Paul Reid Beaumont

Can Exequatur be Abolished in Brussels I Whilst Retaining a Public Policy Defence

One of the primary objective of the Brussels I regulation is to improve the recognition and enforcement of cross-border judgments in civil and commercial matters throughout the community. The best interests of the international community and the European Union (EU) lie in preserving the possibility of not enforcing a judgment given in another member state of the EU when it is contrary to international public policy.

CHILD ABDUCTION: RECENT JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights has clarified its jurisprudence on how the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention Article 13 exceptions are to be applied in a manner that is consistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also analyses recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights on how the courts in the EU are to handle child abduction cases where the courts of the habitual residence have made use of their power under Article 11 of Brussels IIa.

Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements: Some Issues on the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and its Relationship with the Brussels I Recast Especially Anti-Suit Injunctions, Concurrent Proceedings and the Implications of Brexit

This article contends that the system of “qualified” or “partial” mutual trust in the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention (“Hague Convention”) may permit anti-suit injunctions, actions for damages for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and anti-enforcement injunctions where such remedies further the objective of the Convention. However, intra-EU Hague Convention cases may arguably23 not permit remedies for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements as they may infringe the principles of mutual trust and effectiveness of EU law (effet utile) underlying the Brussels I Recast Regulation. The relationship between Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation and Articles 5 and 6 of the Hague Convention is mapped in this article. It will be argued that the Hartley–Dogauchi Report’s interpretative approach has much to commend it as it follows the path of least resistance by narrowly construing the right to sue in a non-chosen forum as an exception rather than the norm. This exceptional nature of the right to sue in the non-chosen forum under the Hague Convention can be effectively reconciled with the Brussels I Recast Regulation’s reverse lis pendens rule under Article 31(2). This will usually result in the stay of the proceedings in the non-chosen court as soon as the chosen court is seised. The impact of Brexit on this area of the law is uncertain but it has been argued that the likely outcome post-Brexit is that the regime applicable between the UK and the EU (apart from Denmark) in relation to exclusive jurisdiction agreements within the scope of the Hague Convention will be the Hague Convention.

Conflicts of EU courts on child abduction: the reality of Article 11(6)-(8) Brussels IIa proceedings across the EU

This article contains the final findings from a research project funded by the Nuffield Foundation and conducted by the authors on “Conflicts of EU Courts on Child Abduction”. Such “conflicts” were deliberately created by the EU legislature when it created a power in Article 11(6)-(8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation for the courts of the habitual residence to insist on the return of a child that has been abducted after a court in the State where the child was abducted to has refused to return the child on the basis of one of the exceptions to the duty to return provided for in Article 13 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980. It will reveal how infrequently used and largely ineffective the Article 11(6)-(8) system is and will make proposals for law reform in the current revision of the Brussels IIa Regulation.

Measuring the effectiveness of the EU civil justice framework: Theoretical and methodological challenges

A number of harmonised private international law instruments appear to be the foundation of the whole EU civil justice framework, which primarily aims to provide effective remedies for litigants in cross-border cases. Given the level of diversity across the EU, a major feature of the EU legal landscape is the triangular relationship between the allocation of jurisdiction and identification of applicable law, on the one hand, and the available remedy, on the other hand. It appears that, when it comes to the administration of justice in a cross-border context within the EU, this triangular relationship encompasses the ability of the Member States’ courts to deal with cross-border disputes which may be important for the forum selection process. An EU model of administration of justice, which allows litigants to choose where to litigate, may result in some jurisdictions being promoted as dominant. This can only happen, of course, because the EU has already created free movement of judgments in large areas of commercial and family law. Once a judgment has been secured in any one EU Member State it should be enforceable in all others with little or no hindrance. However, litigants may have to consider where a judgment is to be actually enforced given that the rules on actual enforcement are not harmonised in the EU (this may be particularly significant in relation to family law disputes). The dominant jurisdictions could be attracting more cross-border cases, and thus some jurisdictions may become a venue of choice for the high value cross-border disputes. It is important to assess, on the basis of relevant empirical data, how the current EU Civil Justice framework is shaping the litigants’ strategies and whether the objectives of the EU PIL legislative instruments are effectively pursued in a cross-border context. An empirical study is underway in several Member States, with different legal traditions/heritages.

The EU Civil Justice Framework and Private Law: ‘Integration through [Private International] Law

The diverse nature of substantive private law systems across Europe has amplified the development of an EU Civil Justice system based on harmonized EU private international law (PIL) mechanisms. The authors argue that the problems of jurisdiction, choice of law and recognition and enforcement of judgments will be recurrent for courts and litigants in a cross-border context, which may adversely affect the level of litigiousness. After analysing several types of PIL cases brought before the English courts, the authors make the case that there is a need for an appropriately conducted comparative study to collect empirical evidence which explains the cross-border litigation pattern and assesses the effectiveness of the EU PIL instruments. It is concluded that devising an appropriate institutional architecture for the interpretation and application of PIL legislative instruments is key to the creation of a genuine European area of justice as there cannot be rights without appropriate remedies.