Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

Reward is the opposite of punishment, yet they have much in common. Some of these common features will be addressed in this lecture, which will be delivered at the University’s ceremony for conferment of fructum iustum (just reward) in the form of academic recognitions, titles and insignia on deserving recipients.

Focusing on the centrally administered rewards and punishments of the State, I mainly examine the procedures for ensuring that the right person receives the reward or punishment he or she deserves.

My point of departure is criminal procedure and the demands that are placed on the legal process leading up to deciding whether someone should be punished and, if so, how. While the study of criminal procedure has been thorough and detailed, the concept of reward procedure remains comparatively uncharted. I explore the potential insights that could emerge from examining the reward procedure through the lens of criminal procedure.

In Sweden, reward procedures are highly topical. This is due to the recent reforms in the regulation of the State reward system, specifically pertaining to the Royal Orders of Chivalry. These changes are significant, as they pave the way for the first conferment of such rewards on non-royal Swedish citizens in nearly half a century, an event anticipated to occur soon.

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. 

Bengt Lindell kan hösten 2021 se tillbaka på en period av över trettio år som professor i processrätt vid Juridiska fakulteten i Uppsala. Sedan några år är han samtidigt verksam i samma kapacitet vid Karlstads universitet. När Bengt nu närmar sig tidpunkten för pensionsavgång har en grupp vänner och kollegor valt att hedra honom med en festskrift.