Suche nach Schlagworten '00010542'

1. Acknowledgements
2. Executive summary
3. The project
4. Study overview
4.1 Speed of transmission and service
4.2 Transmitting and receiving agencies
4.3 Central body
4.4 Forms
4.5 Informing addressee of right to refuse to accept a document
4.6 Date of service
4.7 Cost of service
4.8 Service by post
4.9 Direct service
5 Methodology
5.1 Methodology
5.2 Survey form
6 The results
6.1 Speed of transmission and service (Articles 4 and 7)
6.2 Transmitting and receiving agencies (Article 2)
6.3 Central body (Article 3)
6.4 Forms (Articles 4,6,7,8,10, Annexe)
6.5 Informing addressee of right to refuse to accept a document (Article 8)
6.6 Date of service (Article 9)
6.7 Cost of service (Article 11)
6.8 Service by post (Article 14)
6.9 Direct service (Article 15)
6.10 General narrative comments
6.11 Sensitivity analysis
7 Statistical data concerning the transmisssion and service of documents
7.1 Methodology
7.2 Survey form
7.3 The results
8 Referencies
Annex 1: List of E-mailaddresses used in the survey
Annex 2: Full set of literal narrative comments received

List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
1. SUMMARY
1.1. Summary of conclusions
1.2. Summary of Recommendations
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Description of the Network instrument
2.2. Purpose and scope of the evaluation
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research design
3.1.1. Construction of the intervention logic
3.1.2. Methods of data collection and analysis
3.2. Analysis of collected data
4. EVALUATION RESULTS
4.1. Functioning of the Network
4.1.1. Internal coherence of objectives
4.1.2. Current set-up of the Network
4.1.3. The website
4.1.4. Contact points and organisation at national level
4.1.5. The meetings of contact points and Network members
4.1.6. CIRCA
4.1.7. Requests for judicial co-operation and their registration
4.1.8. Analysis on functioning of the Network
4.1.9. Conclusions on Network functioning
4.2. Interaction of the Network members and components
4.2.1. Coordination amongst national contact points and / or national networks
4.2.2. Role of Network members as intermediary vis- à -vis to ultimate users
4.2.3. Interaction with experts who monitor legislative work in civil law
4.2.4. Analysis on interaction of the Network members and components
4.2.5. Conclusions on interaction of the Network members and components
4.3. Results and impacts of the Network
4.3.1. Facilitation of relations between courts
4.3.2. Impacts of the Network related to judicial cooperation
4.3.3. Impacts of the Network related to the principle of mutual recognition
4.3.4. Impacts of the Network related to preparedness for entry into force of new instruments
4.3.5. Analysis on results and impacts of the Network
4.3.6. Conclusions on results and impacts of the Network
4.4. Coherence of external instruments
4.4.1. Analysis on coherence of external instruments
4.4.2. Conclusions on coherence of external instruments
4.5. Access to justice of legal professions and the

QUESTIONNAIRES 1 AND 3 (GENERAL ONES)
QUESTIONNAIRE 2 (CENTRAL AUTHORITIES)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY
2.1 CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY. THE 1206/2001 REGULATION
2.1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
2.1.1.1 Binding all the Member States
2.1.2 THE CREATION OF AN AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE IN THE EU
2.2 THE CONTENT OF THE REGULATION
2.2.1 ADOPTION OF REGULATION 1206/2001 (“the Regulation”)
2.2.1.1 Relationship of Regulation 1206 with the European Judicial Network
2.2.1.2 Transitional measures and relationship with other regulatory instruments
2.2.2 SCOPE OF THE REGULATION
2.2.2.1 Introduction
2.2.2.2 Territorial scope
2.2.3 BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE METHODS FOR TAKING OF EVIDENCE IN THE REGULATION
2.2.4 PURPOSE OF THE REGULATION. AN EX-ANTE EVALUATION
2.3 OUR TASK IN CURRENT STUDY
3 STUDY METHODOLOGY
3.1 METHODOLOGY
3.1.1 Objectives
3.1.2 Approach taken
3.1.2.1 Groups of Professionals
3.1.3 The Results
3.1.3.1 Targets for the Survey
3.1.3.2 Information-gathering procedure
3.2 THE TEAM FOR THE CURRENT STUDY
4 STUDY FINDINGS
4.1.1 Objectives of Regulation 1206/2001
4.1.2 Speed of obtaining evidence
4.1.3 Central bodies referred to in Article 3.1
4.1.3.1 Effectiveness of the central bodies
4.1.3.2 Participation of the central bodies
4.1.4 Competent authorities referred to in Article 3(3)
4.1.4.1 Conclusions
4.1.4.2 Proposals
4.1.5 The request: simplicity, clarity and legal certainty
4.1.6 Communications technology
4.1.6.1 Means of communication
4.1.6.2 The impact of communications technology
4.1.6.3 Use of the “swiftest possible means”
4.1.7 The economic cost of assistance
4.1.7.1 Conclusions
4.1.7.2 Proposals
4.1.8 Courts referred to in Article 2(2)
4.1.8.1 Conclusions
4.1.8.2 Proposals
4.1.9 The direct transmission system
4.1.9.1 The system of direct transmission between judges
4.1.9.2 Receipt of the request
4.1.9.3 Autonomous procedural law
4.1.9.4

1. Austria
2. Belgium
3. Bulgaria
4. Cyprus
5. Czech Republic
6. Denmark
7. Estonia
8. Finland
9. France
10. Germany
11. Greece
12. Hungary
13. Ireland
14. Italy
15. Latvia
16. Lithuania
17. Luxembourg
18. Malta
19. Netherlands
20. Poland
21. Portugal
22. Romania
23. Slovakia
24. Slovenia
25. Spain
26. Sweden
27. United Kingdom

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Resume of Study Aims
1.2 Structure of the Final Report
2. BACKGROUND & KEY ISSUES
2.1 Background and Problem Definition
2.2 Recent Developments and Possible Amendments to Brussels 1
2.3 Impact Assessment Framework
2.4 Overview – Key Issues and Policy Options
2.5 Methodological Approach to the Study
3. ABOLITION OF EXEQUATUR
3.1 Background and Problem Definition
3.2 Analysis of Data on Exequatur Cases
3.3 Review of Policy Options
3.4 Conclusions and Impact Assessment
4. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER
4.1 Background and Problem Definition
4.2 Feedback from Research on Key Issues
4.3 Review of Policy Options
4.4 Conclusions and Impact Assessment
5. BRUSSELS 1 & ARBITRATION
5.1 Background and Policy Context
5.2 Review of Policy Options
5.3 Feedback from the Survey Work and Consultations
5.4 Conclusions and Impact Assessment
6. CONSUMER CONTRACTS CONCLUDED AT A DISTANCE
6.1 Background – Consumer Contract Concluded at a Distance
6.2 Problem Definition – Consumer Contract Concluded at a Distance
6.3 Perspectives of Consumers and Business
6.4 Brussels 1 and Consumer Contract Concluded at a Distance
7. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
APPENDICES
A. List of Interviews
B. Detailed Workings –Exequatur Cases & Cost of Proceedings
C. EBTP Survey Data
D. Resume of Data Availability and Country Fiche
E. Key Stakeholder Survey Data
Note: Appendices D and E are contained in separate documents

I. Introduction
II. The alleged CIA activities in Europe (extraordinary renditions) within the Framework of the NATO or the bilateral SOFA (‘status of forces’) agreements
III. The Protection from Torture and other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment in E.U. Member States
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

I. Einführung: ein „europäischer Reisepass“ für gerichtliche Entscheidungen, Vergleicheund öffentliche Urkunden
II. Antrag auf Bestätigung einer noch nicht ergangenen Entscheidung als Europäischer Vollstreckungstitel
III. Der Europäische Vollstreckungstitel für bereits ergangene Entscheidungen
IV. Öffentliche Urkunden
V. Gerichtliche Vergleiche
VI. Vollstreckung eines Europäischen Vollstreckungstitels im Falle einer Entscheidung, einer öffentlichen Urkunde oder eines gerichtlichen Vergleichs

Foreword
European civil justice legislation – ten years on
Introduction
European law is increasingly affecting our everyday lives
1 The Tampere European Council, conclusions of the Presidency
2 Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition
3 Free circulation of judgments in civil and commercial matters
4 Free circulation of judgments in the area of family law
5 Service of documents
6 Taking of evidence
7 European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters
8 Legal Aid
9 Compensation to crime victims
10 Mediation in civil matters
11 Applicable law

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1.1 Context of the study
2.1.2 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
2.1.3 SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS OF THE EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
2.1.4 SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS -LEGAL ANALYSIS
3 THE PROJECT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 SCOPE
3.3 TEAM
3.4 COUNTRY REPORTS
3.5 STATISTICAL DATA FROM CENTRAL BODIES
3.6 SURVEYS
4 EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
4.1 STATISTICAL DATA CONCERNING THE REQUESTS (ARTICLE 1(1)(A) AND (B) OF THE REGULATION)
4.2 REQUESTING AND REQUESTED COURTS (ARTICLE 2)
4.3 CENTRAL BODIES (ARTICLE 3)
4.4 FORMS
4.5 USE OF COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
4.6 PERFORMANCE WITH THE PRESENCE AND PARTICIPATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES OR OF THE REQUESTING COURT
4.7 REFUSAL TO EXECUTE
4.8 DIRECT TAKING OF EVIDENCE BY THE REQUESTING COURT (ARTICLE 17)
4.9 COSTS (ARTICLE 18)
5 LEGAL ANALYSIS
5.1 DEFINITION OF PROOF
5.2 TAKING OF EVIDENCE - METHODS
5.3 PUBLIC/PRIVATE DOCUMENT
5.4 EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES
5.5 WITNESS TESTIMONY
5.6 THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE
5.7 VIDEOCONFERENCE AND TELECONFERENCE
5.8 PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES AT THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE
5.9 EXPENSES
5.10 SPECIAL RULES
5.11 ELECTRONIC SERVICE
5.12 HARMONISATION
6 EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE DIRECT COURT-TO-COURT CONTACTS
7 SYNTHESIS REPORT
7.1 SUMMARY
7.2 EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS - SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS
7.3 SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS OF LEGAL ANALYSIS
8 RECOMMENDATIONS
9 STUDY METHODOLOGY
9.1 BRIEF METHODOLOGY
9.2 PROFESSIONALS’ SURVEY
9.3 STATISTICAL DATA CONCERNING THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE
ANNEX 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE STUDY
ANNEX 2 COUNTRY REPORTS

ANNEX I - LIST OF PARTICIPANTS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE STUDY
1. EXPERTS’ SURVEY
2. OUR NETWORK OF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENTS
3. PROFESSIONALS’ SURVEY
ANNEX II - COUNTRY REPORTS
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
BULGARIA
CYPRUS
CZECH REPUBLIC
ESTONIA
FINLAND
FRANCE
GERMANY
GREECE
HUNGARY
IRELAND
ITALY
LATVIA
LITHUANIA
LUXEMBOURg
MALTA
NETHERLANDS
POLAND
PORTUGAL
ROMANIA
SLOVAKIA
SLOVENIA
SPAIN
SWEDEN
UK

I. Einführung
II. Zielsetzung der Verordnung
III. Sachlicher Anwendungsbereich der Verordnung
IV. Gerichte und Behörden
V. Verfahren der Beweisaufnahme
A. Zwei unterschiedliche Verfahren
B. Ersuchen des ersuchenden Gerichts an das zuständige Gericht (Artikel 4–16)
a) Übermittlung der Ersuchen
a1) Form und Inhalt
a2) Besondere Ersuchen
a3) Zügige Übermittlung der Ersuchen und der sonstigen Mitteilungen
a4) Sprachen
a5) Keine Beglaubigung der Ersuchen
b) Entgegennahme der Ersuchen
b1) Empfangsbestätigung
b2) Unvollständiges Ersuchen
c) Beweisaufnahme durch das ersuchte Gericht
c1) Fristen
c2) Bei der Erledigung der Ersuchen anzuwendendes Recht (Artikel 10
c3) Zwangsmaßnahmen
c4) Erledigung des Ersuchens in Anwesenheit und unter Beteiligung der Parteien oder von Beauftragten des ersuchenden Gerichtsd) Ablehnung der Erledigung des Ersuchens
d1) Recht oder Pflicht zur Aussageverweigerung
d2) Sonstige Ablehnungsgründe
d3) Öffentliche Ordnung kein Ablehnungsgrund
d4) Folgen der Ablehnung
e) Mitteilung über Verzögerungen oder über die Ablehnung durch das ersuchte Gericht
f) Verfahren nach Erledigung des Ersuchens
C. Unmittelbare Beweisaufnahme durch das ersuchende Gericht (Artikel 17)
D. Vorschriften für den Einsatz moderner Kommunikationsmittel
Anhang I: Verfahren der Beweisaufnahme
Anhang II: Ersuchen an das zuständige Gericht
Anhang III: Unmittelbare Beweisaufnahme (Artikel 17)
Anhang IV: Standardformblätter (Anhang)

Zivilrecht schnell zur Hand
Eine Website – wozu?
Das Europäische Justizielle Netzfür Zivil- und Handelssachen
Welche Informationensind auf der Website zu finden?
Navigationsbeispiel
Ausblick

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
PART I
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTS
(A) GENERAL STRUCTURE OF NATIONAL JURISDICTIONAL RULES FOR CROSSBORDERDISPUTES
(B) BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL CONVENTIONS
(C) APPLICABLE NATIONAL RULES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 4 OF THE BRUSSELS I REGULATION
(D) NATIONAL JURISDICTION & ENFORCEMENT OF NON-EU JUDGMENTS
(E) DECLINING JURISDICTION
(F) THE ADEQUATE PROTECTION (OR LACK THEREOF) OF EU NATIONALS AND/OR DOMICILIARIES THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL JURISDICTIONAL RULES
(G) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE NEW BRUSSELS II REGULATION
PART II
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED FURTHER
HARMONISATION OF JURISDICTION
(A) THE INITIAL OBJECTIVE OF REGULATING JURISDICTION IN “COMMUNITYDISPUTES”
(B) THE MAIN OPTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED HARMONIZATION
(C) PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE SUPPRESSION OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EU AND NON-EU DEFENDANTS
(D) FURTHER HARMONIZATION OF JURISDICTION UNDER BRUSSELS II
CONCLUSIONS