The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgements in Civil Cases in the Context of Practice of European Court of Human Rights

Тетяна Андріївна Цувіна

Abstract


The article addresses recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements in civil cases in the context of the practice of European Court of Human Rights. The conclusion is made, that European Court of Human Rights analyzes institute of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements through such procedural rights as right to a fair trial (art. 6 ECHR) and right to an effective remedy (art. 13 ECHR) as long as such substantive conventional rights as right to protection pf property (art. 1 of the First Protocol to ECHR) and right to respect for private and family life (art. 8 ECHR).

It is considered that the main article through which this institute should be analyzed is art. 6 ECHR containing procedural guaranties of fair trial. According to the art. 13 ECHR the effective remedies of protection of the right to a fair trial in reasonable time should be provided at national level. Moreover reforms of this sphere of judicial practice should be done in accordance with art. 8 ECHR and art. 1 of the First Protocol to ECHR which provide specific substantive rights. All of the above mentioned aspects are analyzed in detail.


Keywords


recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements; right to a fair trial; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; European Court of Human Rights; enforcement of court judgements in civil cases

References


Kiestra, L. (2004). The Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Private International Law. Springer, 335 p.

Sinopoli L., Droit au procès equitable et exequatur: Strasbourg sonne les cloches à Rome. Gazette du Palais, №122. 1157–1168.

«Hornsby v. Greece», 19 March 1997, par. 40, Reports of Judgements and Decisions 1997-II. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58020.

«McDonald c. France», app. no. 18648/04, 29 April 2004. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-87756.

«Vrbica v. Croatia», app. no. 32540/02, 01 April 2010. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-98057.

«Jovanoski v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, app. no. 31731/03, 07 January 2010. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-96603.

«Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom», 28 May 1985, par. 57, Series A no. 93. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57425.

«Romanczyk c. France», app. no. 7618/05, 18 November 2010. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101763.

«Matrakas and Others v. Poland and Greece», app. no. 47268/06, 07 November 2013. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-127812.

«K. v. Italy», app. no. 38805/97, 20 July 2004. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61924.

«Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom», 28 June 1984, par. 76, Series A no. 80. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57456.

«X. v. Belgium (dec.)», app. no. 8247/78, 05 May 1980, unreported. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-98057.

Tsuvina, T.A. (2015). Pravo na sud u tsyvil’nomu sudochynstvi. Kharkiv: Slovo [in Ukrainian].

«Bramelid and Malmstrom v. Sweden» (dec.), app. no. 8588/79, 8589/79, 12 October 1982, unreported. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“fulltext”:[“Bramelid and Malmstrom v. Sweden”]}.

«Regent Company v. Ukraine», no. 773/03, 03 April 2008. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-85681.

«Suovaniemi and Others v. Finland» (dec.), app. no. 31737/96, 23 February 1999. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-4942.

«Ern Makina Sanayive Ticaret A. S. v. Turkey», no. 70830/01, 03 May 2007. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-80392.

«Saccoccia v. Austria», app. no. 69917/01, 18 December 2008. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-90342.

«Kudla v. Poland», no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58920.

«Burdov v. Russia», app. no. 59498/00, par. 35, ECHR 2002-III. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60449.

«Kin-Stib and Majkic v. Serbia», app. no. 12312/05, 20 April 2010. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-98355.

Karnaukh, B.P. (2016). Ponyattya mayna v konteksti statti 1 Protokolu № 1 do Yevropeys’koyi konventsiyi pro zakhyst prav lyudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod. [The Notion of Possessions for the Purposes of Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights]. Problemy zakonnosti – Problems of Legality, issue 132, 205–214.

«Negrepontis-Giannissis v. Greece», app. no. 56759/08, 03 May 2011. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-104678.

«Wagner and J. M. W. L. v. Luxemburg», app. no. 76240/01, 28 June 2007. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81328.

«Pini and Others v. Romania», app. no. 78028/01, 78030/01, 22 June 2004. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61837.

Tkachuk, O. S. (2016) Problemy realizatsiyi sudovoyi vlady u tsyvil’nomu sudochynstvi. Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].

«Hussin v. Belgium», app. no. 70807/01, 04 May 2004. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-44931.

«Pellegrini v. Italy», 20 July 2001, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-VIII. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59604.


GOST Style Citations






DOI: https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.138.108942

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM




Copyright (c) 2017 Тетяна Андріївна Цувіна

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2224-9281