Activities of Evelyn REGNER related to 2009/2140(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (21)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 1
Paragraphe 1
1. Calls for the requirement for exequatur to be abolished, but considers that this must be balanced by stringent safeguards designed tobefore abolishing exequatur it has to be guaranteed that it is balanced by stringent safeguards, which are sufficiently capable of protecting the rights of the judgment debtor; takes the view that provision will have to be made for a special review procedure conducted a posteriori on the judgment debtor’s application and which ensure that fundamental rights are respected to a full extent;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 1 a (new)
Paragraphe 1 a (new)
1a. Asks the Commission to draft a catalogue of minimum standards to safeguard procedural guarantees and jurisdiction over consumer contracts, over individual contracts of employment and in matters relating to insurance;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 2
Paragraphe 2
2. Considers that the grounds on which exception may be taken to enforcement must be no fewer than those set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Regulation and encourages the Commission to initiate a public debate on the question of public policy in connection with private international law instruments 21 of Regulation No. 805/2004/EC and that minimum requirements whose infringement allows for the special review procedure should be no less than those set out in Chapter III of Regulation No 805/2004/EC;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 3
Paragraphe 3
3. Considers that there must be a harmonised procedural time-frame for such review so as to ensure that it is conducted as expeditiously as possible, and that it must be ensured that the steps which may be taken by way of enforcement until the time-limit; it should be in the discretion of the courts of the enforcement state in how foar applying for special review has expired or the special review has been concluded are not irreversible; is particularly concerned that a foreign judgment should not be enforced if it has not been properly served on the judgment debtorn enforcement procedure is stayed or limited if a debtor starts a special review procedure in the state of origin;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 4
Paragraphe 4
4. Argues not only that the requirement for a certificate of authenticity must be maintained, but also that there should be a standard form for that certificate; the certificate should be in its appearance easily discernable by any judge in the territory of the European Union without the need for translation;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 6
Paragraphe 6
6. Considers that authentic instruments should not beremain 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 dur when they have been declared enforceable in the State of origin nevertheless, the parties concerned should keep the possibility of opposing their enforceability before the judicial bodies of the country of destination only where enforcement of the instrument is manifestly contrary to public order ing the course of enforcementState addressed;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 7
Paragraphe 7
7. Considers that maintenance obligations within the scope of Regulation No 4/2009/EC should be excluded from the scope of the Regulation in view of the adoption of Regulation No 4/2009, but reiterates that the final aim should be a comprehensive body of law encompassing all subject matters;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 8
Paragraphe 8
8. Strongly opposes the (even partial) abolition of the exclusion of arbitration from the scope without further review;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 10
Paragraphe 10
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 12
Paragraphe 12
12. Suggests, in order to avoid the type of problem which came to the fore in Owusu v. Jackson, a solution on the lines of Article 15 of Regulation No 2201/2003 so as to allow the courts of a Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance to stay proceedings if they considered that a court oftrongly opposes the introduction of a rule of forum non conveniens or any other Member State or of a third country would be better placed to hear the case, or a specific part thererules that would jeopardise the predictability of, thus enabling the parties to bring an application before that court or to enable the court seised to transfer the case to that court with the agreement of the parties; welcomes the corresponding suggestion in the proposal for a regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments in matters of successe competent court and delay the start of proceedings on the subject-matter; it is also an expression of party autonomy that a claimant can freely chose a forum provided for in the Regulation1;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 13
Paragraphe 13
13. Considers that the question whether the rules of the Regulation should be given reflexive effect has not been sufficiently considered and that it would be premature to take this step without much study, wide- ranging consultations and political debate, in which Parliament should play a leading role; further considers that, in view of the existence of large numbers of bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries, questions of reciprocity and international comity, the problem is a global one and a solution should be sought in the Hague Conference through the resumption of negotiations on an international judgments convention; mandates the Commission to use its best endeavours to revive this project, the Holy Grail of private international law; the Commission shall also explore the possibility to promote the Lugano Convention 2007 as a realistic alternative to the Hague Framework;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 14
Paragraphe 14
14. Considers in the meantime that the Community rules on exclusive jurisdiction with regard to rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property could be extended to proceedings brought in a third State; jurisdiction rules for consumers and employees shall also be applicable with regard to third-state companies;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 15
Paragraphe 15
15. Advocates amending the Regulation to allow reflexive effect to be given to exclusive choice of court clauses in favour of third states’ courts while upholding all restrictions on choice-of-court clauses in the Regulation;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 17
Paragraphe 17
17. Takes the view that an autonomous definition of the domicile 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 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 17 a (new)
Paragraphe 17 a (new)
17a. Rejects a uniform definition of the domicile of companies within the Brussels I Regulation, since a definition with such far-reaching consequences should be discussed and decided within the scope of a developing European company law; considers that a definition of the domicile of companies could impede the improper foundation of letterbox companies and could avoid protective measures under labour and company law;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 19
Paragraphe 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; the court second seised shall however not be allowed to take a decision on the subject- matter before the court first seised has finally rejected its 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;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 19 a (new)
Paragraphe 19 a (new)
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 19 b (new)
Paragraphe 19 b (new)
19b. Considers that the aim must be coherence between Private International Law, in particular Rome I Regulation No 593/2008/EC and European Civil Procedure Law in particular Brussels I Regulation No 44/2001/EC and therefore asks the Commission to set aside present inconsistencies, e.g. by including a definition of "the professional" as the other party to the consumer contract in Article 15 paragraph 1 of the Brussels I Regulation to comply with the elements of the definition according to Article 6 paragraph 1 Rome I Regulation and by replacing the unclear expression "contract which, for an inclusive price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation" by an explicit and clear reference in Article 15 paragraph 3 of the Brussels I Regulation to the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EC and its meaning as this is the case in Article 6 paragraph 4 litera b of the Rome I Regulation;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 19 c (new)
Paragraphe 19 c (new)
Jurisdiction with regard to labour disputes 19c. Asks the Commission to create a jurisdiction for industrial actions in order to avoid forum shopping and to ensure coherence with Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II); the competent court should be the court of the Member State where the action has been taking place;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 19 d (new)
Paragraphe 19 d (new)
Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment 19d. Calls on the Commission to find a solution for employees who do not carry out their work in a single Member State (e.g. long-distance lorry drivers, flight attendants) under the jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment; these employees should have the opportunity to benefit from the special jurisdiction;