欧盟法规中不可调和的判决

Q3 Social Sciences Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional Pub Date : 2024-02-28 DOI:10.20318/cdt.2024.8438
Martina Tičić
{"title":"欧盟法规中不可调和的判决","authors":"Martina Tičić","doi":"10.20318/cdt.2024.8438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the fact that the abolition of exequatur seems to have become the norm under the EU regulations dealing with monetary claims, all of the regulations that fall under this category still preserve some grounds for refusal of enforcement of judgments. One of the refusal grounds which remained, even in the regulations which otherwise abolished all possibility of refusal, is the ground of irreconcilability with another judgment. Despite its importance, this refusal ground can sometimes still be quite complex to interpret. This paper thus analyses the notion of ‘irreconcilable judgments’, clarifying the remaining difficulties in interpretation. Moreover, it compares the diverging solutions offered in different regulations, and ultimately proposes a potential reform.","PeriodicalId":36196,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional","volume":"99 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Irreconcilable judgments in the EU Regulations\",\"authors\":\"Martina Tičić\",\"doi\":\"10.20318/cdt.2024.8438\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the fact that the abolition of exequatur seems to have become the norm under the EU regulations dealing with monetary claims, all of the regulations that fall under this category still preserve some grounds for refusal of enforcement of judgments. One of the refusal grounds which remained, even in the regulations which otherwise abolished all possibility of refusal, is the ground of irreconcilability with another judgment. Despite its importance, this refusal ground can sometimes still be quite complex to interpret. This paper thus analyses the notion of ‘irreconcilable judgments’, clarifying the remaining difficulties in interpretation. Moreover, it compares the diverging solutions offered in different regulations, and ultimately proposes a potential reform.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36196,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional\",\"volume\":\"99 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20318/cdt.2024.8438\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20318/cdt.2024.8438","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管在欧盟涉及金钱索赔的法规中,废除执行时效似乎已经成为规范,但所有属于这一类的法规仍然保留了一些拒绝执行判决的理由。其中一个保留下来的拒绝理由是与另一判决不一致的理由,即使在取消了所有拒绝可能性的法规中也是如此。尽管这一拒绝理由很重要,但有时在解释上仍可能相当复杂。因此,本文分析了 "不可调和的判决 "这一概念,澄清了解释中仍然存在的困难。此外,本文还比较了不同法规中的不同解决方案,并最终提出了可能的改革建议。
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
Irreconcilable judgments in the EU Regulations
Despite the fact that the abolition of exequatur seems to have become the norm under the EU regulations dealing with monetary claims, all of the regulations that fall under this category still preserve some grounds for refusal of enforcement of judgments. One of the refusal grounds which remained, even in the regulations which otherwise abolished all possibility of refusal, is the ground of irreconcilability with another judgment. Despite its importance, this refusal ground can sometimes still be quite complex to interpret. This paper thus analyses the notion of ‘irreconcilable judgments’, clarifying the remaining difficulties in interpretation. Moreover, it compares the diverging solutions offered in different regulations, and ultimately proposes a potential reform.
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
157
期刊最新文献
A. Durán Ayago. Derechos humanos y método de reconocimiento de situaciones jurídicas: Hacia la libre circulación de personas y familias. Perspectiva internacional y europea. I. Lorente Martinez. Daños punitivos y Derecho internacional privado La odisea judicial entre London Steam-Ship Owners-Mutual Insurance Association Limited y el Reino de España Pedro A. de Miguel Asensio. Manual de Derecho de las Nuevas Tecnologías. Derecho digital. Romero Matute, Yeray. El arbitraje internacional deportivo. La acción de nulidad, el reconocimiento y ejecución de los laudos arbitrales del CAS/TAS.
×
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