Dear colleagues, friends and students. Welcome to the EN4S Blog – a dedicated blog site for the EU project “Diversity of Enforcement titles in cross-border debt collection in the EU”, which is currently in full swing. This blog is dedicated to the topic of enforcement titles (judgements, settlements, authentic instruments etc.). Here, you will find general information regarding the project and you are very welcome to discuss and share your points of view.
Cross-border economic transactions in the EU are still significantly lacking in efficiency in cases where disputes occur. More efficient dispute resolution or dispute prevention must be accompanied by further expedited import of foreign enforcement titles into the Member States addressed, and ultimately by efficient enforcement systems.
This project seeks to address continuing obstacles in the regime of recognition and enforcement under the Regulation No 1215/2012 on the jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (BIR), and the extent to which enforcement titles are well-adapted for recognition and enforcement. BIR created a regime with the objective of the “free movement of judgments”. To this end, BIR abolishes exequatur, which can be seen as an expression of mutual trust in the judiciary on a declaratory level.
However, problems arise in the application of BIR because it only provides a very general framework, while the specifics are governed by very heterogeneous national laws. Thus, the concept and structure of judgments vary from one jurisdiction to another. This diversity obstructs mutual trust, and thus jeopardises the related principle of mutual recognition of foreign judgments.
Thus, the proposed project identifies – based on the results of previous projects and the preliminary research – and examines certain aspects that contribute to a lack of sufficient mutual trust in cross-border enforcement procedures. It focusses on enforcement titles with the aim to identify and analyse similarities and differences among different national procedural laws and its implications for the effective judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters.
These findings will serve as a springboard for potential legislative proposals and as a basis for the creation of special tools that can help parties and professionals dealing with cross-border enforcement procedures to overcome terminological and conceptual challenges. It is necessary to consider how far diversity between the enforcement systems impedes the functioning of the principle of mutual recognition of foreign judgments.