管辖权的集中-司法机构的功能是否成为诉诸司法的障碍?

M. Župan, P. Poretti
{"title":"管辖权的集中-司法机构的功能是否成为诉诸司法的障碍?","authors":"M. Župan, P. Poretti","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/9004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Matters of jurisdiction seem to be among aspects of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in which so far most regulatory activity of the European union (hereinafter: EU) has been undertaken. Upon close examination of the rules on jurisdiction of courts in civil and commercial matters in the existing legal framework at EU level, it becomes obvious that they contain the same principle of territoriality. At the same time, in the course of modernization both at the national and EU level it seems that the principle of functionality is becoming more dominant. A question whether it is justified to depart from rules on jurisdiction based on the principle of territoriality and confer jurisdiction on a court other than that of the defendant’s domicile based on the principle of functionality in a cross-border case has arisen recently in joined cases C-400/13 and C-408/13. Within the context of a rather ambiguous view the CJEU took in its decision in the aforementioned cases, the paper examines if enhancing functionality through concentration of jurisdiction will eventually become an advantage or obstacle to access to justice. The analysis includes presentation and comparison of provisions on jurisdiction in cross-border cases based on the principle of territoriality and functionality respectively in several EU legal instruments regulating private international law and civil procedure matters. The paper attempts to draw attention to models of achieving procedural efficiency in different fields of EU’s activity, such as enhancing consumer protection or introducing cross-border collective redress.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CONCENTRATION OF JURISDICTION – IS FUNCTIONALITY OF JUDICIARY BECOMING AN OBSTACLE TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE?\",\"authors\":\"M. Župan, P. Poretti\",\"doi\":\"10.25234/ECLIC/9004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Matters of jurisdiction seem to be among aspects of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in which so far most regulatory activity of the European union (hereinafter: EU) has been undertaken. Upon close examination of the rules on jurisdiction of courts in civil and commercial matters in the existing legal framework at EU level, it becomes obvious that they contain the same principle of territoriality. At the same time, in the course of modernization both at the national and EU level it seems that the principle of functionality is becoming more dominant. A question whether it is justified to depart from rules on jurisdiction based on the principle of territoriality and confer jurisdiction on a court other than that of the defendant’s domicile based on the principle of functionality in a cross-border case has arisen recently in joined cases C-400/13 and C-408/13. Within the context of a rather ambiguous view the CJEU took in its decision in the aforementioned cases, the paper examines if enhancing functionality through concentration of jurisdiction will eventually become an advantage or obstacle to access to justice. The analysis includes presentation and comparison of provisions on jurisdiction in cross-border cases based on the principle of territoriality and functionality respectively in several EU legal instruments regulating private international law and civil procedure matters. The paper attempts to draw attention to models of achieving procedural efficiency in different fields of EU’s activity, such as enhancing consumer protection or introducing cross-border collective redress.\",\"PeriodicalId\":246552,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

管辖权问题似乎是民事和商事司法合作的一个方面,迄今为止,欧洲联盟(以下简称欧盟)的大多数监管活动都是在这方面进行的。在欧盟层面对现有法律框架中关于民事和商事法院管辖权的规则进行仔细审查后,很明显,它们包含相同的地域性原则。与此同时,在国家和欧盟的现代化进程中,功能原则似乎越来越占主导地位。最近在合并案件C-400/13和C-408/13中出现了一个问题,即在跨境案件中是否有理由背离基于属地原则的管辖权规则,根据功能原则将管辖权授予被告住所地法院以外的法院。在欧洲法院对上述案件的裁决所持的相当模糊的观点的背景下,本文探讨了通过集中管辖权来增强功能最终会成为诉诸司法的优势还是障碍。本分析包括介绍和比较若干欧盟关于国际私法和民事诉讼事项的法律文书中分别基于属地性原则和功能性原则的跨境案件管辖权规定。本文试图提请注意在欧盟活动的不同领域实现程序效率的模式,如加强消费者保护或引入跨境集体救济。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
CONCENTRATION OF JURISDICTION – IS FUNCTIONALITY OF JUDICIARY BECOMING AN OBSTACLE TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE?
Matters of jurisdiction seem to be among aspects of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in which so far most regulatory activity of the European union (hereinafter: EU) has been undertaken. Upon close examination of the rules on jurisdiction of courts in civil and commercial matters in the existing legal framework at EU level, it becomes obvious that they contain the same principle of territoriality. At the same time, in the course of modernization both at the national and EU level it seems that the principle of functionality is becoming more dominant. A question whether it is justified to depart from rules on jurisdiction based on the principle of territoriality and confer jurisdiction on a court other than that of the defendant’s domicile based on the principle of functionality in a cross-border case has arisen recently in joined cases C-400/13 and C-408/13. Within the context of a rather ambiguous view the CJEU took in its decision in the aforementioned cases, the paper examines if enhancing functionality through concentration of jurisdiction will eventually become an advantage or obstacle to access to justice. The analysis includes presentation and comparison of provisions on jurisdiction in cross-border cases based on the principle of territoriality and functionality respectively in several EU legal instruments regulating private international law and civil procedure matters. The paper attempts to draw attention to models of achieving procedural efficiency in different fields of EU’s activity, such as enhancing consumer protection or introducing cross-border collective redress.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTIGATION ORDER THE RIGHT TO WATER AND THE RIGHT TO USE HYDROPOWER: THE CASE OF SERBIA AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EU JUDICIAL CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS AND MEASURES REGARDING UNLAWFUL RESIDENCE OF FOREIGNERS IN CROATIA IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT FREEDOM OF SERVICES BY CORRESPONDENCE AS THE “FIFTH FREEDOM” FOR THE DIGITAL SINGLE MARKET – LIMITATIONS BY THE TFEU PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL EDUCATION AND ITS RELEVANCE IN A EUROPEAN CONTEXT
×
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