A Step Forward in the Harmonization of European Jurisdiction: Regulation Brussels I Recast

• Autorzy: Alavi Hamed , Khamichonak Tatsiana
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The Brussels regime is a legislative framework that regulates questions of transnational litigation in the European Union. Having been initially shaped upon negotiation of the 1968 Brussels Convention, it has been subsequently superseded and expanded in scope by the Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, alongside other instruments addressing specific areas of law. Recently, the Brussels regime has been amended by the Recast Brussels I Regulation, which entered into force on January 15, 2015, bringing about significant and long-awaited change. Addressing the experience of application of its predecessors, the changes in the Recast Regulation have been introduced to the treatment of choice-of-court agreements and their relationship with the lis pendens doctrine, abolition of exequatur, reaffirmation and clarification of the arbitration exclusion, as well as further minor amendments.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Regulation 1215/2012 Brussels I Recast; Brussels regime; abolition of exequatur; choice-of-court agreements; lis pendens

• Wydawca: Sciendo
• Czasopismo: Baltic Journal of Law & Politics
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 8
• Numer: 2
• Strony: 159-181

Daty

wydano

2015-12-01

otrzymano

2015-11-03

zaakceptowano

2015-12-29

online

2016-02-29

Twórcy

autor

Alavi Hamed

• Tallinn University of Technology, School of Law (Estonia),

autor

Khamichonak Tatsiana

• Tallinn University of Technology, School of Law (Estonia),

Bibliografia

• 1. Baumgartner, Samuel P. “Recent Reforms in EU Law. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments.” Judicature 97 (2014): 188–195.
• 2. Baumgartner, Samuel P. The Proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments. Tübingen: Gulde-Druck, 2003 // .
• 3. Cook, Justin P. “Pragmatism in the European Union: Recasting the Brussels I Regulation to Ensure the Effectiveness of Exclusive Choice-of-Court Agreements.” Aberdeen Student Law Review 4 (2013): 76–91.
• 4. Cuniberti, Gilles, and Isabelle Rueda. “Abolition of Exequatur. Addressing the Commission’s Concerns.” University of Luxembourg Law Working Paper No. 2010-03 (2010) // .
• 5. Dickinson, Andrew, and Eva Lein. The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, 2015.
• 6. Dixon, Martin. Textbook on international Law. 7th ed. Oxford University Press, 2004.
• 7. Foster, Nigel. Foster on EU Law. 4th ed. Oxford University Press, 2013.
• 8. Ivanova, Ekaterina. “Choice of Court Clauses and Lis Pendens under Brussels I Regulation.” Merkourios-Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 26 (2009-2010): 12–16.
• 9. Kenny, David, and Rosemary Hennigan. “Choice-of-Court Agreements, the Italian Torpedo, and the Recast of the Brussels I Regulation.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 64 (2015): 197–209.
• 10. Kuipers, Jan-Jaap. “Party Autonomy in the Brussels I Regulation and Rome I Regulation and the European Court of Justice.” German Law Journal 10 (2009): 1505–1524.
• 11. Michaels, Ralf. “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”: 1–13. In: Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (MPEPIL) (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg and Oxford University Press, 2009) // .
• 12. Moses, Margaret. “Arbitration/Litigation Interface: The European Debate.” Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 35 (2014): 1–47.
• 13. Nielsen, Peter A. “The State of Play of the Recast of the Brussels I Regulation.” Nordic Journal of International Law 81 (2012): 585–603.
• 14. Stone, Peter. EU Private International Law: Harmonization of Laws. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006.
• 15. Timmer, Laurens J. “Abolition of Exequatur under the Brussels I Regulation: ILL Conceived and Premature?” Journal of Private International Law 9 (2013): 129–147.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/bjlp-2015-0023