Impediments of National Procedural Law to the Free Movement of Judgments: Luxembourg Report on European Procedural Law Volume I

Burkhard Hess; Pietro Ortolani

doi:10.17104/9783406795299

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Copyright Year: 2022
ISBN-Print: 978-3-406-73666-7
ISBN-Online: 978-3-406-79529-9
Publisher: C.H.BECK Recht - Wirtschaft - Steuern, München
Series: Beck International
Language: English
Pages: 480
Product Type: Edited Book

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

Bibliography (196 entries)

?Bibliography Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
I. Monographs, Edited Volumes and Book Sections Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
1. Books Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Cadiet, Loic ; Jeuland, Emmanuel, Droit judiciaire privé (Litec 6th edn., 2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Crifò, Carla, Cross-Border Enforcement of Debts in the European Union, Default Judgments, Summary Judgments and Orders for Payment (Kluwer Law International 2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Dickinson, Andrew and Lein, Eva, The Brussels I Regulation Recast (OUP 2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Fasching and Konecny (Eds) Kommentar zu den Zivil prozessgesetzen (2nd ed., Manzsch’sche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchandlung, Vienna, 2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Guinchard, Serge; Ferrand, Frederique and Chainais Cecile, Procédure civile (Dalloz 32nd ed. 2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Hazelhorst, Monique, Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union and the Right to a Fair Trial, The Hague, Asser Press 2017. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Jeuland, Emmanuel, Introduction to French Business Litigation (1st edn., Joly editions 2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Linke, Harmut & Hau, Wolfang, Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht (C.H. Beck, 5th edn. 2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Mayer, Pierre and Heuzé, Vincent, Droit international privé (LGDJ 11th ed. 2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Nioche, Marie, La décision provisoire en droit international privé européen (Bruylant 2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Ontanu, Elena Alina, Cross-Border Debt Recovery in the EU. A Comparative and Empirical Study on the Use of European Uniform Procedures, Thesis, Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Rosenberg, Leo; Schwab, Karl Heinz and Gottwald, Peter, Zivilprozessrecht (17th edn, C.H. Beck 2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Sime Stuart and French, Derek (eds) Blackstone’s Civil Practice (Oxford University Press 2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Tuo, Chiara, La rivalutazione della sentenza straniera nel regolamento Bruxelles 1: tradivieti e reciproca fiducia (CEDAM 2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Zuckerman, Adrian, Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (3rd edn., Sweet & Maxwell 2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
2. Chapters in edited volumes Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Angst, Peter and Oberhammer, Paul (eds), Exekutionsordnung (Manz 3rd edn., 2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Berger, Thomas, ‘Luxembourg’, in Newman, Lawrence W. (ed), Attachment of assets (Juris 2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Colvin, Andrew; Vigoriti, Vincenzo and Calabresi, Roberto ‘Italy’ in Layton and Mercer (general eds), European Civil Practice (Sweet & Maxwell 2004). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Crifò, Carla, ‘Civil Procedure in the European Order: An Overview of the Latest Developments’ in, Déirde Dwyer (ed.), The Civil Procedure Rules Ten Years On (Oxford University Press 2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Deshayes, Béatrice, ‘De la nécessité d’harmoniser les règles régissant l‘expertise en Europe: une approche comparative franco-allemande, in P. Grandjean (ed.), Expertise de justice – Quel avenir en Europe (Bruylant 2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Gottwald, Peter, ‘Review appeal to the German Federal Court after the reform of 2001’ in Ramos, Manuel Ortells (ed.), Los recursos ante Tribunales Supremos en Europa. Appeals to Supreme Courts in Europe (Difusion Juridica 2008) 96. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Hayaux du Tilly, Emmanuel, ‘France’ in Layton and Mercer (general eds.) European Civil Practice (Sweet & Maxwell 2004). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Hein, Jan von ‘Art 1, no. 51’ in Rauscher, Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, vol. 2 (Otto Schmidt 4th ed. 2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Hess, Burkhard; Raffelsieper, Katharina ‘Die Europäische Kontenpfändungsverordnung: Eine überfällige Reform zur Effektuierung grenzüberschreitender Vollstreckung im Europäischen Justizraum’, in IPRax 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Jolowicz, John Anthony, ‘Introduction: Recourse Against Civil Judgments in the European Union: A Comparative Survey’ in Chase and Hershkoff (general eds), Civil Litigation in Comparative Context (Thomson/West 2007) 331. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Kern, Christoph A., ‘Comparative Civil Procedure – Fundamentals and Recent Trends’ in Gedächtnisschrift für Halftk Konuralp I (Yetkin Yayinlari 2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Kern, Christoph A., The Role of the Supreme Court, (RePro 228, ano 39, fevereiro 2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Kramer, Xandra, ‘European Procedures on Debt Collection: Nothing or Noting? Experiences and Future Prospects’ in Hess, Burkhard; Bergström, Maria and Storskrubb, Eva (eds), EU Civil Justice: Current Issues and Future Outlook (Hart Publishing 2016) 97. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung (5th edn, 2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Münchener Kommentar, Zivilprozessordnung, Vol. 3 (5th ed. C.H. Beck 2018). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Musielak, Zivilprozessordnung, (Beck, 10th ed 2013) EuGVO. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Stürner; Rolf and Kern, Christoph A., ‘Comparative Civil Procedure – Fundamentalsand Recent Trends’ in Gedächtnisschrift für Halftk Konuralp I (Yetkin Yayinlari 2009) 1002. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Taelman, Piet, ‘Belgium’, in L.W. Newman (ed), Attachment of assets (Juris 2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Toussaint, Guido in Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung (C.H. Beck 2016) vol. 1. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Uzelac, Alan; van Rhee, Cornelis Hendrik, ‘Appeals and other means of recourse against judgments in the context of the effective protection of civil rights and obligation’ in Alan Uzelac, Cornelis Hendrik van Rhee (eds), Nobody’s perfect. Comparative Essays on appeals and other means of recourse against judicial decisions in civil matters (Intersentia 2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Wautelet, Patrick, ‘Art 59 no 12.’, in Bonomi, Andrea & Wautelet, Patrick (eds), Droit européen des successions, (Bruylant 2nd ed. 2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Weiser, Irene, ‘Austria’ in Layton and Mercer (general eds), European Civil Practice (Sweet & Maxwell 2004) 37. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Zöller, ZPO (OttoSchmidt, 30th ed 2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
3. Articles, Notes and Papers Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Yein, Gar Ng, ‘European Payment Order and European Small Claim Online Simulation UK-Italy. Regulations (EC) No. 1896/2006 and 861/2007’, Building Interoperability for European Civil Proceedings Online, Research Conference – Bologna, 15–16 June 2012, available at http://www.irsig.cnr.it/BIEPCO/ documents/case_studies/EPO_Simulation_Gar_Yein.pdf). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Cuniberti, Gilles, ‘L’expertise judiciaire en droit judiciaire européen’, Rev. Crit. DIP 2015, 519. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Kramer, Xandra; Ontanu, Elena Alina, ‘The functioning of the European Small Claims Procedure in The Netherlands: normative and empirical reflections’, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2013, 319. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Huet, André, Note on Cass. Civ. 1ère, 11 December 2001, Case no 00-18.547, J. Dr. Int. 2003, 152. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Muir Watt, Horatia, Note on Cass. Civ. 1ère, 11 December 2001, Case no 00-18.547, Rev. Crit. DIP 2002, p. 317. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Niggemann, Friedrich, Note on OLG München, 19 February 2014, IPRax 2015, 75. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Cuniberti, Gilles, Note on Court of Appeal, 15 July 2015, case no 42489, JTL Lux 2015, 179. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
II. Reports and Studies Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Hess, Burkhard and Pfeiffer, Thomas, Interpretation of the Public Policy Exception as referred to in EU Instruments of Private International and Procedural Law (European Parliament Study), available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2011/453189/IPOL-JURI_ET(2011)453189_EN. pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Hess, Burkhard; Pfeiffer, Thomas and Schlosser, Peter, “The Heidelberg Report”, Study JLS/C4/2005/03 Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States, 2007, available at: http://ec. europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_application_brussels_1_en.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Deloitte, Assessment of the socio-economic impacts of the policy options for the Future of the European Small Claims Regulation, Final Report, RDT-L05-2010, Brussels, 19.07.2013. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
European Commission, Less bureaucracy for citizens: promoting free movement of public documents and recognition of the effects of civil status records, COM(2010) 747 final. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
European Economic and Social Committee on the application of the Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 of the Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, COM (2013) 795 final, Brussels, 19.11.2013. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
European Economic and Social Committee on the application of the Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 of the Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, COM(2013) 795 final, Brussels, 19.11.2013. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, COM(2015) 495 final. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Cuniberti, Gilles, Civil Judicial Experts in the EU: Analysis of EU Legislation and Recommendations, Report for the Legal Committee of the European Parliament (2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Kramer, Xandra, Tuil and Tillema, Ministry of Justice Report 2012. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Optimity Matrix, Case study on the functioning of enforcement proceedings relating to judicial decisions in Member States, Final Report February 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Study on the application of Articles 3(1)(C) and 3, and Articles 17 and 18 of the Council Regulation (EC) NO 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the member states in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, June 2012, final_report_1206, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/final_report_1206_en.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Study on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 on the taking of evidence on civil and commercial matters, March 2007, final_report_ec_1206_2001_a_09032007, available at http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/publications/docs/final_report_ec_1206_2001_a_09032007.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Hess, Burkhard, Study No. JAI/A3/2002/02 on making more efficient the enforcement of judicial decisions within the European Union: Transparency of a Debtor’s Assets, Attachment of Bank Accounts, Provisional Enforcement and Protective Measures, available at: http://www2.ipr.uni-heidelberg.de/studie/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
III. Legislation Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
1. Treaties Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
International Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2009] OJ L 449/ 80. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
2. EU Regulations Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Council Regulation No 40/94 of 20 December 1993. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Regulation (EC) 1393/2007. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, [2006] OJ L399/1. (EOP Regulation) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, [2009] OJ L 7/ 1. (Maintenance Regulation). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order foruncontested claims, [2004] L143/15. (EEO Regulation). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, [2007] OJ L199/1. (ESCP Regulation). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis regulation). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 on promoting the free movement of citizens by simplifying the requirements for presenting certain public documents in the European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/ 2012. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Regulation (EU) 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. (EAPO Regulation). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
3. EU Directives Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Council Directive 2002/8/EC of 27 January 2003. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Directive 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
IV. EU Opinions and Recommendations Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee of 11 May 2001, OJ 2001 C 139, 10. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Opinion of the Parliament, single reading, 14 March 2001, A5?0073/2001, OJ 2001 C 343, 184. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
V. Cases Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
ECtHR, Martins Silva v. Portugal, application no 12959/10. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
ECtHR, Augusto v. France, application no 71665/01. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
ECtHR, Mantovanelli v. France, application no 21497/93. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
ECtHR, Feldbrugge v. Netherlands, application no. 8562/79. 1. CJEU Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-94/14, Flight Refund Ltd v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, ECLI:EU:C:2016:148. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-559/14, Meroni v. Recoletos Limited, ECLI:EU:C:2016:349. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-511/14, Pebros Servizi Srl v. Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd [2016], ECLI:EU:C:2016:448. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-70/15, Lebek v. Janusz Domino, ECLl:EU:C:2016:524. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-184/14, A v. B, ECLI:EU:C:2015:479. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-681/13, Diageo Brands v. Simiramida-04 EOOD, ECLI:EU:C:2015:471. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-300/14, Imtech Marine Belgium NV v. Radio Hellenic SA, ECLI:EU:C:2015:825. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Joined cases C-119/13 and C-120/13, eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG and Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH v. Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy und Tetyana Bonchyk, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2144. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-112/13, A v. B a.o., ECLI:EU :C:2014:2:195. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C- 302/13, flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS v. Starptautisk? lidosta R?ga VAS und Air Baltic Corporation AS, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2319. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-332/11, ProRail BV v. Xpedys NV a.o., ECLI:EU:C:2013:87. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-508/12, Walter Vapenik v. Josef Thurner, ECLI:EU:C:2013:790. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-292/10, G v. Cornelius de Visser, ECLI:EU:C:2012:142. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-514/10, Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v. SEWAR spol. s r.o., EU:C:2012:367. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Case C-170/11, Lippens v. Kortekaas a.o., ECLI:EU:C:2012:540. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-619/10, Trade Agency Ltd v. Seramico Investments Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2012:531. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-215/11, Iwona Szyrocka v. SiGer Technologie GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2012:794. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-325/11, Krystyna Alder und Ewald Alder v. Sabina Or?owska und Czeslaw Or?owski, ECLI:EU:C:2012:824. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-406/09, Realchemie Nederland BV v. Bayer CropScience AG, ECLI:EU:C:2011:668. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-394/07, Gambazzi v. DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc. and CIBC Mellon Trust Companyi, ECLI:EU: C:2009:219. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-104/03, St. Paul Dairy Industries NV v. Unibel Exser BVBA, ECLI:EU:C:2005:255. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-522/03, Scania Finance France SA v. Rockinger Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co, ECLI:EU:C:2005:606. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-99/96, Hans-Hermann Mietz v. Intership Yachting Sneek, BV ECLI:EU:C:1999:202. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-391/95, Van Uden Maritime BV v. Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line u. a., ECLI:EU: C:1998:543. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-78/95, Hendrikman v. Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:1996:380. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-228/81, Pendy Plastic Products BV v. Pluspunkt Handelsgesellschaft mbH, ECLI:EU:C:1982:276. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-166/80, Klomps v. Michel, ECLI:EU:C:1981:137. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
C-125/79, Denilauler v. Couchet Frères, ECLI:EU:C:1980:130. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
2. Austria Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Austrian Supreme Court, 21 January 2015, 3 Ob 232/14 k, Case 14K.0121.000, ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2015:0030OB00232. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Austrian Supreme Court, 19 June 2013, 84/13 v, Case 13V.0619.000, ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2013:0030OB00084. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Austrian Supreme Court, 31 January 2007, 3 Ob 9/07 f, Case 07F.0131.000, ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2007:0030OB00009. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
3. Belgium Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Cass. 28 January 2005, Pasicrisie 2005, Vol. 1, 224. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Court of First Instance Brussels, 13 October 2004, Tijdschrift voor Belgisch burgerlijk recht 2005, 125. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
4. Estonia Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Estonian Supreme Court 1 December 2010, No 3-2-1-117-10. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
5. France Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Cass. Com, 3 April 2013, n° 11-19.000. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Cass. Civ. 2eme, 22 February 2012, no 10-28379. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Cass. Civ. 1ère, 4 June 2009, no 08-12482. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Cass. Civ. 1ère, 9 November 1971, n° 70-14017 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
CA Bordeaux, 31 March 2016, n° 14/05833. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
CA Metz, 19 April 2016, n° 14/00029. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
CA Bordeaux, 15 May 2013, no 12/02578; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
CA Nancy, 30 March 2015, no 14/00839; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
CA Versailles, 2 October 2014, n° 14/01687. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
CA Pau, 12 April 2013, n° 13/1582. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
CA Nancy, 11 June 2013, n° 12/02657. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
6. Germany Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
BGH, 10 September 2015, IX ZB 39/13, NJW 2016, 160–163. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
BGH, 3 August 2011, XII ZB 187/10, NJW 2011, 3103–3106. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
BGH 26 August 2009, XII ZB 169/07. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
BGH, 26 November 2009, VII ZB 42/08, NJW 2010–2138. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
BGH, 6 May 2004, IX ZB 43/03, NJW 2004, 2386–2388. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
OLG Hamburg, 7 November 2008, 6 W 22/08, BeckRS 2009, 04375. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
OLG Düsseldorf, 11 October 1999, 3 W 258/99, NJW 2000, 3290- 3291. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
OLG Köln, 6 October 1994, 7 W 34/94, NJW-RR 1995, 446–448. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
LG München, 19 January 2011, 6 T 6032/09, BeckRS 2010, 12370. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
LG Trier, 17 October 2002, 7 HKO 140/01, NJW-RR 2003 , 287–288. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
7. Greece Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Greek Supreme Court 1028/2009, Civil Procedure Law Review 2010, p. 55. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Thessaloniki CoA 164/2010, Civil Procedure Law Review 2010, 709. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Athens CoA 1356/2007, Hellenic Justice 2008, 1498. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Thessaloniki CoA 2321/2007. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Thessaloniki CoA 3299/2000, Armenopoulos 2001, p. 377. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Thessaloniki CoA 267/1999, Armenopoulos 1999, p. 718 = Commercial law Survey 1999, p. 275. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Athens CoA 10698/1995, Hellenic Justice 1996, 1402. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
District Court Thessaloniki 15948/2009 Armenopoulos 1999, p. 718. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Drama 1 s t Instance Court 251/2000, Armenopoulos 2001. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
8. Italy Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Court of Appeal Milan, Gambazzi v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc. and CIBC Mellon Trust Company, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
14 December 2010. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
9. Luxembourg Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Judgment of 10 February 2011, case no 35005. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
10. Poland Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Polish Supreme Court, 27 November 2014, V CSK 487/13. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
11. Romania Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Bucharest Court of Appeal, Decision No. 3226/26.05.2010. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Vrancea General Court, Decision No. 63/15.06.2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Oradea General Court, Civil Section, Decision 7716, 22.09.2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
General Court, Decision No. 1067/19.10.2010. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Bucharest General Court, Commercial Section, Decision 14351/2009. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
12. Slovenia Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Appellate Court in Koper, II Ip 429/2013, 17.10.2013, ECLI:SI:VSKP:2013:II.IP.429.2013. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Appellate Court Koper, II Ip 312/2012, 18.10.2012, ECLI:SI:VSKP:2012:II.IP.312.2012. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
13. Spain Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Court of Appeal of Barcelona, 4 October 2012 [AP Barcelona (19ª), 122/2012, ECLI:ES:APB:2012:7160A. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Court of Appeal of Madrid, 12 February 2002, JUR\2002\132026). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
14. The Netherlands Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Netherlands Supreme Court, ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BP0003. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
District Court Utrecht, ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2011:BU5866. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Rotterdam District Court, NL:RBROT:2009:BL187. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
District Court The Hague, ECLI:NL:RBHAA:2009:BK6667. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
15. UK Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
MD & CT [2014] EWHC 871 (Farn) CH2FN 190. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299
Reeve & Others v Plummer [2014] EWHC 362 (QB), 18 December 2014 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.17104/9783406795299