Principle of extension of effects

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The principle of extension of effect (also the principle of extension of effect ) stipulates that a foreign court decision in the domestic territory of another state is assigned the effects that it has in the state in whose territory the decision was originally issued.

In principle, there is no extraterritorial effect of state court decisions. The effectiveness of the court decisions usually ends at the state border and usually only extends to those involved in the proceedings or their legal successors (few exceptions possible). However, states can agree on the recognition and thus extension of the effect of court decisions to the respective other sovereign territory ( international treaty ) or in fact recognize each other (reciprocity, also reciprocity).

The best-known legal basis within the European Union for the recognition, extension of effects and enforcement of court decisions is the Brussels Convention (formerly Brussels Convention - Brussels Convention). Within the framework of EFTA, the Lugano Convention . There are also numerous bilateral agreements between states or reciprocity.

Limits of the principle of extension of effects

The limits of the legal force of a court decision are to be assessed according to the principle of the extension of effects according to the law of the state which issued the decision (first state). The court decision can therefore only develop the effects in another state which are possible in the first state of the decision. These limits of the effects of the court decision in the first state to be recognized are independent of whether these effects are mentioned in the court decision. The court of the other state has the prerequisites to raise and apply the scope and the limits of the effect of the court decision in the first state. " The extended effects of the judgment include, above all, the material legal force, the objective and subjective limits of which consequently follow the procedural law of the judging state (BGH, FamRZ 2008, 400). "

requirements

The prerequisites for being able to apply the principle of extension of effects are to be assessed according to the international treaty regulation, which in turn is subject to the recognition of the court decision in the two states.

The basic requirements for recognition are (examples, do not always have to be present at the same time):

  • both states are signatories to an agreement or reciprocity is guaranteed;
  • the parties to the proceedings have their (residential) seat in one of these two countries (exceptions possible);
  • international jurisdiction of the court in the first state;
  • there is a final judicial decision from one of the two member states of the international agreement, which
  • was given in legal proceedings before an independent court;
  • the legal area affected by the decision is covered in the international agreement (e.g. it is a civil or commercial matter );
  • there are no contractual grounds for exclusion;
  • there is no abusive legal claim by one of the parties; and
  • there is no violation of public policy .

If the relevant prerequisites for the recognition of the court decision are met, the effect can be extended.

example

Is z. B. If a party in another state (recognition state) asserts a preclusion (exclusion) for a certain legal act or rights, the requirements, limits and effects are to be assessed on the basis of the law of the first state which issued the court decision.

Extension of effects in arbitration proceedings

An extension of the effect can also be contractually agreed in the context of arbitration proceedings or through international agreements. The confirmation of enforceability and thus extension of the effect of an arbitration award often takes place as part of an exequatur procedure .

For arbitration awards, see the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958).

literature

  • Paul Jenard, " Report on the Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction, the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and the Enforcement of Public Documents ", European Economic Community, 1965. Brussels 1966.
  • Rolf A. Schütz, " German-American Judgment Recognition ", de Gruyter Verlag, Berlin / New York 1992, in the series: " Law of International Business Transactions ", Volume 9, ISBN 3-11-012703-2 .

Jurisprudence

  • ECJ case, judgment of February 4, 1988, Hoffmann, 145/86, ECR 1988, 645.
  • ECJ case, judgment of April 28, 2009, Apostolides (C-420/07, ECR 2009, I-3571, para. 66).
  • ECJ case, judgment of November 15, 2012, Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG and others / Samskip GmbH (C-456/11, RNr 34).

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ A court decision can e.g. B. be: a judgment, a decision, a payment order or enforcement order, a cost-fixing order, etc. The national designation and classification of the court decision is usually irrelevant. In the opinion of the ECJ on the Brussels I Regulation, a litigation that is essentially of a contractual nature, since its content is primarily determined by the will of the parties, does not constitute a judicial decision (ECJ judgment of June 2, 1994, Solo Kleinmotoren, C-414/92 1994 ECR I-2237).
  2. ↑ See also ECJ decision Rs C-456/11 (Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AGua / Samskip GmbH) Rn 4.
  3. ↑ A court decision is final if it can no longer be overturned in the envisaged appeal. It is not enough for a court decision to be final in one instance because it may still be possible to repeal it in another instance.
  4. ↑ Tax law and criminal matters are very often excluded.
  5. ↑ See e.g. B. to recognize the effect of the judgment from the USA (Connecticut) Litvaitis vs. Litvaitis, 295 A 2 d 519 (Conn.) 1972.