European Enforcement Order

Last updated

The European Enforcement Order (EEO) is a method of enforcing foreign judgments within the European Union without the need of any intermediate proceedings, such as exequatur. The procedure was established by Council Regulation (EC) 805/2004 of 21 April 2004 and came into force on 21 October 2005.

Contents

Regulation

The EEO is applicable only in relation to uncontested claims. Uncontested claims are defined in Article 3 of the regulation as one of the following:

  1. the debtor has expressly agreed to it by admission or by means of a settlement which has been approved by a court or concluded before a court in the course of proceedings; or
  2. the debtor has never objected to it, in compliance with the relevant procedural requirements under the law of the Member State of origin (where judgment was given or the claim arose); or
  3. after initial objection, the debtor has never appeared or been represented at court, provided that such conduct amounts to a tacit admission of the claim or of the facts alleged by the creditor under the law of the Member State of origin; or
  4. the debtor has expressly agreed to it in an “authentic instrument” i.e. a document whose contents and signature have been ‘authenticated’ by a public authority.

The regulation provides a mechanism whereby if the defendant objects to the use of the EEO, the matter can become a Court case which can then be defended.

The EEO can be only be used in civil or commercial matters [1] and specifically does not apply to the status or legal capacity of natural persons, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, wills and succession; bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings; social security; arbitration. However, Article 10 of Regulation 805/2004 requires that any application to rectify or withdraw a European Enforcement Order; whether upon any of the above bases or on any other basis; may only be made by application to the court of origin which made the European Enforcement Order Certificate (EEOC) in the first place – that is to say, any such application to withdraw or rectify an EEOC may only be made before the court of the State of Origin which originally made the EEOC. The effect of these provisions and the intention, is to prevent judgment debtors challenging European Enforcement Orders in the State of Enforcement without first having recourse to the State of Origin where the EEOC was originally made. The only exceptions to this general rule arise under Article 21 of Regulation 805/2004 which allows judgment debtors to challenge an EEOC if there has been an earlier judgment pre-dating the judgment forming the basis of the EEOC, which involved the same parties and the same cause of action and which is irreconcilable with the EEOC and/or where the EEO Certificate itself is plainly defective because the Court of Origin which made the EEOC failed to comply with the minimum standards for making EEOCs as set out in Regulation 805/2004. An example of a failure to comply with minimum standards would be where the Court of Origin failed to tick all of the boxes demonstrating that service was properly effected on the judgment debtor.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Four of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding states

Article Four of the United States Constitution outlines the relationship between the various states, as well as the relationship between each state and the United States federal government. It also empowers Congress to admit new states and administer the territories and other federal lands.

In law, a default is the failure to do something required by law or to comply with a contractual obligation. Legal obligations can arise when a response or appearance is required in legal proceedings, after taking out a loan, or as agreed in a contract; failure to carry them out puts one in defaults of the obligations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Court of Justice</span> Supreme court in the European Union, part of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), formally just the Court of Justice, is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its uniform application across all EU member states under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.

Interpleader is a civil procedure device that allows a plaintiff or a defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts, such as when a plaintiff with a personal injury claim has a dispute with medical providers over the payment out of a settlement for medical services provided to treat the plaintiff's injuries.

In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.

In modern society, the role of marriage and its termination through divorce have become political issues. As people live increasingly mobile lives, the conflict of laws and its choice of law rules are highly relevant to determine:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brussels Regime</span> Rules regulating jurisdiction of courts

The Brussels Regime is a set of rules regulating which courts have jurisdiction in legal disputes of a civil or commercial nature between individuals resident in different member states of the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). It has detailed rules assigning jurisdiction for the dispute to be heard and governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is one of the statutes that regulates the law on bankruptcy and insolvency in Canada. It governs bankruptcies, consumer and commercial proposals, and receiverships in Canada.

The principle of lis alibi pendens applies in municipal law, public international law, and private international law to address the problem of potentially contradictory judgments. If two courts were to hear the same dispute, it is possible they would reach inconsistent decisions. To avoid the problem, there are two rules.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arbitration</span> Method of dispute resolution

Arbitration is a formal method of dispute resolution involving a third party neutral who makes a binding decision. The third party neutral renders the decision in the form of an 'arbitration award'. An arbitration award is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in local courts, unless all parties stipulate that the arbitration process and decision are non-binding.

Human resource management in public administration concerns human resource management as it applies specifically to the field of public administration. It is considered to be an in-house structure that ensures unbiased treatment, ethical standards, and promotes a value-based system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brussels II</span> European Union regulation

Brussels II Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, which came into force on 1 March 2001, sets out a system for the allocation of jurisdiction and the reciprocal enforcement of judgments between European Union Member States and was modelled on the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. It was intended to regulate domains that were excluded from the Brussels Convention and Brussels I. The Brussels II Regulation deals with conflict of law issues in family law between member states; in particular those related to divorce and child custody. The Regulation seeks to facilitate free movement of divorce and related judgments between Member States.

<i>Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod v. FCC</i> 1998 court case

Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod v. FCC was a 1998 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case involving the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) enforcement of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the Fifth Amendment. The FCC claimed that the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) had violated the FCC's Equal Employment Opportunity requirements by not hiring enough minorities/women and by requiring a knowledge of Lutheran doctrine in order to be hired to work at its two FM and AM radio stations located in Clayton, Missouri.

Bankruptcy in Irish Law is a legal process, supervised by the High Court whereby the assets of a personal debtor are realised and distributed amongst his or her creditors in cases where the debtor is unable or unwilling to pay his debts.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution. It is the responsibility of the United States Supreme Court in that case to exercise the power of judicial review: the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution.

Civil procedure in South Africa is the formal rules and standards that courts follow in that country when adjudicating civil suits. The legal realm is divided broadly into substantive and procedural law. Substantive law is that law which defines the contents of rights and obligations between legal subjects; procedural law regulates how those rights and obligations are enforced. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, and what kind of service of process is required, along with the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases, the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure, the conduct of trials, the process for judgment, various available remedies, and how the courts and clerks are to function.

Insolvency in South African law refers to a status of diminished legal capacity imposed by the courts on persons who are unable to pay their debts, or whose liabilities exceed their assets. The insolvent's diminished legal capacity entails deprivation of certain of his important legal capacities and rights, in the interests of protecting other persons, primarily the general body of existing creditors, but also prospective creditors. Insolvency is also of benefit to the insolvent, in that it grants him relief in certain respects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cayman Islands bankruptcy law</span>

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in five statutes and statutory instruments:

Cross-border insolvency regulates the treatment of financially distressed debtors where such debtors have assets or creditors in more than one country. Typically, cross-border insolvency is more concerned with the insolvency of companies that operate in more than one country rather than bankruptcy of individuals. Like traditional conflict of laws rules, cross-border insolvency focuses upon three areas: choice of law rules, jurisdiction rules and enforcement of judgment rules. However, in relation to insolvency, the principal focus tends to be the recognition of foreign insolvency officials and their powers.

References

  1. "White -v- Melling [2018] IEHC 42 (23 January 2018)". www.bailii.org.