Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

The purpose of this chapter is to form a ‘European classification’ of judgments by highlighting and evaluating certain types of judgments in civil and commercial matters issued in some EU Member States, according to different criteria. The aspiration is to reveal differences and similarities concerning the different criteria and to relate them to Brussels I bis Regulation. The criteria identified as significant are: (1) The title and contents of a decision. (2) The basis of a decision. (3) Decision makers and procedural stages. (4) Effects of judgments. The definition of a judgment is EU autonomous and has its own meaning common to all Member States, irrespective of definitions in national laws. The concept has a wide meaning. However, the exemption concerning court settlements is identified as problematic. The concept court is also EU autonomous. Besides ‘regular’ courts, the concept may also include other adjudicatory authorities. Within the framework of a national legal system, a judgment may have different effects, i.e. res judicata effect. Recognition under Brussels I bis Regulation means that the judgment produces effects in the whole EU. In practice the so-called doctrine of extension means that a national court may have to investigate the doctrine of res judicata according to the law of the Member State of origin. What is most striking about the results are the many similarities, not the discrepancies. There is a high degree of consistency between the identified factors in different countries. Further, there is reason to believe that much of what appears as peculiarities actually has its counterparts. The report ends with five conclusions, in brief: (1) The contents and effects of a decision or judgment, not how it is labelled, are significant for the circulation of judgments under Brussels I bis Regulation. (2) It could be argued that it would have been more accurate if Brussels I bis Regulation referred to the all-inclusive expression ‘decision’ instead of ‘judgment’. (3) The EU legislator should consider including court settlements in the concept of judgment in Brussels I bis Regulation. (4) The doctrine of extension is too complicated in practice. (5) True mutual trust needs to be furthered in the EU and its Member States.

This Casebook is the outcome of the Train 2 En4CE project, co-funded by the EU’s Justice Program (Grant agreement no. 854038). The project conducted during 30 months, analysed available EU instruments for cross-border debt collection of civil claims in the EU, mainly focused on the EU Regulations creating euro-autonomous procedures: Regulation No. 1896/2006 of December 12, 2006, establishing a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Regulation No. 2017/1260, and Regulation No. 861/2007 of July 11, 2007, establishing a European small claims procedure, as amended by Regulation 2017/1259. 

This Casebook is the outcome of the Train 2 En4CE project, co-funded by the EU’s Justice Program (Grant agreement no. 854038). The project conducted during 30 months, analysed available EU instruments for cross-border debt collection of civil claims in the EU, mainly focused on the EU Regulations creating euro-autonomous procedures: Regulation No. 1896/2006 of December 12, 2006, establishing a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Regulation No. 2017/1260, and Regulation No. 861/2007 of July 11, 2007, establishing a European small claims procedure, as amended by Regulation 2017/1259. 

This Casebook is the outcome of the Train 2 En4CE project, co-funded by the EU’s Justice Program (Grant agreement no. 854038). The project conducted during 30 months, analysed available EU instruments for cross-border debt collection of civil claims in the EU, mainly focused on the EU Regulations creating euro-autonomous procedures: Regulation No. 1896/2006 of December 12, 2006, establishing a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Regulation No. 2017/1260, and Regulation No. 861/2007 of July 11, 2007, establishing a European small claims procedure, as amended by Regulation 2017/1259. 

This Casebook is the outcome of the Train 2 En4CE project, co-funded by the EU’s Justice Program (Grant agreement no. 854038). The project conducted during 30 months, analysed available EU instruments for cross-border debt collection of civil claims in the EU, mainly focused on the EU Regulations creating euro-autonomous procedures: Regulation No. 1896/2006 of December 12, 2006, establishing a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Regulation No. 2017/1260, and Regulation No. 861/2007 of July 11, 2007, establishing a European small claims procedure, as amended by Regulation 2017/1259. 

The research of the project Diversity of Enforcement Titles in cross-border Debt Collection in EU is focusing on the study of enforcement titles in cross-border enforcement within the EU. The growth of economic integration causes a greater presence of international element, which is why the cross-border enforcement of claims on the grounds of enforcement titles is also increasing. One of the main obstacles in cross-border enforcement is the lack of mutual trust between national authorities of different EU Member States, as the national authorities treat enforcement titles from other Member States with reservations and mistrust. This is further enhanced by the diversity of enforcement titles. Taking into account all of the above, the research aims at contributing to a better understanding of differences in structure, content and effects of judgements in individual Member States. Furthermore, the impact of these differences on cross-border enforcement is examined. Research is further focused on the differentiation of dogmatic and empirical concepts of different enforcement titles in the framework of recognition and enforcement. In addition, the project team analyses the importance of terminological barriers that occur during the course of cross-border enforcement. Likewise, an important part of the research is the analysis of possibilities for overcoming obstacles to cross-border enforcement resulting from a technological progress.

The "National Report: The Sweden" systematically and comprehensively addresses the main features of the enforcement of monetary claims in the German legal system, focusing in particular on the analysis of legal remedies in the enforcement procedure.   Said issues are approached from both national and cross-border perspectives. The issues discussed are  profoundlytopical in light of the recent coming into effect of the Brussels IA Regulation (Recast) and its more or less successful implementation in the national systems of the Member States, which has raised a number of issues. The report critically reflects some of the controversial solutions covered by the Recast Regulation regarding the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Regulation’s application in the legal system in question and related problems. It also deals with national specificities in the enforcement procedure, which still constitute an obstacle to cross-border procedures. The report was created as part of a study conducted under the auspices of the EU project BIARE ("Remedies on the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments according to Brussels I Recast") under the coordination of the Faculty of Law  University of Maribor.