The Hague Conference Permanent Bureau published a new preliminary document for the 22nd Diplomatic Session (Judgments Convention) which commenced today: Prel. Doc. No 12 of June 2019 – Note on reconsidering “marine pollution and emergency towage and salvage” within the scope of the draft Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters. It may be read here
The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑361/18 (Ágnes Weil v Géza Gulácsi), which is about Brussels I:
“1. Article 54 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s court hearing an application for a certificate certifying that a judgment given by the court of origin is enforceable must, in a situation […] where the court which gave the judgment to be enforced did not adjudicate, when giving that judgment, on whether that regulation was applicable, ascertain whether the dispute falls within the scope of that regulation.
The Hague Conference Permanent Bureau has published this month (May 2019) a new preliminary document in anticipation of the 22nd Diplomatic Session from 18 June to 2 July 2019 (Judgments Convention): Prel. Doc. No 11 of May 2019 – Limitation period on the enforcement of foreign judgments in the context of the 2018 draft Convention.
Extract: “Conclusion 71. Based on the foregoing analysis, different solutions are proposed to address the two issues raised in Section I, where a shorter (Issue 1) or shorter and discriminatory (Issue 2) limitation period potentially applies to the enforcement of the foreign judgment in the requested State.
72. Issue 1: Whether, and, if so, how the draft Convention should permit the court addressed to refuse enforcement on the basis that a limitation period under the law of the requested State has lapsed, with particular attention to States which consider limitation periods to be a matter of substance.
73. Option A: introduce a specific “Limitation Periods” Article into the draft Convention. The Article would specify that the court addressed may refuse enforcement due to the expiration of a limitation period applicable to the enforcement of foreign judgments under the law of the requested State. Under this option, the applicable limitation period would be determined by the law of the requested State, and the lapse of the limitation period under its law would constitute a basis for refusal (consistent with Art. 4(1)). The legal certainty as to what the law of the requested State is in this regard could be further enhanced by requiring States, when joining the draft Convention, to submit a description of their laws and procedures concerning the limitation periods for enforcement of foreign judgments (a “Country Profile”). The approach of requiring the submission of a Country Profile was adopted in the 2007 Child Support Convention.
The CJEU delivered today its judgment in case C‑658/17 (WB intervener: Przemysława Bac, acting in her capacity as notary), which is about Article 3 Succession Regulation:
“1. The second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that failure by a Member State to notify the Commission of the exercise of judicial functions by notaries, as required under that provision, is not decisive for their classification as a ‘court’.
One component of access to justice is the right of access to a court. This should not be just a theoretical possibility. There is a very practical side to it, e.g. how far away is one from a court? More generally, how many courts should there be in the United Kingdom and where should these be located? Should courts have traditional office hours during weekdays or also be open on Saturdays and nights? Are the current 350 court buildings still necessary as the UK moves towards entirely digital procedures (with on-going pilots)? Can the Government afford to pay for their maintenance (including Grade II listed buildings)? These questions — and others — were at the heart of a 2018 consultation entitled “Fit for the future: transforming the Court and Tribunal estate”. On 10 May 2019, the UK Ministry of Justice released its response to the consultation, which makes for a very interesting read.
The Hague Conference Permanent Bureau has published this month (May 2019) a new information document in anticipation of the 22nd Diplomatic Session from 18 June to 2 July 2019 (Judgments Convention): Info. Doc. No 3 of May 2019 – “AIPPI Resolution on HCCH Judgments Project, Summary Report and Explanatory Paper on HCCH Judgments Project”. It may be accessed here. In particular, AIPPI believes that “Intellectual property should be excluded from the scope of the Convention”.
The Hague Conference Permanent Bureau published yesterday Volume XXIII of the Judges’ Newsletter on International Child Protection (Winter 2018-Spring 2019) with a Special Focus on “The 20th Anniversary of the International Hague Network of Judges (IHNJ)”. Table of Contents:
“Judicial activism – The IHNJ & the Judges’ Newsletter: a 20 year evolution, Sir Mathew Thorpe
Judicial Co-operation in a “Triangle” Martina Erb-Klünemann
10 years working as Member of the International Hague Network of Judge, Graciela Tagle de Ferreyra
Article 13 Exceptions – Return and Best Interests of the Child in the Jurisdiction of England andWales, The Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald
Active Case Management and Court Based Mediation in Child Abduction, Proceedings in England andWales, The Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald
The Hague Conference Permanent Bureau has published last month (April 2019) a new preliminary document in anticipation of the 22nd Diplomatic Session from 18 June to 2 July 2019 (Judgments Convention): Prel. Doc. No 7 of April 2019 – Note on “common courts” in Article 4(5), (6) of the 2018 draft Convention. It may be accessed here
The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑25/18 (Bryan Andrew Kerr v Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova), which is about Article 7.1 Brussels I bis and Article 4.1 Rome I:
“1. Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning a payment obligation arising from a decision taken by a general meeting of the owners of property in a building, which does not have legal personality and has been specifically established by law in order to exercise certain rights, — where that decision has been taken by a majority of members, but binds all members — must be regarded as falling within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of that provision.
AG Bobek delivered on 7 May 2019 his opinion in case C‑347/18 (Alessandro Salvoni v Anna Maria Fiermonte), which is about Article 53 Brussels I bis:
« 11. By application lodged on 3 November 2015, Mr Alessandro Salvoni, a lawyer based in Milan, asked the Tribunale di Milano (District Court, Milan) to issue Ms Anna Maria Fiermonte (who resides in Hamburg) with a payment order for an amount owed to him as consideration for the professional services rendered by him in connection with legal proceedings concerning a will.
12. On 26 October 2015, the Tribunale di Milano (District Court, Milan) issued a payment order for the sum of EUR 53 297.68, plus interest and costs (‘the payment order in question’).
13. Ms Fiermonte did not challenge the payment order in question, which became final. Mr Salvoni then requested the Tribunale di Milano (District Court, Milan) to issue the Article 53 Certificate with respect to that order.
14. However, following an internet search carried out of its own motion, and after reviewing the submissions of Mr Salvoni, the referring court came to the conclusion that: (i) the relationship between Ms Fiermonte and Mr Salvoni was one between a consumer and a professional, and (ii) Mr Salvoni directed his activities to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile within the meaning of Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012. Against that background, that court took the view that, pursuant to Article 18(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, Mr Salvoni should have brought proceedings against his client in the courts of the Member State in which the latter is domiciled (Germany).