020). Open Google Scholar
  228. Storscrubb Eva, Civil Procedure and EU Law A Policy Area Uncovered (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008), 556 p. Open Google Scholar
  229. Streinz, Rudolf (eds.), EUV/AEUV, Kommentar (3rd end, München 2018) (cited as: Author in: Streinz, AEUV). Open Google Scholar
  230. Stürner, Michael, ‘Gerichtsstands- und Erfüllungsortvereinbarungen im europäischen Zivilprozessrecht’ (2013) 6 Zeitschrift für das Privatrecht der Europäischen Union, 305–315. Open Google Scholar
  231. Stürner, Michael, ‘Die territorialen Grenzen der Human Rights Litigation in den USA. Zu den Auswirkungen der Entscheidung des U.S. Supreme Court vom 17.04.2013 in der Sache Kiobel et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al.’ (2014) 69 Juristenzeitung, 13–23. Open Google Scholar
  232. Stürner, Michael, ‘Zivilprozessuale Voraussetzungen für Klagen gegen transnationale Unternehmen für Menschenrechtsverletzungen’, in Krajewski, Oehm and Saage-Maaß (eds), Zivil- und strafrechtlichen Haftung von Unternehmen für Menschenrechtsverletzungen (Berlin 2018), 73. Open Google Scholar
  233. Stürner, Rolf, ‘The Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, An Introduction to Their Basic Conceptions’ (2005) 69 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 201, 204 (cited as: R. Stürner, ‘The Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, An Introduction to Their Basic Conceptions’ (2005) 69 RabelsZ). Open Google Scholar
  234. Svanadze, George, ‘Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Georgia: Is the recognition of foreign judgments predictable?’, in Beiträge und Informationen zum Recht im postsowjetischen Raum (Referat “Russland und weitere GUS-Staaten” am Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 2009), access at: https://www.mpipriv.de/files/pdf3/2009_12_09_023.pdf (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  235. Svanadze, George, ‘Jurisdiction clauses and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Georgia’, in Beiträge und Informationen zum Recht im postsowjetischen Raum (Referat “Russland und weitere GUS-Staaten” am Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 2016), access at: https://www.mpipriv.de/files/pdf3/2009_12_09_023.pdf (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  236. Symeonides, Symeon C., ‘The Brussels I Regulation and Third Countries’ (2018) SSRN Online Journal, access at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3231715 (last access at: 29.10.2020). Open Google Scholar
  237. Takahashi, Koji, ‘Review of the Brussels I Regulation – A Comment from the Perspectives of Non-Member States (Third States)’ (2012) 8 Journal of Private International Law, 1–15. Open Google Scholar
  238. Taruffo, Michele, Abuse of Procedural Rights. Comparative Standards of Procedural Fairness (Kluwer International, Boston 1999), 370 p. Open Google Scholar
  239. Thole, Christoph, ‘Die Entwicklung der Anerkennung im autonomen Recht in Europa’, in Hess (ed), Die Anerkennung im internationalen Zivilprozessrecht – Europäisches Vollstreckungsrecht (Bielefeld, 2014), 25. Open Google Scholar
  240. Thym, Daniel, ‘The Schengen Law: A Challenge for Legal Accountability in the European Union’ (2002) 8 European Law Journal, 218–245. Open Google Scholar
  241. Thym, Daniel, ‘Competing Models for Understanding Differentiated Integration’, in de Witte, Ott and Vos (eds), Between Flexibility and Disintegration. The Trajectory of Differentiation in EU Law (Northampton 2017), 28. Open Google Scholar
  242. Tichý, Luboš, ‘Abuse of Law and its Consequences’, in Potacs and Tichý, Abuse in Law (Prag 2017), 19. Open Google Scholar
  243. Tietje, Christian (ed), Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht (De Gruyter, Berlin 2009), 834 p. Open Google Scholar
  244. Tilmann, Winfried, ‘The UPC Agreement and the Unitary Patent Regulation – construction and application’ (2016) 11 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 545–558. Open Google Scholar
  245. Tsikrikas, Dimitrios, ‘Die Anerkennung der Wirkungen ausländischer Prozesshandlungen als Grundlage für die justizielle Zusammenarbeit’ (2010) 15 Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß international, 145–169. Open Google Scholar
  246. Tsikrikas, Dimitrios, ‘Preliminary Judicial Protection: Interim and Freezing Injunctions in Civil Law Countries and in England’, in Gottwald (ed), Litigation in England and Germany (Bielefeld 2010), 131. Open Google Scholar
  247. Tsikrikas, Dimitrios ‘Über die Bindungswirkung von Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen in grenzüberschreitenden Streitigkeiten’, in Bruns, Kern, Münch, Piekenbrock, Stadler and Tsikrikas (eds), Festschrift für Rolf Stürner zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen 2013), 1373. Open Google Scholar
  248. Tsirat Hennadiy, ‘Dvostoronni dohovory pro pravovu dopomohu jak pryklad unificatsii norm mizhnarodnoho tsyvilnoho kodeksy’ [Bilateral agreements on legal aid as a n example of unification of the norms of international civil process] (2012) 1 (137) Bulletin of the Supreme court of Ukraine, 43–48. [in Ukrainian]. Open Google Scholar
  249. Trunk Alexander, ‘EU Rules on Judicial Cooperation with Russia and Ukraine in Civil and Commercial Matters in Russia, Europe, and the Rule of Law’ (2007) 56 Serie Law in Eastern Europe, 153–163. Open Google Scholar
  250. Ubertazzi, Benedetta, ‘Intellectual property, Jurisdiction’, in Basedow, Rühl, Ferrari, De Miguel Asensio (eds), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Private International Law (Northampton 2017), 970. Open Google Scholar
  251. Ubertazzi, Luigi Carlo, ‘Brexit and the EU Patent’ (2017) 12 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 516–525. Open Google Scholar
  252. Ubertazzi, Luigi Carlo, ‘Brexit and the EU Patent – Part II: What Shall We Do?’ (2017) 12 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 937–953. Open Google Scholar
  253. Ullrich, Hanns, ‘Harmonizing Patent Law: The Untameable Union Patent’, in Janssens and Overwalle (eds), Harmonisation of European IP law: from European rules to Belgian law and practice – contributions in honour of Frank Gotzen (Brussels 2012), 243. Open Google Scholar
  254. Ullrich, Hanns, ‘The European Patent and Its Courts: An Uncertain Prospect and an Unfinished Agenda’ (2015) 46 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 1–9. Open Google Scholar
  255. Uzelac, Alan, ‘Towards European Rules of Civil Procedure: Rethinking of Procedural Obligations’ (2018) 1 Bulletin of the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 24 [in Ukrainian]. Open Google Scholar
  256. Van der Loo, Guillaume, The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area: a New Legal Instrument for EU Integration Without Membership? (Brill Nijhoff, Leiden and Boston 2016), 416 p. Open Google Scholar
  257. Van Rhee C. H., ‘Civil Procedure Beyond National Borders’ (2018) No 1 (1), Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 15–34. Open Google Scholar
  258. Van Vooren, Bart, EU External Relations Law and the European Neighbourhood Policy (Routledge, London 2012), 356 p. Open Google Scholar
  259. Véron, Pierre, ‘Le règlement (UE) n° 542/2014 modifiant le règlement Bruxelles I (refonte) concernant les règles applicables à la juridiction unifiée du brevet et à la Cour de justice Benelux’ (2016) 2 Journal du droit international, 523–545. Open Google Scholar
  260. Vogenauer, Stefan, ‘The Prohibition of Abuse of Law: An Emerging Principle of Law’, in de la Feria and Vogenauer (eds) Prohibition of Abuse of Law (Oxford & Portland 2011), 521. Open Google Scholar
  261. Von Bernstoff, Christoph, ‘Forderungssicherung und -einzug bei EU-weiten Unternehmensgeschäften’ (2005) 9 RIW, 646–649. Open Google Scholar
  262. Von der Groeben, Hans, Hatje, Armin and Schwarze, Jürgen (eds.), Europäisches Unionsrecht (7th edn, Baden-Baden 2015) (cited as: Author in: Groeben, von der/Hatje/Schwarze, AEUV). Open Google Scholar
  263. Von Mehren, Arthur T., ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments’ (1980) 167 Le Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye, 9. Open Google Scholar
  264. Von Mehren, Arthur T., ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: A New Approach for the Hague Conference?’ (1994) 57 Law & Contemporary Problems, 271–287. Open Google Scholar
  265. Vorwerk, Volkert and Wolf, Christian (eds), BeckOK ZPO (37th edn, C.H. Beck, München 2020) (cited as: Author in: BeckOK ZPO (2020)). Open Google Scholar
  266. Wagner, Gerhard, ‘Haftung für Menschenrechtsverletzungen’ (2016) 80 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 717–782. Open Google Scholar
  267. Wagner, Rolf, ‘Ein neuer Anlauf zu einem Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen’ (2016) 36 Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahr⁠e⁠n⁠srechts, 97–102. Open Google Scholar
  268. Weber, Johannes, ‘Universal Jurisdiction and Third States in the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation’ (2011) 75 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 619–644. Open Google Scholar
  269. Weißer, Bettina, ‘Das Prinzip der Weltrechtspflege in Theorie und Praxis’ (2012) 159 Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 416–433. Open Google Scholar
  270. Weller, Matthias, ‘Lis pendens and Similar Proceedings’, in Hess, Pfeiffer and Schlosser (eds), The Brussels I – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Application and Enforcement in the EU (München 2008), 100. Open Google Scholar
  271. Weller Matthias, ‘Judicial Cooperation of the EU in Civil Matters in Its Relations with non-EU States – A Blind Spot?’ in Uzelac and van Rhee (eds), The Transformation of Civil Justice (Berlin 2018) 63–68. Open Google Scholar
  272. Wesselink, Edzard and Boschma, Ron, ‘European Neighbourhood Policy: History, Structure, and Implemented Policy Measures’ (2017) 108 Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 4–20. Open Google Scholar
  273. Wieczorek, Bernhard and Schütze, Rolf A. (eds.), Zivilprozessordnung und Nebengesetze Großkommentar, Band 13 (4th edn, Berlin 2018) (cited as: Author in: Wieczorek/Schütze, Zivilprozessordnung und Nebengesetze). Open Google Scholar
  274. Wilhelmi, Theresa, Das Weltrechtsprinzip im internationalen Privat- und Strafrecht (Peter Lang, Bern 2007), 462 p. Open Google Scholar
  275. Wilhelmi, Theresa, ‘Menschenrechtsschutz durch universale Jurisdiktion im internationalen Privat- und Strafrecht’, in von Hoffmann (ed), Universalität der Menschenrechte (Frankfurt am Main 2008), 229. Open Google Scholar
  276. Wurmnest, Wolfgang, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Germany’, in Basedow and Yassari (eds), The Iranian Family and Succession Laws and their Application in German Courts (Tübingen 2004), 139. Open Google Scholar
  277. Wurmnest, Wolfgang, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of U.S. Money Judgments in Germany’ (2005) 23 Berkeley Journal of International Law, 175–200. Open Google Scholar
  278. Yarkov, Vladimir, Medvedev, Igor and Trushnikov, Sergey, ‘Nekotorye problemy internatsionalizatsii tsivilisticheskogo protsessa i grazhdanskikh yurisdiktsii v Rossii [Some Problems of the Internationalization of the Civil Process and Civil Jurisdictions in Russia]’ (2006) 1 Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess [Arbitration and Civil Procedure], 40 [in Russian]. Open Google Scholar
  279. Yessiou-Faltsi, Pelayia, Law on Compulsory Enforcement III – International Compulsory Enforcement (Sakkoulas Publishers, Athina – Thessaloniki, 2006) [in Greek]. Open Google Scholar
  280. Zöller, Richard (ed), Zivilprozessordnung (25th edn, Köln 2005) (cited as: Author in: Zöller, ZPO, 2005). Open Google Scholar
  281. Zöller, Richard (ed), Zivilprozessordnung (30th edn, Köln 2013) (cited as: Author in: Zöller, ZPO, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  282. Zöller, Richard (ed), Zivilprozessordnung (31st edn, Köln 2016) (cited as: Author in: Zöller, ZPO, 2016). Open Google Scholar
  283. Zöller, Richard (ed), Zivilprozessordnung (32nd edn, Köln 2018) (cited as: Author in: Zöller, ZPO, 2018). Open Google Scholar
  284. Zöller, Richard (ed), Zivilprozessordnung (33rd edn, Köln 2020) (cited as: Author in: Zöller, ZPO, 2020). Open Google Scholar
  285. Zvereva, Natalia, ‘ES – Rossiya: na puti k polnopravnomu vzaimnomu priznaniyu sudebnykh reshenii [EU – Russia: Towards Full Mutual Recognition of Court Decisions]’ (2012) 5 Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess [Arbitration and Civil Procedure], 32 N. 6. P. 27–33 [in Russian]. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "European Law & International Law & Comparative Law"
Cover of book: Unbeabsichtigte Normenkonflikte zwischen EU-Recht und nationalem Recht
Book Titles No access
Yannis Ockernahl
Unbeabsichtigte Normenkonflikte zwischen EU-Recht und nationalem Recht
Cover of book: Der Volkseinwand
Book Titles No access
Florian Feigl
Der Volkseinwand
Cover of book: Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Book Titles No access
Dennis Traudt
Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Cover of book: Future-Proofing in Public Law
Edited Book No access
Nicole Koblenz LL.M., Nicholas Otto, Gernot Sydow
Future-Proofing in Public Law
Cover of book: Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Book Titles No access
Justus Schmidt
Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex