Enforcement and Enforceability of Court Settlements in the European Union
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18690/lexonomica.17.2.143-170.2025Keywords:
court settlements, European Union, Brussels I Recast, cross-border enforcement, private international lawAbstract
Court settlements, as instruments of amicable dispute resolution, represent a flexible procedural tool that also serves as an enforcement title document. As such, these instruments are known in all of the Member States of the European Union (EU) and are included under the rules of EU’s private international law regulations, which offer a legal basis for their cross-border enforcement. However, challenges persist due to varying regulation and understanding of court settlements at the national level, as well as due to the ambiguities in the EU’s cross-border enforcement rules, leading to potential misinterpretations in practice. Thus, this paper firstly aims to explore what exactly constitutes a ‘court settlement’, both at the national and at the EU level. Based on this definition, it then examines the EU regulatory framework, specifically within the selected EU regulations, to assess whether further improvements are necessary. The answers to the research questions are found through case law analysis, exploration of academic literature, and particularly on the basis of the relevant provisions of the EU regulations that were selected for this research.
Povzetek
Sodne poravnave kot instrumenti sporazumnega reševanja sporov predstavljajo prilagodljivo postopkovno orodje, ki služi tudi kot izvršilni naslov. Kot takšni so ti instrumenti znani v vseh državah članicah Evropske unije (EU) in so vključeni v pravila mednarodnega zasebnega prava EU, ki zagotavljajo pravno podlago za njihovo čezmejno izvrševanje. Vendar pa izzivi ostajajo zaradi različnih predpisov in razumevanja sodnih poravnav na nacionalni ravni ter zaradi nejasnosti v pravilih EU o čezmejni izvršbi, kar v praksi vodi do morebitnih napačnih razlag. Zato je prvi cilj predmetnega prispevka raziskati, kaj točno predstavlja „sodna poravnava“ na nacionalni ravni in na ravni EU. Na podlagi te opredelitve prispevek nato naslovi regulativni okvir EU, zlasti v izbranih uredbah EU, za ugotovitev ali so potrebne nadaljnje izboljšave. Odgovori na raziskovalna vprašanja temeljijo na analizi sodne prakse, preučitvi znanstvene literature ter zlasti na podlagi ustreznih določb uredb EU, ki so bile izbrane za to raziskavo.
Downloads
References
Anzenberger, P. (2020). The cross-border enforcement of court settlements within Brussels IA regulation: From a European and an Austrian perspective. Lexonomica, 12(2), 149-162. https://doi.org/10.18690/lexonomica.12.2.149-162.2020.
Anzenberger, P. (2023). The European Dimension of Court Settlements: Open Issues and Regulatory Needs. In V. Rijavec, W. Kennett, T. Keresteš and T. Ivanc (eds.), Diversity of Enforcement Titles in the EU (pp. 333-349). Springer.
Beaumont, P. and Walker, L. (2015). Recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters in the Brussels I Recast and some lessons from it and the recent Hague Conventions for the Hague Judgments Project. Journal of Private International Law, 11(1), 31-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/17536235.2015.1033197.
Berlemann, M. and Christmann, R. (2019). Determinants of in-court settlements: empirical evidence from a German trial court. Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(1), 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137417000637.
Briggs, A. (2021). Civil jurisdiction and judgments. Informa Law.
Buzzoni, M. and Santaló Goris, C. (2022). EFFORTS project: Report on Practices in Comparative and Cross-Border Perspective. Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law.
Chang, Y. and Klerman, D. (2022). Settlement around the world: Settlement rates in the largest economies. Journal of Legal Analysis, 14(1), 80-175. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laac006.
Ferrari, F. (2014). The Judicial Attempt at Conciliation: The New Section 185-bis of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure. Russian Law Journal, 2(3), 80-95. https://doi.org/10.52783/rlj.v2i3.238.
Giussani, A. (2018). Cross Border Enforcement of Monetary Claims – Interplay of Brussels I A Regulation and National Rules. National Report: Italy. University of Maribor Press.
Hess, B. (2021). Reforming the Brussels Ibis Regulation: Perspectives and Prospects. Max Planck Institute for Procedural Law Research Paper Series, 2021(4), 1-18. https://www.mpi.lu/fileadmin/user_upload/MPILux_WP_2021_4__Reforming_Brussels_1bis_BH.pdf.
Hess, B., Althoff, D., Bens, T. and Elsner, N. (2024). The Reform of the Brussels Ibis Regulation – Academic Position Paper. Vienna Research Paper. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4853421.
Hess, B. and Spancken, S. (2014). Setting the Scene – The EU Maintenance Regulation. In P. Beaumont, B. Hess, L. Walker and S. Spancken (eds.), The Recovery of Maintenance in the EU and Worldwide (pp. 331-336). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hess, B., Pfeiffer, T. and Schlosser, P. (2007). Report (JLS/2004/C4/03) on the application of the Brussels I Regulation in the Member States. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/173086/20121011ATT53426.pdf.
Huber, S. (2012). Koordinierung europäischer Zivilprozessrechtsinstrumente. In R. Geimer and R. A. Schütze (eds.), Recht ohne Grenzen. Festschrift für Athanassios Kaissis zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 413-430). Otto Schmidt Verlagskontor.
Kramer, X. (2023). Article 59. In U. Magnus and P. Mankowski (eds.), European Commentaries on Private International Law (Commentary): Brussels Ibis Regulation (pp. 952-955). Sellier European Law Pub.
Kunda, I. and Tičić, M. (2022). Authentic instruments and court settlements under the Twin Regulations. In L. Ruggeri, A. Limantė and N. Pogorelčnik Vogrinc (eds.), The EU Regulations on Matrimonial Property and Property of Registered Partnerships (pp. 157-190). Intersentia.
Kunštek, E., Kunda, I., Mihelčić, G. and Vrbljanac, D. (2020). National report for Croatia. https://pf.um.si/site/assets/files/5926/croatia.pdf.
Layton, A., and Mercer, H. (2004). European Civil Practice (Vol 1). Sweet & Maxwell.
Layton, A., and Mercer, H., (2004). European Civil Practice (Vol 2). Sweet & Maxwell.
Leibniz Universität Hannover, Institute for Procedural Law and Attorney Regulations, Wolf, C., Kurth, N. and Mieszaniec, K. (2020). National Report Germany. https://www.pf.um.si/site/assets/files/5926/germany.pdf.
Lorenz, S. (2000). Übersicht Prozeßvergleich. C:TEXTEAUGSBURGHöchstrichterliche Rspr 1999_2000Folien und ÜbersichtenÜbersicht Prozeßvergleich.PDF.
Mankowski, P. (2023). Article 45. In U. Magnus and P. Mankowski (eds.), European Commentaries on Private International Law (Commentary): Brussels Ibis Regulation (pp. 842-918). Sellier European Law Pub.
Merrett, L. (2023). Article 2. In U. Magnus and P. Mankowski (eds.), European Commentaries on Private International Law (Commentary): Brussels Ibis Regulation (pp. 79-93). Sellier European Law Pub.
Paulus, C. G. (2017). Zivilprozessrecht. Erkenntnisverfahren, Zwangsvollstreckung und Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht. Springer.
Rijavec, V. (2023). Enforcement Titles Under Brussels I bis Regulation from National to EU Frameworks. In V. Rijavec, W. Kennett, T. Keresteš and T. Ivanc, Diversity of Enforcement Titles in the EU (pp. 3-70). Springer.
Tičić, M. (2024). The Notion of ‘Judgment’ in the EU Regulations on Cross-Border Collection of Monetary Claims: A Change in Understanding?. European Papers. 9(2), 557-592. https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/771.
Tičić, M. (2024). Irreconcilable judgments in the EU Regulations: Reforming the ground(s) for refusal of enforcement. Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, 16(1), 621-640. https://doi.org/10.20318/cdt.2024.8438.
Vojković, L. (2019). Pravna priroda sudske nagodbe. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, 40(2), 957-970. https://doi.org/10.30925/zpfsr.40.2.12.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 University of Maribor, University Press
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Univerza v Mariboru, Pravna fakulteta, Univerzitetna založba
Prosti pristop