One can argue that this allows a less expensive, faster and less complicated circulation of judgements within the EU. However, this proposal was met with criticism by academics, in particular Beaumount who argues that abolishing this procedure would “jeopardize the protection of human rights.” This was illustrated in the case of Krombach, where a German doctor was convicted with manslaughter of a French girl in Germany. The doctor then challenged the decision and argued there was a breach of his human rights as he was not given a fair trial. It was held that there a breach of Article 6 and the conviction was dropped. This judgement illustrates an important safeguard for the courts to carefully consider the creditors rights and the debtor’s human rights. Therefore, the total abolishment of the exequatur procedure can be argued to hinder the free movement and enforcement of judgements.
Overall, the abolition of exequatur has simplified the recognition and enforcement of member state judgments in other member states. The amendment should be welcomed as it streamlines a once long and difficult process.
1] Paul Beaumont & Emma Johnston, ‘Can Exequatur be Abolished in Brussels I Whilst Retaining a Notary public London’ (2010) Journal of Private International Law 249
“The most successful instrument on international civil procedure of all time”
The Brussels I Regulation was adopted in 2012 and since then, it has become known as a very successful piece of legislation in relation to judicial co-operation within the European Union. This amendment was followed by a press release which aimed to streamline the process of judgements in civil and commercial matters making them easier and faster within the Union. The previous Regulation was successful in creating specific rules governing the jurisdiction of courts in areas of civil and commercial matters. It regulated that a judgement concluded in an alternative Member State was enforceable. It allowed every Member State to facilitate its own laws on enforcement in matters which related to disputes between individuals and possibly suing them too in contractual matters. However, this review did not come about without debate. There have been many proposals to amend the previous regulation which were fought with uncertainty by legal academics claiming it was unnecessary.
Although the Council of the European Union and academic commentators such as Delaygua argue that, “this new law has improved the former regulation” and made the circulation of judgements in civil and commercial matters easier and faster within the Union, it is important to explore exactly how it does so and whether the new regulation fulfils the goals that prompted its revision.