Същност на реформата относно изпълнението на съдебни решения на държави членки по граждански и търговски спорове (Регламент (ЕС) 12152012 и чл. 622а ГПК) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Възможност за злоупотреба с права в гражданския процес в светлината на реформата на допускане изпълнението по спорове с трансграничен елемент (Регламент (ЕС) 1215/2012 и чл. 622а Граждански процесуален кодекс), 2019
С влизането в сила на Регламент (ЕС) 1215/2015 се постави нов етап в уредбата на свободното движение на решения, който етап отчита повишеното взаимно доверие в съдебните системи на държавите членки. С автономни разпоредби на европейския граждански процес се допусна изпълнение на решения, които освен, че не са влезли в сила в държавата по произхода, подлежат на незабавно изпълнение (без влязла в сила декларация за изпълняемост, която е отменена) и в сезираната държава. Възникват при това въпросите дали отпада необходимостта от формална проверка на документите и др., от междинен акт, с който се постановява принудително изпълнение, както и относно природата на този акт. Бяха в тази връзка приети разпоредбите на чл. 622а ГПК, които предвидиха режим на започване на принудителното изпълнение, който се различава от този приложим към националните решения. Удачността на тази разпоредби е под изключителна въпросителна в светлината на целите на свободното движение на решения и на разпоредбите на Регламента. Целта на доклада е да постави на обсъждане повдигнатите проблеми.
Dejstvo odluka Suda pravde o tumacenju prava EU donetih u prethodnom postupku
Зборник радова „Однос права у региону и права Европске уније“, Источно Сарајево, 2015
THE EFFECTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE PRELIMINARY RULINGS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EU LAW In the founding treaties of the EU as well as in secondary legislation there are no specific norms regulating the effects of the Court of Justice interpretative judgments in the proceedings either before the domestic court where the preliminary question has been raised or before other national courts. However, the judicial practice has engendered certain rules which have filled in the legal gap. In a dozen of its judgment, the Court of Justice pointed out that the interpretation given in the preliminary ruling is binding for the referring court in the main proceedings. This implies that the national court must adjudicate the dispute by applying the EU law in line with the Court’s interpretation. The preliminary ruling is binding not only for the referring court but also for all national courts dealing with the case at a later stage of the proceedings. If domestic court fails to comply with the preliminary ruling, the parties in the main proceedings may use this as the ground for challenging the national court judgment. Concurrently, as it constitutes a breach of the EU law, the Commission may take action against the State concerned for failure to fulfill obligations. The Court of Justice has not explicitly ruled on the effects of the interpretative judgments outside the proceedings where the preliminary question was raised. Yet, in some its decisions, this Court clarified the scope of these judgments in the proceedings before other national courts (erga omnes effects). The Court of Justice has refused to respond to the preliminary question which has already been considered in a previous preliminary ruling, but only referred the national court to the earlier Court decision. The Luxembourg Court has also confirmed that, in such situation, the courts of the last resort are not obliged to refer a preliminary question to the Court. However, as interpretative judgments do not have the res judicata character, the Court of Justice will not dismiss the request for a preliminary ruling as inadmissible because it has already ruled on this question. Therefore, the national courts have two options at their disposal: to comply with the earlier interpretation given by the Court of Justice, or to refer a new preliminary question to the Court. In this way, interpretative judgments have the factual erga omnes effect. As for the temporal effect of preliminary rulings, judicial practice clearly shows that they, in principle, have a retroactive (ex tunc) effect, which means that the interpretation of that rule must be applied from the moment the rule enters into force. So, interpretative judgment does not create obligations only for the future (ex nunc) but their effect extends to legal relations established before the delivery of the preliminary ruling. However, interpretations of the EU law do not impact those decisions of national bodies that have already become final prior to the adoption of the Court’s interpretative judgment. In addition, the Court of Justice exceptionally may ad hoc limit the ex tunc effect of the interpretative judgment if the application of retroactive effects may lead to serious financial consequences for the Member States or individual subjects, provided that the wrong interpretation has resulted from significant uncertainty in terms of the meaning of the EU law. Key words: Court of Justice; Preliminary ruling; Interpretation of the EU law; Main proceedings; Effectс in other proceedings; Ratione temporis effects.
Развитие института взаимного признания и исполнения судебных решений в странах Европейского Союза
Przegląd Europejski 2/2018, 2018
The free movement of judicial decisions on the territory of the European Union presupposes a high level of mutual trust between the judicial bodies of the Member States. From the citizens’ point of view, the key issue is the balance between the rights of the plaintiffs and the defendants, i.e. the right to access to justice (to sue) and the right to defence. Mutual trust between the judiciary can be built in various ways. Firstly, through the creation of a unified European procedure in the form of additional tools held before the adjudication and based on the general rules of procedure. Secondly, through sectoral harmonisation of procedural law within the framework of solving individual issues in accordance with a step-by-step approach. Thirdly, it is necessary to create common standards, in the form of principles and rules, regulations and directives. The Author in this article analyses the main ways of creating uniformity of norms applied in the territory of the European Union, the most suitable for the institution of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. The process of legal development of the institution of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments and its current status are considered.
Комментарий к реформе судебной системы Беларуси 2014 г. Часть 1. Правовое основание реформы
2014
29 ноября 2013 г. Президент Республики Беларусь дал отмашку реформе судебной системы Беларуси, подписав Декрет № 6 «О совершенствовании судебной системы Республики Беларусь» , Указ № 529 «О некоторых вопросах деятельности судов Республики Беларусь» и Указ № 530 «О некоторых вопросах совершенствования организации исполнения судебных постановлений и иных исполнительных документов» . Настоящая статья посвящена анализу Декрета № 6 и Указа № 529, краеугольных камней реформы судебной системы Республики Беларусь и, лишь, при необходимости, будет затронут, в соответствующей части, Указ № 530, посвященный исключительно принудительному исполнению судебных постановлений.