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

López de Tejada on the Abolition of Exequatur

January 14, 2012/in /by Marta Requejo
image_pdfimage_print

María López de Tejada holds a PhD in law from the University of Paris II with a thesis on the abolition of the exequatur procedure. She has recently published an article on the topic in the Spanish journal La Ley (Diario La Ley, Nº 7766, Sección Tribuna, 30 Dic. 2011). Here is a summary of the contents.

The execution of foreign judgments has traditionally been subject to an enforcement procedure in the European judicial area. However, the Community lawgiver wants to get rid of that process so that any judicial decision could deploy its effects and be enforced throughout the community, without prior declaration of enforceability or control in the executing Member State. Several regulations of limited material scope have already achieved that objective, but the idea is to go further and abolish the exequatur procedure for all civil and commercial matters. Such an objective looks like praiseworthy at first sight, because it tends to break with a traditional legal lack of openness and to restore the continuity of the right to enforcement of anyone who has obtained a favorable judgment. But a deeper analysis of the issue shows that right now, the abolition of exequatur would be a hasty, even dangerous step for both the citizens and the harmony of the juridical systems of the Member States. The suppression of the exequatur procedure is based on the assumption that foreign court rulings, delivered under common jurisdictional criteria, provide similar guarantees and should be regarded as national decision. The truth is that until a higher level of integration has been reached such presumption, which implies the perfect equivalence of all national decisions, is simply excessive and unrealistic. On the one hand, the European system of jurisdiction set in regulations is still far from perfect; and the practical application of the rules leads too often to unpredictable consequences. On the other hand, the judicial area is characterized by a profound heterogeneity in as far as procedural law is concerned; and unfortunately both the ECHR and the ECJ case law still show scenarios of violations of fundamental rights by the States -in particular of Article 6 of the ECHR.

The suppression of all kind of control (meaning, public order clause included) of foreign rulings opens the door to the community space of judgments contrary to the fundamental rights enshrined in the ECHR and in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, notwithstanding the Member States commitment to abide by both them.

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 Marta Requejo https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Marta Requejo2012-01-14 05:00:242012-01-13 10:08:47López de Tejada on the Abolition of Exequatur

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • 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
Link to: Agreements in EU Council on Abolition of Exequatur and Succession Link to: Agreements in EU Council on Abolition of Exequatur and Succession Agreements in EU Council on Abolition of Exequatur and Succession Link to: Licari & Janke on Punitive Damages Link to: Licari & Janke on Punitive Damages Licari & Janke on Punitive Damages
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top