N° 9 / June-July 2022

About the Project

Final conference save-the-date

On 30 September 2022 the University of Milan, coordinator of the Project, will host the EFFORTS Final Conference at the Sala Napoleonica (via Sant’Antonio no. 12, Milan – Italy). It will be possible to attend also online, with a virtual meeting.

The FC will gather experts in the field of cross-border litigation and claims enforcement within the EU, with a presentation of the results of the research carried out by our research teams (University of Milan, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, University of Heidelberg, University of Brussels Vrije, University of Zagreb and University of Vilnius) and a discussion on current issues and future developments for the implementation and the drafting of EU and national instruments concerning cross-border claims enforcement in civil and commercial matters.

Working language: English. Translation in Italian available online and in presence.

Please find the registration link and the programme on our website: https://efforts.unimi.it/events/final-conference/

[Information for Italian lawyers]
Per gli AVVOCATI ITALIANI che vogliano usufruire dei n. 6 crediti formativi si segnala che l’evento è gratuito ed è disponibile la traduzione simultanea in italiano sia online che in presenza. È necessario selezionare i biglietti dedicati alla pagina di iscrizione e fornire le indicazioni richieste (nome, cognome, codice fiscale, foro di appartenenza).


CJEU Judgment of the Court, 2 June 2022, in Case C‑196/21, SR v EW. Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court orders the transmission of judicial documents to third parties that apply for leave to intervene in the proceedings, that court cannot be regarded as being the ‘applicant’ within the meaning of that provision.

CJEU Judgment of the Court, 20 June 2022, in Case C‑700/20, London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited v Kingdom of Spain. (1) Article 34(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment entered by a court of a Member State in the terms of an arbitral award does not constitute a ‘judgment’, within the meaning of that provision, where a judicial decision resulting in an outcome equivalent to the outcome of that award could not have been adopted by a court of that Member State without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of that regulation, in particular as regards the relative effect of an arbitration clause included in the insurance contract in question and the rules on lis pendens contained in Article 27 of that regulation, and that, in that situation, the judgment in question cannot prevent, in that Member State, the recognition of a judgment given by a court in another Member State. (2) Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that Article 34(3) of that regulation does not apply to a judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award, the recognition or enforcement of a judgment from another Member State cannot be refused as being contrary to public policy on the ground that it would disregard the force of res judicata acquired by the judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award.

CJEU Judgment of the Court, 7 July 2022, in Case C‑7/21, LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG v CB, DF, GH. Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79), read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of the Member State of the authority which issued a document to be served, pursuant to which the starting point of the one-week period referred to in Article 8(1) of that regulation, within which the addressee of such a document may refuse to accept it on one of the grounds set out in that provision, is the same as the starting point for the period within which a remedy is to be sought against that document in that Member State.

News and opinions on Private and Procedural International Law

As reported by Hao Yang Joshua Mok and Jeanne Huang on CoL, a civil mediation agreement stipulated in Mainland China has been recognized and enforced in Australia by decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court. Particularly under scrutiny was the notion of “judgment”, as in relation to its finality and res judicata effects, and the question whether such civil mediation agreement could fit in the definition of a judgment in view of the possibility of its enforcement. It has been submitted, and sustained by the NSW Supreme Court, that a civil mediation agreement as in the case at stake has the same binding effect and shall be enforced in the same way as a final judgment.

Paul Lorenz Eichmüller of University of Vienna on EAPIL comments the issue relating to the applicability of an Austrian (and German) civil procedural rule (on security for litigation costs) to cross-border litigations involving UK nationals. The rule concerns foreign nationals bringing litigations to Austria. Said rule has not been applied in respect to EU residents as contrary to Art. 18 TFEU. However, the issue is re-opened by virtue of Brexit, in case the foreign national is from the UK.