Unjustified Interruption of the Taking Evidence by the Court of Origin as a Ground to Refuse Cross-Border Enforcement Under the Brussels I Rules

S. Dominelli
{"title":"Unjustified Interruption of the Taking Evidence by the Court of Origin as a Ground to Refuse Cross-Border Enforcement Under the Brussels I Rules","authors":"S. Dominelli","doi":"10.1163/27725650-01020009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe contribution examines a recent decision by the Italian Corte di Cassazione rendered in matters of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments issued in other European Union Member States. By analysing the reasoning of the Italian Corte di Cassazione in the application of the public policy test as a ground to refuse enforcement in Italy of a Polish ruling, the Corte di Cassazione’s methodological approaches are scrutinised against the background of the founding principles of mutual trust and free movement of decisions in the European judicial space. The conclusions of the Italian Corte di Cassazione are supported as it emerges from the commented decision that the public policy exception is applied in such a way to avoid an application that would go beyond its scope and purpose. More specifically, the circumstance a foreign decision has been adopted without an evidence being taken has not been considered to be in violation of a general substantive “right to evidence,” whilst it has been deemed that, in relevant fields of life, the lack of taking of an evidence already admitted to trial by the court of origin does constitute a breach of a (constitutionally protected) procedural fair trial in Italy.","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"267 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01020009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The contribution examines a recent decision by the Italian Corte di Cassazione rendered in matters of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments issued in other European Union Member States. By analysing the reasoning of the Italian Corte di Cassazione in the application of the public policy test as a ground to refuse enforcement in Italy of a Polish ruling, the Corte di Cassazione’s methodological approaches are scrutinised against the background of the founding principles of mutual trust and free movement of decisions in the European judicial space. The conclusions of the Italian Corte di Cassazione are supported as it emerges from the commented decision that the public policy exception is applied in such a way to avoid an application that would go beyond its scope and purpose. More specifically, the circumstance a foreign decision has been adopted without an evidence being taken has not been considered to be in violation of a general substantive “right to evidence,” whilst it has been deemed that, in relevant fields of life, the lack of taking of an evidence already admitted to trial by the court of origin does constitute a breach of a (constitutionally protected) procedural fair trial in Italy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据布鲁塞尔规则,原审法院不合理地中断取证作为拒绝跨境执行的理由
这篇文章审查了意大利卡萨齐奥尼法院最近就承认和执行在其他欧洲联盟成员国作出的外国判决的事项作出的一项决定。通过分析意大利法院将公共政策测试作为拒绝在意大利执行波兰裁决的理由的推理,在欧洲司法空间中相互信任和决定自由流动的基本原则的背景下,对意大利法院的方法方法进行了仔细审查。意大利Corte di Cassazione的结论得到了支持,因为它从评论决定中脱颖而出,即公共政策例外的适用方式是为了避免超出其范围和目的的应用。更具体地说,在没有采取证据的情况下通过外国决定的情况,不被认为违反了一般的实质性“证据权”,而在生活的相关领域,没有采取原审法院已经接受审判的证据,在意大利确实构成违反(受宪法保护的)程序性公正审判。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Victim Status of Individuals in Climate Change Litigation before the ECtHR State Immunity from Civil Jurisdiction in Transboundary Environmental Litigations The Deterrent Effect of Financial Sanctions Pursuant to Article 260(2) tfeu in the Context of Violations of Environmental Obligations Authorisations to Emit Greenhouse Gases – A Conflict-of-Laws Perspective Upholding Maritime Migrants’ Rights at the Borders of Europe – J.A. and Others v. Italy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1