header-logo header-logo

31 July 2009 / Patricia Shine
Issue: 7380 / Categories: Features , EU , Commercial
printer mail-detail

A matter of trust

Patricia Shine explains why member states are obliged to recognise each other’s judgments

Article 33(1) of the judgments regulation No 44/2001 (the regulation) relates to reciprocal enforcement of judgments and provides that “a judgment given in a member state shall be recognised in the other member states without any special procedure being required”.

The aim of this part of the regulation was to minimise obstruction to the transfer of judgments in one part of the EU, to be enforced in another, in order to further the objective of free movement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

These aims are clearly expressed in paragraph two of the preamble to the regulation: “Certain differences between national rules governing jurisdiction and recognition of judgments hamper the sound operation of the internal market. Provisions to unify the rules of conflict of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and to simplify the formalities with a view to rapid and simple recognition and enforcement of judgments from member states bound by this Regulation are essential.”

The circumstances

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll