Literatura académica sobre el tema "Exequatur procedure"

Resumen: En el presente estudio se pone de manifiesto la irrecurribilidad de un Auto recaído en un procedimiento sobre reconocimiento y ejecución de sentencia extranjera, tal y como se venía propugnando por la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo. Esta cuestión se viene a solventar con la LCJIMC.Palabras clave: auto, recurso de casación; procedimiento de exequátur; Tribunal Supremo.Abstract: The present study highlights the non-appeal of a judicial decree in a procedure for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, as defended by the Supreme Court’s case law. Thisquestion comes to be resolved withthe LCJIMC.Keywords: judicial decree; cassation appeal; exequatur procedure; High Court.

Resumen: En el presente estudio se pone de manifiesto las necesidades formales para el reconocimiento y ejecución de sentencia dictada por un Tribunal argelino. No obstante, desde la perspectiva de la cosa juzgada, debe ponerse de manifiesto en este asunto la incidencia de la decisión previa de divorcio.Palabras clave: auto; recurso de apelación; procedimiento de exequátur; Audiencia Provincial.Abstract: The present study shows the formal needs for the recognition and execution of a judgement issued by an Algerian court. However, from the perspective of the res judicata, the incidence of the previous divorce decision must be shown in this matter.Keywords: judicial decree; appeal; exequatur procedure; Provincial Court.

Authors discuss the admissibility of defences against the substantive claim (e.g. objection of the debtor that the enforceable claim has been discharged) in cross-border enforcement in Europe. In the context of Regulation 44/2001 in some countries, like Germany, courts have admitted such defences in exequatur proceeding. In other countries, like Slovenia and Austria, such objections have to be asserted with legal remedies of the national execution law. Debtor can defend himself against European enforcement order, order for payment and small claims judgment with legal remedies of national execution law, if he has discharged the debt after the rendering of decision.
 
 Keywords: • cross-border enforcement • European enforcement order • European order for payment • European small claims procedure • international jurisdiction • EU

Resumen: El presente comentario analiza el Auto dictado por la Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona en referencia a la obligación, impuesta por el Derecho internacional privado español, de aplicar los Tratados internacionales en los que España sea parte a fin de homologar las resoluciones judiciales extranjeras relativas a divorcio. En particular, si se trata de un divorcio en el que el demandado ha sido declarado en rebeldía.Palabras clave: apelación, exequátur, sentencia extranjera, auto, rebeldía demandado.Abstract: This paper analyzes the Act of the Spanish Court of Appel of Tarragona about the recognition and enforcement of the Judgment of Court of Morocco about a marriage dissolution. The comment refers to the obligation, imposed by the Spanish international private law, to apply the international treaties to which Spain is a party in order to enforcement foreign judicial decisions about divorce, specially, when de defendant is in absentia in the procedure.Keywords: exequatur procedure, appeal, marriage dissolution, divorce, international treaties.

On 1 June 2013 the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children came into force. It provides for the recognition and enforcement of foreign measures for the protection of a child or his or her property. One of the original provisions previously not found in the international treaties of the Russian Federation is the possibility of preventive recognition of a foreign measure, which may require enforcement in the future (Art. 24). This option differs from objections against recognition known to Russian law and may be useful in international relocation cases and for cross-border contacts with a child. The article reveals the essence and significance of preventive recognition (nonrecognition). However, the implementation of the Convention in Russia, unlike some other States parties, was reduced to the designation of a Central Authority. Russian civil procedural legislation was not amended. This raises issues concerning the application of the mechanism set down in Article 24 of the Convention. The author proposes to apply mutatis mutandis the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and to grant an exequatur in simple procedure taking into account earlier court examination and conclusion of the absence of grounds for non-recognition.

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 applies in civil and commercial matters, with the exception of criminal law, family law, insolvency law, succession law and other matters specified in that Regulation, such as social security or arbitration. Under the new law, the so-called exequatur procedure under Brussels I Regulation has been abolished. This means that a judicial decision issued in one of the EU Member States is recognised in other EU Member States without the need for a special procedure. If it is enforceable in the State in which the judgment was given, there is no need for a declaration of enforceability. There must be a link between the proceedings falling within the scope of this Regulation and the territory of EU Member States. Common rules on jurisdiction should in principle apply when the defendant is domiciled in one of the EU Member States. A defendant who is not domiciled in any of the EU Member States (whose habitual residence is outside the EU) should in principle be subject to the national rules of jurisdiction applicable in the territory of the EU Member State where the action has been brought. However, irrespective of the defendant’s residence, certain rules on jurisdiction apply in order to ensure the protection of consumers and workers, and to protect the jurisdiction of EU courts in situations where they have exclusive jurisdiction (e.g. in the case of real estate), and to respect the autonomy of the parties. The author addressed these issues to trade in agri-food products in the European Union.

LABURPENA: Giza Eskubideen Europako Auzitegiaren Negrepontis-Giannisis vs. Grezia epaiak atzerriko erabakiak libre zirkulatzeko bidea zabaldu du, prozesu zuzen bat izateko eskubidetik etorria, Giza Eskubideen Europako Hitzarmeneko 6.1 artikuluan aitortua. GEEAren jurisprudentzia-lerro horren eboluzioa abiatzen da Wagner eta J.M.W.L. vs. Luxenburgo eta McDonald vs. Frantzia erabakiekin, baina guk aipatzen duguna aurrerapausoa handia da, eskubidea ez zaiolako lotzen beste zuzenbide substantibo bati, eta berezko eskubidea dela planteatzen da. Gainera, ohar aipagarriak egiten dira atzerriko epai judizialak geldiarazteko ordena publikoko salbuespenari buruz, eta haien eragina leuntzen da. Oso interesgarria da EBko arautegien aplikazio-esparrutik ihes egiten duten erabakietan aplikatzeko, non exequaturra desagertzen den ad hoc prozedura gisa, baina eragindako alderdiak hura ez aitortzeko aukera mantentzen da. Ildo horretan, GEEAk Negrepontis-en erabilitako argudioak garrantzi berezikoak dira, kontuan hartuz GEEHk inspiratzen duela Batasuneko Zuzenbidea eta auzitegiak egiten duen artikuluen interpretazioa. RESUMEN: El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos abre en su sentencia Negrepontis-Giannisis c. Grecia una vía de ampliación de las posibilidades a la libre circulación de decisiones extranjeras como un derecho derivado del derecho a un proceso equitativo reconocido en el art. 6.1 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos. La evolución de esta línea jurisprudencial del TEDH arranca con las decisiones Wagner y J.M.W.L. c. Luxemburgo y McDonald c. Francia pero en la que nos ocupa se produce un avance considerable porque no se ata el derecho al reconocimiento a otro derecho sustantivo sino que se plantea como un derecho en sí mismo. Además se establecen notables consideraciones en cuanto a la excepción de orden público como freno a la ejecución de decisiones judiciales extranjeras y se suaviza su efecto. Es especialmente interesante para su aplicación en aquellas decisiones que escapan del ámbito de aplicación de los correspondientes reglamentos de la UE donde desaparece el exequátur como procedimiento ad hoc pero se mantiene la posibilidad de oposición al reconocimiento por la parte afectada. En este sentido, los argumentos utilizados por el TEDH en Negrepontis son de especial relevancia, teniendo en cuenta el carácter inspirador del Derecho de la Unión que tiene el CEDH y por ende de la interpretación que dicho tribunal haga de su articulado. ABSTRACT: The European Court of Human Rights in its judgment Negrepontis-Giannisis v. Greece opens the extension of the possibilities for a free movement of foreign decisions as a right derived from the right to a fair hearing of article 6.1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The evolution of this case law trend of the ECHR begins with decisions Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg and McDonald v. France but in the judgment we are now analyzing a considerable development is made because the right to the recognizition is not linked to other substantive right but it is considered as a right itself. Besides remarkable considerations are established as far as the exception to the public order is concerned as a brake to the execution of foreign judicial decisions and it softens its effect. It is especially interesting for its application in those decisions that go beyond the scope of application of the corresponding regulations of the EU where the exequatur as an ad hoc procedure is missing but it maintains the possibility of opposition to the recognizition by the affected party. In this sense, the reasoning of the ECHR in Negrepontis is of special relevance, taking into account the inspiring character of the European Law forthe ECHR and hence the interpretation of that Tribunal of its articles.

Resumen: Partiendo del reciente Auto del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid de 18 de abril de 2018, sobre reconocimiento de un laudo arbitral extranjero, se estudian los problemas del valor pro­batorio de los laudos como documentos privados extranjeros, la competencia judicial internacional de los Tribunales españoles para resolver el exequatur en esta materia y la validez de la subsanación de la demanda de reconocimiento. También se hace una propuesta sobre la traducción de los documentos que deben acompañar a la demanda.Palabras clave: reconocimiento de laudo arbitral extranjero, valor probatorio del laudo, competen­cia judicial internacional en cuanto al exequatur, subsanación de la demanda, traducción de documentos.Abstract: Based on the recent decision of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid of April 18, 2018, on the recognition of a foreign arbitral award, the problems of the probative value of the awards as foreign private documents, the international jurisdiction of the Spanish Courts to know about its exe­quatur and the validity of the fault rectification of the demand on exequatur are analysed. A proposal on the translation of the documents that must be attached to the claim is also made.Keywords: recognition of foreign arbitral award, probative value of the award, international juris­diction on exequátur, fault rectification of the claim, translation of documents.

Brexit is a unique phenomenon as no Member State has ever expressed the will to leave the European Union. Never before had the in-depth impact of a Member State withdrawal been analysed. The issue has started to be analysed after the referendum in which the British voted in favour of leaving the European Union. The topic of the potential consequences of Brexit in the field of private international law concerns, inter alia, national jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, specific procedures of EU uniform law, judicial cooperation between Member States or the functioning of the e-Justice Portal and dynamic forms. Before a given Member State withdraws from the EU, interested parties should have been informed, inter alia, of how pending proceedings will be conducted starting with the withdrawal day, what about proceedings initiated at the date of withdrawal or later on, and what about the rulings of the courts of the applicant state covered by the exequatur procedure before the withdrawal. Therefore, the primary purpose of the article is to determine the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the UK in the field of private international law. An additional aim of this paper is to better prepare natural and legal persons for the new post-Brexit reality. European integration has brought Europe peace and prosperity and enabled unprecedented cooperation in all areas of common interest. Following the withdrawal decision, the state and its citizens cease to benefit from the acquis communautaire. In fact, the United Kingdom left the European Union on 31 January 2020. As far as private international law is concerned, the United Kingdom has become a third country. Subsequently, on 1 February 2020 a transition period has started and it aims to provide more time for citizens and businesses to adapt. The negotiations on the future partnership between the EU and the UK has started in March 2020, but they were postponed due to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is sometimes compared to love that has passed away, but former lovers must continue to meet from time to time to manage certain common affaires. The analysis of the topic leads to the conclusion that, in fact, Brexit is a unique phenomenon that has no added value.

Magistro darbe „Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 2201/2003 dėl jurisdikcijos ir teismo sprendimu, susijusiu su santuoka ir tėvų pareigomis, pripažinimo bei vykdymo, panaikinantis Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 1347/2000, ir jo įtaką Lietuvos civiliniam procesui“ nagrinėjamos šio ES teisės akto priėmimo priežastys, tikslai, taikymo sritis bei jo įtaka Lietuvos civiliniam procesui. Analizuojamas ES valstybių narių teismu jurisdikcijos nustatymo reglamentavimas, taip pat teismu sprendimu pripažinimo bei vykdymo taisyklės. Aptariami atvejai, kuomet teismu sprendimai pripažįstami bei vykdomi be exequatur procedūros. Dėmesys skiriamas ir centrinių institucijų bendradarbiavimo klausimu analizei. Darbe nagrinėjamos Briuselio IIa Reglamento galiojimo laike, erdvėje ir asmenų atžvilgiu problemos, kadangi jų tinkamai neįvertinus galimi netinkami šio ES teisės akto taikymo atvejai. Pabrėžiama, jog Briuselio IIa Reglamento netaikomas Danijai. Analizuojama Briuselio IIa Reglamento įtaka Lietuvos civiliniam procesui, akcentuojant, jog Briuselio IIa Reglamentas sudaro realias galimybes tam tikrus ES valstybių narių teismų sprendimus pripažinti vykdytinais ir juos vykdyti Lietuvoje be exequatur procedūros. Aptariamas Briuselio IIa Reglamento ir LR CPK juridinės galios klausimas.<br>In Master‘s thesis “The Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement judgements in matrimonial matters and the matters of paternal responsibilities, repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1347/200, and its influence to Lithuanian civil procedure“ the reasons of the enactment of this EU legal act, its purposes, the scope of regulation and its influence to Lithuanian civil procedure is analyzed. The reglamentation of jurisdiction of EU member states courts, as well as the rules of the courts decisions recognition and enforcement are analyzed. Specified issues, when the courts‘ decisions are recognized and enforced without exequatur procedure. Some attention is put on the analysis of the cooperation of the central institutions. In the thesis the problems of the application of the Regulation to the persons, its validity in time and space are analyzed, because the ascertation of these questions is important for proper application of this Regulation. It is emphasized, that the Regulation is not applied to Denmark. The influence of Brussels’ IIbis Regulation to Lithuanian civil procedure is analyzed, emphasizing that Brussels’ IIbis Regulation constitute real opportunities some EU members states decisions recognize and enforce in Lithuania without exequatur procedure. The question of legal power of Brussels’ IIbis Regulation and Lithuanian code of the civil procedure is analyzed.

Le Code de procédure civile prévoit, en ses articles 1492 et 1520, les cas d’ouverture permettant d’obtenir l’annulation d’une sentence ou l’infirmation d’une ordonnance ayant accordé son exequatur. Le troisième de ces cas ouvre les recours lorsque « le tribunal arbitral a statué sans se conformer à la mission qui lui avait été confiée ». Or, le terme de mission est vague, rendant imprécises les frontières de ce cas d’ouverture. Cette incertitude fait courir un risque d’inflation des recours et est source d’insécurité juridique. Elle nuit à l’efficacité du droit français de l’arbitrage, dans un contexte de forte concurrence entre les places arbitrales. L’analyse de la notion de mission permet de définir celle visée à l’indice 3 des articles précités comme les éléments conventionnels participant directement de l’exercice de la mission juridictionnelle arbitrale.Cette définition dessine en creux les deux critères permettant d’énumérer les violations relevant de ce cas d’ouverture. Leur mise en oeuvre contribue alors à une conception raisonnée de ce recours et en démontre la pertinence.Saisi d’un recours arguant d’une violation de sa mission par l’arbitre, le juge accompagne ce mouvement de rationalisation, tant dans le contrôle qu’il opère que dans la sanction qu’il prononce.Se dégage ainsi un mouvement progressif de délimitation restrictive des frontières du cas d’ouverture de la violation de sa mission par l’arbitre. A tous les stades de l’analyse – définition de la mission,détermination des griefs relevant de ce cas d’ouverture, contrôle opéré par le juge et prononcé de la sanction -, une conception cohérente, rationnelle et raisonnée se découvre. Elle constitue un rempart efficace contre la dérive expansionniste que faisait craindre sa formulation – une crainte d’ailleurs contredite par l’étude statistique – et témoigne de la pertinence et de la légitimité de ce cas d’ouverture<br>. Articles 1492 and 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (applying to domestic and international arbitration respectively) set out the possible grounds for setting aside a domestic orinternational arbitral award or denying its enforcement. The third of these grounds states that a challenge may be initiated when “the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it”.The notion of “mandate” – translation of the French “mission” – is vague, rendering the limits of this ground unclear. This poses a risk of significant increase in the number of challenges of awards and resultsin legal uncertainty. It might also hamper the efficiency of French arbitration law, especially in the contextof a strong competition among seats of arbitration.The analysis of the notion of “mission” provides insight into the particular mandate referred to underArticles 1492 and 1520, item 3, and can be defined as the contractual elements which are directly involved in the performance of the arbitral jurisdictional task. This definition sets out the two criteria – i.e. the contractual elements and the direct involvement in the performance of the arbitral jurisdictional task – that allow listing the breaches that could give rise to an annulment under this third ground relating to the arbitrator’s mission. Applying both criteria clarifies the scope of this ground and strengthens its relevance.While ruling on a challenge that the arbitral tribunal breached its mission, the annulment judge follows the same rational approach, both when analyzing the breach and when considering a possible annulment. The work undertaken in this thesis highlights the gradual restriction of the scope of this third ground relating to the arbitrator’s mission. Every stage of our study– the definition of the mission, the list of grounds covered by this third ground, the judge’s control and the potential annulment of the award –demonstrates that a clear, coherent and rational understanding of the third ground is possible. Such anunderstanding prevents this ground from being construed in an excessively broad sense, as its unclear wording may have suggested. The conducted statistical survey corroborates these theoretical results. All these ideas confirm that the third ground is a relevant and legitimate one

This chapter, which applies only to Brussels 2012 and Lugano 2007, discusses the procedure for the recognition and enforcement of judgments. If a judgment is enforceable under Brussels or Lugano, it must be enforced under those instruments: it is not permitted to sue the defendant again on the original cause of action, even if this would be less expensive. The position under the two instruments appears rather different because, while Lugano 2007 follows Brussels 2000 in requiring the judgment-creditor to obtain a declaration of enforceability as a precondition for enforcement, this is no longer necessary under Brussels 2012. However, the difference is not very great in practice. The chapter discusses the abolition of &lt;i&gt;exequatur&lt;/i&gt; and enforcement orders, enforceability, enforcement, recognition, refusal of recognition, enforcement procedure: general principles, and special issues that arise in the enforcement of judgments.