BETA

Activities of Tadeusz ZWIEFKA related to 2010/0383(COD)

Plenary speeches (3)

Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0383(COD)
Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0383(COD)
Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0383(COD)

Reports (1)

REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) PDF (561 KB) DOC (569 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: JURI
Dossiers: 2010/0383(COD)
Documents: PDF(561 KB) DOC(569 KB)

Amendments (7)

Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) This Regulation does not apply to arbitration, save in the limited case provided for therein. In particular, it does not apply to the form, existence, validity or effects of arbitration agreements, the powers of the arbitrators, the procedure before arbitral tribunals, and the validity, annulment, and recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.deleted
2011/10/19
Committee: JURI
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) arbitration, save as provided for in Articles 29, paragraph 4 and 33, paragraph 3.
2011/10/19
Committee: JURI
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2
2. With the exception of agreements governed by Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this Chapter, where an agreement referred to in Article 23 confers exclusive jurisdiction to a court or the courts of a Member State, the courts of other Member States shall have no jurisdiction over the disputeout prejudice to Article 24, where a court of a Member State on which an agreement referred to in Article 23 confers exclusive jurisdiction is seised, any court of another Member State which is also seised shall stay proceedings until such time as the court orjurisdiction of the courts designated in the agreement decline their jurisdictionis established.
2011/10/19
Committee: JURI
Amendment 104 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where the jurisdiction of the court designated in the agreement is established, any court of another Member State which is also seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.
2011/10/19
Committee: JURI
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply to agreements governed by Sections 3, 4 and 5 when the policyholder, the insured, the injured party or a beneficiary of the contract of insurance, the consumer or the employee is the claimant.
2011/10/19
Committee: JURI
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44
1. In the event of an application for a review pursuant to Article 45 or Article 46, the competent authority in the Member State of enforcement may, on application by the defendant: (a) limit the enforcement proceedings to protective measures; (b) make enforcement conditional on the provision of such security as it shall determine; or (c) suspend, either wholly or in part, the enforcement of the judgment. 2. The competent authority shall, on application by the defendant, suspend the enforcement of the judgment where the enforceability of that judgment is suspended in the Member State of origin. 3. Where a protective measure was ordered without the defendant having been summoned to appear and enforced without prior service of the defendant, the competent authority may, on application by the defendant, suspend the enforcement if the defendant has challenged the measure in the Member State of origin.deleted
2011/10/19
Committee: JURI
Amendment 117 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 1
1. In cases other than those covered by Article 45, aA party shall have the right to apply for a refusal of recognition or enforcement of a judgment where: (a) such recognition or enforcement would not be permitted by the fundamental principles underlying the right to a fair trial. is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State in which recognition is sought; (b) the judgment was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment or to apply for a review under Article 45 when it was possible for him to do so; (c) the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given in proceedings between the same parties in the Member State in which recognition is sought; (d) the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in proceedings in another Member State or in a third State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State in which recognition is sought; (e) the judgment conflicts with Chapter II, Sections 3, 4, 5 or 6.
2011/10/19
Committee: JURI