- 558 visualizzazioni
Table of Contents: I. Introduction. – II. The notion of “judgment” in the EU regulations on cross-border collection of monetary claims prior to H Limited and London Steam-Ship Owners. – II.1. “Any judgment”. – II.2. “A court or tribunal”. – II.3. “A Member State”. – III. The notion of “judgment” in the EU regulations on cross-border collection of monetary claims after the H Limited and London Steam-Ship Owners. – III.1. H Limited: Is “double exequatur” now allowed? – III.2. London Steam-Ship Owners: New rules of interplay between judgments and arbitral awards. – IV. Conclusion.
Abstract: In the area of cross-border recognition and enforcement, judgments present the most important type of decisions that enjoy free movement within the European Union. The notion of a “judgment” may seem fairly obvious at first. However, given the broad definitions of EU’s private international law instruments, the concept quickly proves to be much more complex. This became particularly clear after the recent rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU: the rulings in H Limited (C-568/20 ECLI:EU:C:2022:264) and London Steam-Ship Owners (C-700/20 ECLI:EU:C:2022:488). In light of the new case-law, this Article aims to answer the question as to what exactly constitutes a “judgment” in EU private international law, as well as determine whether the notion has been redefined after these rulings. The questions are answered with reference to the EU regulations dealing with monetary claims, while diverging aspects constituting a “judgment” under national laws of different Member States are highlighted as well.
Keywords: notion of “judgment” – free movement of judgments – private international law – EU law – civil procedure – Brussels I Recast.
--------------------
European Papers, Vol. 9, 2024, No 2, pp. 557-592
ISSN 2499-8249 - doi: 10.15166/2499-8249/771
* Ph.D. Candidate, University of Rijeka and University of Antwerp, mticic@uniri.hr.
