An effective legal framework for judicial cooperation in the field of the service of documents is a keystone for the effective functioning of the area of freedom, security and justice, as referred to ...in the Treaty on the EU. In particular, the proper service of a claim to the addressee is a necessary step for starting a proceeding and, simultaneously, an essential requirement for exercising the right of defence. The EU has adopted specific provisions to remodel the traditional channel of documents’ transmission with smoother solutions that assist cross-border judicial proceedings. Despite this, the European service procedure is not that straightforward and can still be very complex for most users, causing additional costs and legal uncertainty. Against this background, this article explores how the cross-border service of documents works in practice. It presents the findings resulting from empirical exploratory research carried out in Italy to assess the concrete use and usability of the European rules adopted to simplify, speed up and reduce the costs of cross-border service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters, also in the view to support a possible digitalisation of the procedure. Building on empirical data, the paper brings to light the existing hiatus between the service procedure ‘on the books’ and the reality of how the relevant provisions are applied daily, so as to provide solid ground for reflecting on the current situation and on the impact that the recast Regulation 2020/1784/EU, which took effect in July 2022, will have to the supranational system of cross-border service of documents, in particular concerning the potential of the use of ICT to support it.
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, NUK, PRFLJ, UL, UM, UPUK
La pandemia de covid-19 ha puesto de relieve la necesidad de contar con un sistema judicial moderno y digital. Las herramientas digitales pueden mejorar el funcionamiento de los procedimientos ...judiciales, en particular los transfronterizos. El nuevo Derecho europeo, contenido en los Reglamentos 2020/1783 y 2020/1784, ha supuesto la acogida a nivel regional de la utilización de las nuevas tecnologías en el ámbito de la obtención de pruebas y notificación y traslado de documentos entre Estados miembros. Este estudio analiza, por una parte, el impacto de las nuevas tecnologías en el espacio judicial europeo para la obtención de pruebas y el traslado de documentos; y, por otra, las modificaciones que el legislador europeo ha incorporado respecto de la normativa existente.
The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for a modern, digital judicial system. Digital tools can improve the functioning of judicial proceedings, in particular cross-border proceedings. The new European law, contained in Regulations 2020/1783 and 2020/1784, has led to the adoption at a regional level of the use of new technologies in the field of taking evidence and the service of documents between Member States. This study analyses, on the one hand, the impact of new technologies in the European judicial area for the taking of evidence and the service of documents and, on the other hand, the modifications that the European legislator has made to the existing rules.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, PRFLJ, UL, UM, UPUK
The Hague Judgments Convention, which facilitates the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, provides for several grounds for the refusal of recognition, including refusal based on ...insufficient notification. While this ground for refusal of the Judgments Convention seems quite similar to those applied in other conventions, the comparison shows that there are several differences between the Judgments Convention and other texts of reference, both with respect to the context of application as well as with respect to the details of the wording. The optional nature of the grounds for refusal under the Judgments Convention indicates that its primary focus is the free circulation of judgments, and not the protection of the defendant. The latter’s protection is left to the discretion of the state of recognition: a sign of trust amongst the negotiators of the Judgments Convention, but also a risk for the defendant. Practice will show whether the focus of the negotiators was justified.
PDF
