sodna praksa SEU 2010-2016
Tea Čebulj (Author), Jerca Kramberger Škerl (Mentor)

Abstract

Uredba Bruselj I BIS je leta 2015 nasledila Bruseljsko uredbo v urejanju postopka priznavanja in izvrševanja sodnih odločb izdanih v drugi državi članici. Gre za pomembno področje, saj se s tem uresničuje načelo medsebojnega zaupanja v pravne sisteme držav članic in olajšuje prosti pretok sodnih odločb v Evropski uniji. Po novi ureditvi dodaten postopek, postopek eksekvature, ni več potreben, saj tuja sodna odločba s pravnomočnostjo postane priznana in izvršljiva tudi v drugih državah članicah. Slednje se lahko prepreči le v primeru, če je vložena zahteva za zavrnitev izvršitve, saj stranka meni, da tuja sodna odločba izpolnjuje enega izmed zavrnitvenih razlogov naštetih v 45. členu Bruselj I BIS. Zaprošeno sodišče tako mora zavrniti priznanje oziroma izvršitev tuje sodne odločbe, kolikor le ta nasprotuje javnemu redu zaprošene države članice. Sodišče mora zavrniti tudi priznanje in izvršitev tuje sodne odločbe, katera predstavlja kršitev načela kontradiktornosti oziroma je le ta nezdružljiva z drugo sodno odločbo ali, v kolikor, je podana kršitev nekaterih pravil določitve pristojnosti izvornega sodišča. Z razlago slednjih zavrnitvenih razlogov se Sodišče Evropske unije ukvarja zelo pogosto, zato se je posledično razvila obsežna sodna praksa uporabe 45. člena uredbe Bruselj I BIS.

Keywords

Evropska unija;države članice;sodne odločbe;tuje sodne odločbe;priznanje;izvršitev;zavrnitev;zavrnitveni razlogi;pridržek javnega reda;načelo kontradiktornosti;nezdružljivost;pristojnost sodišč;Sodišče Evropske unije;sodna praksa;Bruseljska uredba;Bruselj I BIS;magistrske diplomske naloge;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UL PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [T. Čebulj]
UDC: 341.98:061.1EU(043.2)
COBISS: 16243793 Link will open in a new window
Views: 2320
Downloads: 832
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: THE ENFORCEMENT AND RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS UNDER THE BRUSSELS I BIS REGULATION – ECJ CASE LAW 2010-2016
Secondary abstract: In 2015, the Brussels I BIS Regulation succeeded the Brussels I Regulation in governing the procedure of recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters issued by courts in other Member States. Moreover, Brussels I BIS promotes the principle of mutual trust in the legal systems of the Member States and facilitates the free circulation of judicial decisions in the European Union. The exequatur procedure is no longer needed, as foreign judgment becomes automatically recognized and enforceable in all Member States at the same time as it becomes a final decision in the State of origin. The recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment can only be refused in case a request on one or more of the grounds for refusal provided for in the Article 45 is made. Therefore, the national court of the Member State addressed must refuse to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment if such recognition or enforcement is manifestly contrary to the public policy in this Member State. The court addressed must also refuse to recognize a foreign judgment that constitutes an infringement of the principle of the contradictory procedure. Furthermore, a request can be made if the judgment is irreconcilable with another court decision or if it violates certain rules on jurisdiction. The European Court of Justice has often interpreted the latter grounds for refusal, therefore it has developed an extensive case law with regard to the application of Article 45 Brussels I BIS Regulation.
Secondary keywords: European Union;Member States;foreign judgements;recognition;enforcement;grounds for refusal;public policy;principle of the contradictory procedure;European Court of Justice;case law;Brussels I Regulation;Brussels I BIS Regulation;
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis/paper
Study programme: 0
Embargo end date (OpenAIRE): 1970-01-01
Thesis comment: Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak.
Pages: 68 f.
ID: 10941035