Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Brexit Deal: What Happens To Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters?

December 26, 2020/3 Comments/in News/by Ralf Michaels
image_pdfimage_print

The Brexit deal (officially the [draft] EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement) was agreed upon, finally, on December 24. Relief in many quarters (except Universities participating in the Erasmus program, which is discontinued in the UK).

But private international lawyers worry what happened to judicial cooperation in civil matters: is there any agreement at all? Peter Bert provides a detailed analysis of all available documents and finds almost no mention, which leads him to think we are facing  a sectoral hard brexit. (Update: he provides a more comprehensive analysis in German here.) Other experts on social media do not know more. The Law Society also seems worried. There seems to be no new information on the UK application to join the Lugano Convention, let alone any of the other areas of judicial cooperation. Given the intense discussion on these matters since the day of the Brexit vote, this can hardly be an oversight, but on the other hand it seems strange that such a core issue remained unaddressed.

Any further information or analysis in the comments is welcome.

Update: more comments from Ted Folkman

 

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Ralf Michaels https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Ralf Michaels2020-12-26 17:56:362020-12-28 11:45:45Brexit Deal: What Happens To Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters?
3 replies
  1. Oliver Remien says:
    December 27, 2020 at 4:31 pm

    After all, the UK never fully participated in civil and commercial matters. Maybe, here Brexit means Brexit…

  2. Burcu Yüksel Ripley says:
    December 27, 2020 at 4:43 pm

    Thanks for this interesting post. I think this is not an oversight. As I understand from the UK and EU negotiation mandates published in February 2020, the judicial cooperation area was limited to criminal matters. Accordingly, as far as judicial cooperation is concerned, only criminal matters were on the agenda for negotiation rounds (https://ec.europa.eu/info/european-union-and-united-kingdom-forging-new-partnership/future-partnership/negotiation-rounds-future-partnership-between-european-union-and-united-kingdom_en). Re Lugano, my understanding is that the EU’s position was to see whether there will be a trade deal first. However even if the trade deal is done, given the original purpose of Lugano, the UK’s accession to it may not ever happen (at least not before the end of transition period for sure). But an agreement on judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters will be much needed (at least) to help facilitate what has been agreed under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Till then and from 1 January 2021 (costly) gaps and uncertainties likely to arise.

  3. Marta Requejo Isidro says:
    December 30, 2020 at 8:54 am

    Dear all,
    It would be good to get an official explanation from the European Commission indeed. It should be noted that the Notice to Stakeholders of August 2020 (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/brexit_files/info_site/civil_justice_en.pdf)
    already took lack of agreement for cooperation in civil matters for granted.

    Surprisingly, the press release of the Commission of December 24 (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2531), under the heading “A new partnership for our citizens’ security” states
    “The Trade and Cooperation Agreement establishes a new framework for law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal and civil law matters. ”

    And to top it all, have a look a recital 47 of the service regulation recast (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32020R1784)

    “In accordance with Article 3 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom and Ireland have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.”

    Probably just a clerical mistake.

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: The Italian Supreme Court on Jurisdiction in Purely Financial Damages Link to: The Italian Supreme Court on Jurisdiction in Purely Financial Damages The Italian Supreme Court on Jurisdiction in Purely Financial Damages Link to: HCCH Monthly Update: December 2020 Link to: HCCH Monthly Update: December 2020 HCCH Monthly Update: December 2020
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top