Activities of Diana WALLIS related to 2009/2140(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (8)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas abolition of exequatur – the Commission’s main objective – would expedite the free movement of judicial decisions and form a key milestone in the building of a European judicial area,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls for the requirement for exequatur to be abolished, but considers that this must be balanced by stringentappropriate safeguards designed to protect the rights of the judgment debtordefence; takes the view that provision willmight have to be made for a special review procedure applicable to a limited category of cases only and conducted a posteriori on the judgment debtordefendant’s application;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Argues not only that the requirement for a certificate of authenticity mustcould be maintained, but also that there should be a standard form for that certificate as a procedural aid so as to guarantee recognition and facilitate translation, in which case there should be a standard form for that certificate; furthermore considers that such a certificate could be so central to the smooth functioning of the Regulation that a model certificate should be annexed to the Regulation itself;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that authentic instruments, and those instruments having equivalent legal effects under their respective national law, should not be directly enforceable without the possibility of review by the judicial authorities in the State in which enforcement is sought; takes the view that the special review procedure to be introduced should not be limited to cases where enforcement of the instrument is manifestly contrary to public policy in the State addressed since it is possible to conceive of circumstances in which an authentic act could be irreconcilable with an earlier judgment and the validity (as opposed to the authenticity) of an authentic act can be challenged in the courts of the State of origin on grounds of mistake, misrepresentation, etc. even during the course of enforcement;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Takes the view that an autonomous European definition of the domicile (ultimately applicable to all European legal instruments) of natural persons would be desirable, in order in particular to avoid situations in which persons may have more than one domicile and would favour a single definition of the domicile of companies, while appreciating the considerable difficulties involved;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Considers that, in order to overcome the problem of ‘torpedo actions’, the court second seised should be relieved from the obligation to stay proceedings under the lis pendens rule where the court first seised evidently has no jurisdiction; rejects the idea, however, that claims for negative declaratory relief should be excluded altogether from the first-in-time rule on the ground that such claims can have a legitimate commercial purpose; considers, however, that issues concerning jurisdiction would be best resolved in the context of proposals to create a Unified Patent Litigation System;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Stresses the need for consistency between any proposals for special jurisdiction rules for collective actions and the Commissions' forthcoming work on collective redress instruments;