International Dispute Resolution PDF
Preview International Dispute Resolution
Short Studies in Private International Law International Dispute Resolution Selected Issues in International Litigation and Arbitration Vesna Lazić Steven Stuij Editors Short Studies in Private International Law Short Studies in Private International Law are short-book publications devoted to topics in private international law, in particular international and European civil procedure. The volumescan be a resultof papers presented at conferencesbut can also consist of short monographs or edited volumes on private international law, aimed to inform academics and practitioners timely of recent developments. The hardcover books are compact volumes of 100–150 pages and are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination, standard publishing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting guidelines, and expedited production schedules. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15450 ć Vesna Lazi Steven Stuij (cid:129) Editors International Dispute Resolution Selected Issues in International Litigation and Arbitration Guest Editor: Ton Jongbloed 123 Editors Vesna Lazić StevenStuij Private International Law ErasmusSchool ofLaw T.M.C.Asser Instituut Rotterdam TheHague TheNetherlands TheNetherlands ISSN 2522-8145 ISSN 2522-8153 (electronic) Short Studies in Private International Law ISBN978-94-6265-251-4 ISBN978-94-6265-252-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-252-1 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018942004 PublishedbyT.M.C.ASSERPRESS,TheHague,TheNetherlandswww.asserpress.nl ProducedanddistributedforT.M.C.ASSERPRESSbySpringer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg ©T.M.C.ASSERPRESSandtheauthors2018 Nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorbyany means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permissionfromthePublisher,withtheexceptionofanymaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurposeof beingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. Printedonacid-freepaper ThisT.M.C.ASSERPRESSimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringer-VerlagGmbH,DE partofSpringerNature Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:HeidelbergerPlatz3,14197Berlin,Germany Contents 1 Considerations on the Impact of EU Law on National Civil Procedure: Recent Examples from Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Janek Tomasz Nowak 2 The Internationalisation of Procedural Law: The Law on Execution and Attachment Orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Ton Jongbloed 3 Harmonisation of Conflict of Law Rules in the US? The Example of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Elsemiek Apers 4 The Harmonisation of Interim Measures Granted by the Emergency Arbitrator in the European Union. . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Junmin Zhang 5 Resolving Foreign Direct Investment-Related Disputes in China’s Legal System: What to Expect and How to Understand?. . . . . . . . . 109 Chunlei Zhao v Chapter 1 Considerations on the Impact of EU Law on National Civil Procedure: Recent Examples from Belgium Janek Tomasz Nowak Contents 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 EULawRequirementsforNationalCivilProcedure:TheOverarchingFramework..... 3 1.2.1 TheConceptofNationalProceduralAutonomy................................................... 3 1.2.2 EULawasaMultipleConstraintonNationalCivilProcedure........................... 9 1.3 CivilProcedureinEULegislationandEUCaseLaw:RecentExamplesandImpact ontheBelgianLegalOrder.............................................................................................. 9 1.3.1 NationalCivilProcedureintheCaseLawoftheCourtofJustice...................... 9 1.3.2 EURulesonCivilProcedure................................................................................. 19 1.4 DifferentApproachestoCivilProcedure.......................................................................... 29 1.4.1 EUApproachtoCivilProcedure:SectoralandFunctional.................................. 29 1.4.2 MemberStateApproachtoCivilProcedure:HorizontalandAutonomous......... 32 This contribution is based on a presentation given at the 21st Ius Commune congress in Maastricht,theNetherlands,on24–25November2016.Thetextwasfinalisedon12July2017. Subsequentevolutionshavenotbeentakenintoaccount,apartfromtheamendmenttoArticle 806 Belgian Judicial Code and the Conclusions of Advocate-General Sharpston in Karel de Grote (C-147/16). Important developments in 2018 have been added as a footnote without further analysis. I would like to thank Professor V. Lazic and Mr. S. Stuij for their helpful comments on the draft version, which have improved the text considerably. I am equally indebtedtoDr.S.Sobrie.IwouldalsoliketothankProfessorT.Jongbloedfortheopportunity topresentattheworkshopandtocontributetothisvolume.Allmistakesremainmyown. J.T.Nowak(&) MaxPlanckInstituteforProceduralLaw,Luxembourg,Luxembourg e-mail:[email protected] J.T.Nowak MCIManagementSchool,Innsbruck,Austria J.T.Nowak InstituteforEuropeanLaw,KULeuven,Belgium ©T.M.C.ASSERPRESSandtheauthors2018 1 V.LazićandS.Stuij(eds.),InternationalDisputeResolution, ShortStudiesinPrivateInternationalLaw, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-252-1_1 2 J.T.Nowak 1.5 ConsequencesforCivilProcedureattheMemberStateLevel....................................... 34 1.5.1 TheIssueofFragmentation.................................................................................... 34 1.5.2 CompetenceforRegulationofCivilProcedure..................................................... 36 1.5.3 TheFutureofCivilProcedureRegulationintheEU........................................... 37 1.6 ConcludingRemarks......................................................................................................... 38 References.................................................................................................................................. 39 Abstract While the impact of EU law on national civil procedure is strongly visible in cross-border proceedings, it has potentially a much stronger effect in internalproceedings.Yetitsvisibilityinregardofadomesticcontextisuntiltoday limited,bothinpracticeandinresearch.Thiscontributionattemptstoshedlighton theimpactofEUlawoninternalnationalcivilprocedurebyprovidingforanumber of brief case studies on Belgian civil procedure. The relevance of EU law for the national debate will be considered, as well as its impact on the regulation of civil procedure. Subsequently, the case studies will be used to provide for a number of generalconsiderationsregardingtheimpactofEUlawonnationalcivilprocedure. These considerations transcend the Belgian legal order and have as their aim to foster the debate on the future of civil procedure in an EU law context. (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) Keywords Civil procedure EU law Court of Justice of the European Union (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) Effectiveness National procedural autonomy Belgium Ex officio application (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) Costsforexpertise Privatedamagesforcompetitionlawviolations TradeSecrets (cid:1) Fragmentation of civil procedure Regulation of civil procedure 1.1 Introduction AconsiderablepartofsubstantivelawinEUMemberStatesisaffectedbyEUlaw in one way or another. When a dispute arises involving points of EU law, it is the task of the courts of the Member States to provide for a solution in line with EU law.Theyarethe‘ordinarycourts’ofEUlaw,1theCourtofJusticeoftheEuropean Union (CJEU) only having reserved jurisdiction for a limited number of matters.2 The conduct of litigation before national courts is regulated by national proce- dural law. This is not different when matters of EU law are involved.3 National courtsthusapplynationalrulesofprocedurewhendecidingcasesinvolvinganEU law element. It therefore comes primarily to the Member States to provide for an appropriate procedural law framework. However, procedural law can have an 1Opinion of 8 March 2011, Draft agreement on the European and Community Patents Court, 1/09,EU:C:2011:123,para80. 2Article256TFEUinconjunctionwithArticle51Protocol(No3)onthestatuteoftheCourtof JusticeoftheEuropeanUnion 3Kakouris1997,p.1394. 1 ConsiderationsontheImpactofEULaw… 3 impact on the application of substantive law,4 limiting its effects. In order to overcome difficulties in this regard the Court of Justice (CJ) has laid down an effectiveness doctrine, allowing national courts to disregard national rules of pro- cedure obstructing the effective application of EU substantive law.5 Also the EU legislator has enacted rules on procedural law with the aim of securing the proper application and enforcement of substantive EU law.6 This contribution considers the (potential) impact of EU law on national civil procedure. In the first part I will provide a number of general considerations regarding therelevance of EU law for national civil procedure and the functioning of the effectiveness requirement. In the second part I will give a number of examples of the impact of EU legislation and EU case law on national civil pro- cedureinBelgium.Buildingonthis,Iwilldevelopanumberofbroaderinsightson thedifferenceinapproachtocivilprocedureatEUandatMemberStatelevel.Iwill usethese insights toaddressinthefinalpart anumberofconsequences of EUlaw interference with national civil procedure, highlighting the importance of having a proper debate regarding the impact of EU law on national civil procedure. 1.2 EU Law Requirements for National Civil Procedure: The Overarching Framework 1.2.1 The Concept of National Procedural Autonomy 1.2.1.1 Origins The system of judicial protection in the European Union is characterised by its decentralised nature.7 Member States’ courts have been entrusted with the task of applying and enforcing EU substantive law in day-to-day situations.8 They use for this purpose their own national procedural law. The application of national pro- cedural law to disputes involving EU law elements has given rise to a number of questions. It was acknowledged that the unrestricted application of national 4Zekoll2006,p.1336. 5Reich2014,pp.89–131;Kulms2013,pp.21–22. 6See, for example, Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests, O.J. 2009, L 110/30, replacingDirective98/27/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof19May1998on injunctionsfortheprotectionofconsumers’interests,O.J.1998,L166/51andDirective2010/104/ EU of theEuropean Parliament and of theCouncil of 26 November 2014 oncertain rules gov- erningactionsfordamagesundernationallawforinfringementsofthecompetitionlawprovisions oftheMemberStatesandoftheEuropeanUnion,O.J.2014,L349/1. 7SchermersandWaelbroeck2001,p.197. 8Opinionof8March2011,DraftagreementontheEuropeanandCommunityPatentsCourt,1/ 09,EU:C:2011:123,paras66–69. 4 J.T.Nowak procedural law may have an impact on the effective application of EU substantive law. In response to this concern, the Court of Justice has developed a so-called doctrineofnationalproceduralautonomy.9Thedoctrineentailsthatintheabsence ofharmonisedrulesonthematter,MemberStatesarefreetoenactrulesofnational procedurallawprovidedthatclaimsbasedonEUlawarenottreatedlessfavourably than similar claims based on national law (principle of equivalence)10 and that national procedural rules do not make the enforcement of rights deriving from EU law virtually impossible or excessively difficult (principle of effectiveness).11 This contribution will focus on the effectiveness requirement of the Court’s doctrine. Thenotion‘nationalproceduralautonomy’isoftenusedinthelegalandpolitical debatetorefertothecaselawoftheCourtofJusticeconcerningnationalprocedural law.Itshouldbepointedout,however,thattheCourtdidnotcointhetermnational procedural autonomy. The notion has been derived from the notion of ‘autonomie institutionnelle’, used already in 1972 by Rideau as a doctrinal framework to describetherelationship between EUsubstantivelawandMemberStatelaw,inter aliaprocedurallaw.12Itshouldbenoted thatthispredatestheCourt’sdecisionsin ReweandComet.Thenotionofautonomywasthusnotspecificallyconceivedasa descriptionofthecaselawoftheCourtofJusticeonnationalprocedurallaw;itwas only later on that it was used in legal doctrine to refer to the Court’s case law on national procedural rules because it concerned largely a similar issue. It does, however, not accurately describe the Court’s case law on the matter and remains highly contested in legal doctrine.13 This is even so despite the fact that the Court has started referring to the concept of ‘national procedural autonomy’ in its deci- sions since in the beginning of the 2000s.14 1.2.1.2 The Issue of Autonomy Member States Are Not Autonomous When Enacting Rules of Civil Procedure Aproblematicaspectofthenotion‘nationalproceduralautonomy’istheconceptof ‘autonomy’,15whichputstoomuchemphasisonthefreedomoftheMemberStates 9Judgmentof16December1976,Rewe,33/76,EU:C:1976:188andJudgmentof16December 1976,Comet,45/76,EU:C:1976:191.SeealsoGaletta2010,pp.118–119. 10König2011,pp.92–104. 11Kulms2013,pp.21–22. 12Rideau1972,p.884;Haapaniemi2009,p.89. 13Póltorak2015,pp.33–35;Bobek2012,p.320–322;Kakouris1997,p.1390. 14Judgmentof7January2004,Wells,C-201/02,EU:C:2004:12,para67.Before,theconceptof proceduralautonomywasmainlyusedintheargumentationofthepartiesorincompetitionlaw appealsconcerningtheactualautonomyofcourtsinlightofArticle6ECHR.Itwas,however,not linkedtotherequirementsofequivalenceandeffectivenessuntiltheCourt’sjudgmentinWells. 15Bobek2012,p.321.
The list of books you might like
