Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2009/2140(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0219/2010

Texts tabled :

A7-0219/2010

Debates :

PV 06/09/2010 - 22
CRE 06/09/2010 - 22

Votes :

PV 07/09/2010 - 6.14
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2010)0304

Verbatim report of proceedings
Monday, 6 September 2010 - Strasbourg OJ edition

22. Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (short presentation)
Video of the speeches
Minutes
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Zwiefka, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the implementation and revision of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (COM(2009)01742009/2140(INI)) (A7-0219/2010).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tadeusz Zwiefka, rapporteur.(PL) Madam President, the Brussels 1 Regulation describes specific provisions regulating court jurisdiction in civil and business matters and the recognition and enforcement of judgments by other Member States. It has been hailed, rightly, as a great success. It has facilitated the free movement of judgments; it has increased legal certainty and has made it possible to avoid simultaneous proceedings, although in certain circles, it has been criticised for being impracticable or anti-business. The judgments of the Court of Justice are also seen as inconsistent. Whilst the Brussels I Regulation was being approved, only one consultation took place in Parliament. Now Parliament will be busy with all future proposals concerning amendments to the regulation, according to normal legislative procedure, so it is a good thing that we are already working on the Commission’s Green Paper. Matters raised in the Green Paper include the possible abolition of the exequatur procedure, the functioning of the regulation in the wider international order, the functioning of the clauses relating to selection of courts, the functioning of the regulation in cases involving industrial and intellectual property and the possible reform of the lispendens procedure. I have tried to write a measured, future-facing report. I was touched by the reaction to two working documents in which I supported the concept of abolition of the exequatur procedure, which should bring concrete benefits to the citizens of the European Union. At the same time, I remain convinced that this step must be compensated for with a special procedure linked to appropriate safeguards for debtors. Independently of abolishing the exequatur procedure, I am convinced that government acts should not be implemented directly in the originating state without being inspected by the appropriate legal authorities of that state; and, furthermore, the principle that the enforcement clause may be rejected or amended only in cases where the ruling is not consistent with the public policy of the state which granted the enforcement clause should be changed. In certain circumstances, the government act may not conform to previous court rulings in the originating state.

I continue to be opposed to the abolition of arbitration within the scope of the regulation. However, I do believe that we should thoroughly rethink the connection between arbitration and court proceedings and that until we carry out a full review and wide-ranging consultations, we should not seek to realise a concept of basic protection of arbitral jurisdiction. In the future, I find the concept of granting full feedback on provisions of the regulation very attractive. It is currently too early for this, however. I urge wide-ranging consultation and political debate before any action is taken in this matter which goes beyond the suggestions presented in the draft report. I also support the idea of renewing negotiations on conventions relating to international judgments at the forum of the Hague conference. The report does touch on some very complex problems in the field of private international law. In spite of the fact that the question of libel has not been addressed in the Commission’s Green Paper, the problem of forum shopping, choosing the most beneficial jurisdiction in order to obtain the greatest amount of damages in libel cases, certainly does exist. The freedom of the word and the media must remain in balance with the rights of the individual who has been libelled, or whose right to privacy has been breached. As a result, I am against the exclusion of the question of libel from the general principles of the Brussels 1 Regulation. Of course, I am considering whether an instrument such as Brussels 1 is an appropriate instrument for regulating the principles of private international law. Maybe another legal instrument is necessary to regulate the conflict between the freedom of the media and basic individual rights. The Brussels 1 Regulation has not been brought into being to assess the quality of court judgments in Member States. The European Court of Justice, in its Lugano opinion, clearly stated that the Brussels 1 legal instrument was based on mutual trust.

I would like to thank my colleagues from the Committee on Legal Affairs, in particular, Mrs Diana Wallis and Mrs Evelyn Regner.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Evelyn Regner (S&D).(DE) Madam President, Brussels I is a very good regulation. It could be improved not only by the prudent abolition of exequatur, but genuine improvements could also be made on the grounds of worker and consumer protection. I therefore find it very regrettable that it was not possible to reach a compromise with Mr Zwiefka on this. Brussels I states that the weaker party can be placed in a better position than that set out in Brussels I as a result of regulations on competence that are more favourable to it than the general ruling.

Accordingly, it would be appropriate – in order to prevent forum shopping or law shopping – to introduce a separate legal venue for labour disputes. This is particularly important if we are to prevent in future cases such as the Viking case, which created quite a stir. Unfortunately I have no more time to address other topics.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE). – Madam President, this report is very important, yet very technical. Standardisation of private international law relationships represents the key point of the consolidation of the full single market, and the abolition of exequatur will surely be received with great enthusiasm both by the business community and by legal practitioners.

The cost of contract drafting will be lower, and the same will happen with debt recovery costs following lawsuits brought before Member State courts. Nevertheless, I hereby express regret that the effects of this report do not also extend to authenticated acts. I hope that this omission will be rectified, given the fact that such acts, if they are issued by notaries public empowered by the courts, are treated in all Member States – except the UK – in the same way as court decisions.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). (SK) In the field of international civil proceedings, the sensible functioning of the internal market is frustrated by certain differences in national rules regulating jurisdiction and the recognition of decisions. The eight-year existence of the Brussels I Regulation has shown the importance of and the need for such a measure which, together with the Brussels II Regulation, creates a comprehensive European measure in the area of civil and commercial procedural relationships.

From the moment this instrument came into being, disputes arising in relationships with an international dimension have had unified procedural rules applying to the jurisdiction, recognition and implementation of court decisions in the European Union.

The parties involved have therefore gained greater legal certainty, despite differing substantive law measures. Personally, I consider this to be one of the most important and most widely-used instruments in international private law, and I hope that use of the instrument will continue to be supported, that it will constantly evolve, and that it will also prove necessary for the decision-making work of the courts.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, we welcome Parliament's initiative to express its opinion on the future revision of the Brussels I Regulation. I would also like to particularly thank the rapporteur for this well-documented report which allows the European Parliament to reflect on the future revision.

This is the first time that Parliament will be colegislating in this file, which concerns the heart of civil judicial cooperation in Europe. We welcome the support of Parliament for the major objective of the upcoming revision, which is the realisation of a true free circulation of judgments in the Union. I would like to stress that the abolition of exequatur should constitute a real step forward in judicial integration; that the Commission does not see this as the mere removal of a superfluous formality, but as a step forward in the mutual trust in each other’s judicial systems; and that as a result, the existing refusal grounds should be reduced, subject to appropriate safeguards.

We welcome Parliament's agreement that choice of court and arbitration agreement should be protected efficiently in the Union. The Commission will study the most appropriate means to achieve this objective in the Union, taking into account international conventions on the matter. May I indicate, however, that the protection of arbitration agreements should not limit the free circulation of judgments in the Union.

I would also stress that the European Union should strengthen the judicial protection of its citizens at worldwide level, creating a legal environment promoting worldwide trade and offering our European companies a level playing field when doing business outside Europe.

The Commission invites Parliament in the upcoming revision to open its position on this matter, which really concerns access to justice in Europe and the enforcement of rights granted by European Union law.

The Commission welcomes Parliament’s support for improving provisional relief in litigation and indicates that it is exploring the best way forward, not only in the context of the Brussels I Regulation, but also with respect to the creation of a European bank attachment.

I see this report as a first step in the future revision of the Brussels I Regulation. Obviously, we will have the opportunity to debate this further in the future. The Commission intends to propose a revision of the regulation by the end of the year and it looks forward to cooperation with Parliament for the first time on this matter.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 at 12:30.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy