Why not make a distinction between D. D. Public and International International Private ‘, as is done to establish the subjects in his law, as the “sui iuris” of law and order are different in both cases. What follows, that someone has is a Community of D. Private International to govern the EU member states. But many other civilians on the recognition of citizenship, child protection, etc.. Treaties states that have signed and are bound to watching in their domestic valdoria .– 14:09 18 October 2007 (CEST)
Text of Standard:
Regulation (EC) N 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments youtube in Civil and Commercial Matters
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular, the letter c) of Article 61 and paragraph 1 of Article 67,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1)
Having consulted the European Parliament (2)
Having consulted the Economic and Social Committee (3)
(1) The Community has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice in which the free movement of persons. To establish such an area, the Community should adopt, inter alia, measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters that are necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.
(2) Certain differences between national rules on jurisdiction and recognition of judgments hamper the smooth functioning of the internal market. Are essential, therefore, arrangements by which unify the rules on conflicts of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, simplified the procedures for recognition and a fast and simple execution of judgments from Member States are bound by this regulation.
(3) This area is within the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters for Asset Management the purposes of Article 65 of the Treaty.
(4) In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality principle as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty, the objectives of this Regulation can not be sufficiently achieved by Member States and can therefore be achieved at Community level. This Regulation is limited to the minimum required Fox to achieve those objectives and does not exceed what is necessary for that purpose.
(5) Member States held on September 27, 1968, under the fourth indent of Article 293 of the Treaty, the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by Conventions on the accession of new Member States to that Convention (4) (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention Bruselas ). On September 16, 1988, Member States and EFTA States concluded the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and recognition of judgments in civil and commercial matters, parallel to the Brussels Convention of 1968. These Conventions have been revised and the finance Council has approved the contents of the revised text. Necessary to ensure the continuity of the results obtained in the course of this review.
(6) To achieve the objective of free movement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, FOX news it is necessary and appropriate that the rules governing jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments be governed by a Community legal instrument binding and directly applicable.
(7) The scope of this Regulation must University of Southern California cover all the main civil and commercial matters, except certain areas clearly identified.
(1) OJ C 376, 28.12.1999, p. 1. (2) Opinion delivered on 21 September 2000 (not yet published in the Official Journal). (3) OJ C 117, 26.4.2000, p. 6. (4) OJ L 299, 31.12.1972, p. 32. OJ L 304, 30.10.1978, p. funds 1. OJ L 388, 31.12.1982, p. 1. OJ L 285, 3.10.1989, p. 1. OJ C 15, 15.1.1997, p. investment 1. For the consolidated text see OJ C 27, 26.1.1998, p. 1.
(8) The proceedings to which this Regulation applies must be a link between the territory of the Member States subject to such regulation. Therefore, common rules on jurisdiction should apply, in Children’s Hospital principle, when the defendant is domiciled in Ernst one of those Member States.
(9) The defendants not domiciled in a Member State are generally subject to national rules of interview jurisdiction applicable in the Member State of the court before which the claim and the defendants domiciled in a Member State not bound by this Regulation should still be subject Asset Management to the Brussels Convention.
(10) For the purposes of the free circulation of judgments, judgments given in a Member State bound by this Regulation should be recognized and enforced in another Member State bound by this Regulation, even if the debtor is domiciled in a third state.
(11) The rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable and must be founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant’s domicile and jurisdiction must always be that, except in some very specific cases in which matter in litigation or the autonomy of the parties warrants a different linking factor.

Filed under: General
Trackback Uri

Comments are closed.