CJEU on Article 34 Brussels I

Tags

Brussels I, Charter of Fundamental Rights, Fair Trial, Ordre public, Rights of the Defence

The CJEU delivered today its judgment in case C‑559/14, Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited, which is about Brussels I (Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters) :

« Article 34(1) of [Brussels I], considered in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the recognition and enforcement of an order issued by a court of a Member State, without a prior hearing of a third person whose rights may be affected by that order, cannot be regarded as manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which enforcement is sought or manifestly contrary to the right to a fair trial within the meaning of those provisions, in so far as that third person is entitled to assert his rights before that court ».

See here

ECtHR in Avotins v. Latvia

Tags

Brussels I, Fair Trial, Human Rights, Recognition and Enforcement, Rights of the Defence

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered yesterday its much expected judgment in Avotinš v. Latvia (Application no. 17502/07). It held, by sixteen votes to one, that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Extract:

“b) Application of the presumption of equivalent protection in the present case

[…]

112. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the presumption of equivalent protection is applicable in the present case, as the Senate of the Supreme Court did no more than implement Latvia’s legal obligations arising out of its membership of the European Union (see, mutatis mutandis, Povse, cited above, § 78). Accordingly, the Court’s task is confined to ascertaining whether the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Convention was manifestly deficient in the present case such that this presumption is rebutted. In that case, the interest of international cooperation would be outweighed by observance of the Convention as a “constitutional instrument of European public order” in the field of human rights (see Bosphorus, § 156, and Michaud, § 103, both cited above). In examining this issue the Court must have regard both to Article 34(2) of the Brussels I Regulation as such and to the specific circumstances in which it was implemented in the present case.

3. Allegation that the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Convention was manifestly deficient

(a) General remarks on mutual recognition

CJEU and the Service Regulation

Tags

EU Service Regulation, Fair Trial, Rights of the Defence

The Court of Justice delivered last week (16 September 2015) its judgment in case C- 519/13 (Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd):

“Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that:

–        the receiving agency is required, in all circumstances and without it having a margin of discretion in that regard, to inform the addressee of a document of his right to refuse to accept that document, by using systematically for that purpose the standard form set out in Annex II to that regulation, and

–        the fact that that agency, when serving a document on its addressee, fails to enclose the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, does not constitute a ground for the procedure to be declared invalid, but an omission which must be rectified in accordance with the provisions set out in that regulation”.