Procès equitable (Article 6 CESDH) et droit international privé (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments: The Way Forward
Modern Law Review, 2003
This article analyses the proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments, which has been the subject of lengthy and ongoing negotiations. The issues that continue to divide the parties centre on differences between approaches to jurisdiction broadly similar to those used in Europe, and the approach used in the United States. The most comprehensive draft of the Hague Convention starts from a European approach, but makes a number of concessions to the US approach. The United States has rejected this draft, and the parties appear to have accepted this rejection and are now discussing whether a narrower convention can be drafted upon which the parties can reach consensus. The article argues that the broad draft convention was a sound one, that it made all of the concessions to the US approach that were warranted, and that the goal of harmonising world approaches to jurisdiction in civil cases would be better promoted by adopting the broader convention, if necessary without the participation of the United States. Ten years ago, the United States proposed that the members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law attempt to negotiate a worldwide convention on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments. Such a convention would be a welcome development to most of the world, as it would tend to avoid wasteful duplication of proceedings and hinder efforts by debtors to avoid legitimate debts by transferring assets abroad. In addition, many countries are attracted to the idea of a convention on jurisdiction and judgments by a desire to limit what they view as exercises of exorbitant jurisdiction by other countries. To take only one example, French courts have jurisdiction over virtually any case in which the plaintiff is a French national. 1 Although France is bound not to exercise such jurisdiction against persons domiciled in most other countries in Western Europe as a result of its accession to the Brussels and Lugano Conventions, 2 absent such agreements, French courts can and do exercise jurisdiction on this n School of Law, University of Warwick. The author wishes to thank Roger Leng, Julio Faundez and Jorge Guira, as well as the anonymous referees for this journal, for their helpful comments on previous drafts.
Enforcing Foreign Judgments – Principle Points From The Viewpoint Of The Execution Of the Rights, 2017
The aim of the paper is to address the nature and the importance of the activity resulting in the issuance of the formula of the coercive execution based on recognized foreign judgments. The function of the formula is to prevent infringement of parties' rights and obligations in the course of the execution process due to misunderstandings of the ruling in the foreign judgment by the enforcement authorities, etc. In virtue of this specifics, it is considered that the judge, granting recognition and adapting the formula of the resolution of the material dispute to the national legal system, is the most appropriate authority to order also the formula of the execution together with the recognition. Based on these considerations, conclusions are drawn about the types of litigation for recognition and enforcement, the legal construction of the recognition, the legal effects, the application of the new European Union regulation.
This Article addresses different perspectives on the extra-territorial applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Section 2 focuses on the different interpretations of the concept of State jurisdiction attempted by the Strasbourg Court and academics. Through the guidance of article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a legal interpretation of the term ‘jurisdiction’ is suggested. A conception of ‘jurisdiction’ disconnected from territorial boundaries and focused on the relationship of power between the State and the individual seems required by the meaning of the term ‘jurisdiction’ in the context of human rights law, its coherence with the object and purpose of the ECHR, and its belonging to international human rights law. Section 3 questions some of the current philosophical understandings and groundings of human rights. Departing from the idea that the groundings of current theories justifying the extra-territorial applicability/non-applicability of the ECHR are not completely justified from a philosophical perspective, the present Article tries to propose different foundations. Through the works of Arendt and Levinas and critiques to cosmopolitanism, this Article suggests different foundations for the extra-territorial application of the ECHR, in harmony with and in support of the legal interpretation proposed in Section 2. Section 4 addresses some of the practical complications deriving from the extra-territorial application of the ECHR, such as the relationship between human rights and international humanitarian law, the relationship between human rights and Occupation Law, and the risk of human rights imperialism. In conclusion, an overall appraisal of the issues covered in this Article warrants a process of extra-territorial application of the ECHR based on an actual recognition of the human rights of the Other.
Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Law: Lessons from European Civil Procedure
One of the main purposes of private international law is the resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction in civil matters. In the European Union (EU), this goal is pursued by an articulate body of Regulations, forming part of what is usually labelled as ‘European procedural law’ or ‘European civil procedure’. In criminal law, by contrast, no such system exists: although Eurojust aims at resolving conflicts of jurisdiction by facilitating the identification of the jurisdiction that should prosecute cross-border crimes, no hard-law instrument regulates this matter in a binding fashion. Having noted this legislative gap, in January 2013 the European Law Institute accepted a project proposal dealing with the prevention and settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal law. One of the tasks of the Working Group focusing on this project was a comparison between private international law and criminal matters, so as to assess whether and to what extent the solutions adopted in the former field could be successfully transposed to the latter. This Chapter presents some reflections of the topic, triggered by the Working Group’s meetings and discussions. The Chapter proceeds in three parts. The first part preliminarily highlights some fundamental differences between civil and criminal justice, which must be taken into account. As the Chapter will show, the differences at hand constrain, to a certain extent, the feasibility of a cross-sectoral comparative exercise, but they by no means make it impossible. The second part looks at private international law in general and argues that some of its basic principles should be adopted in the field of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal law too. Finally, the third part draws some specific lessons from European civil procedure in particular.