Author(s) Sofia Teresa Borges de Oliveira
Advisor(s) Alessandra Silveira
Year 2015
Synopsis This study deals with the Regulation (EC) number 1393/2007 –and, more specifically, the problem of in service and notification of judicial and extrajudicial acts in the EU space made by post services. These service and notification, although are effected between the different Member States, not necessarily have to be translation object. The Regulation only requires the claimant to inform the addressee of the act of the possibility of refusal of service if they do not understand them. The objective of this study is to test whether the right to refuse the service of documents is sufficient to ensure the addressee’s rights of defense. It is of great interest to determine whether that obligation not to undertake translation or not their rights. Interesting is also discussing this issue from the point of view of effective judicial protection, in particular as regards the duality between the right to the action of the claimant and the right to defense of the defendant. We chose to structure this thesis into three parts: In the first part we decided to make a brief historical background of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in the European Union in order to contextualize the system of judicial documents. The second part consists of the comprehensive review of Regulation (EC) number 1393/2007, in order to realize fully how to process the service of documents between Member States. We question at this point, the service of documents by post, more specifically, their translations, molded in Article 14 of that Regulation. We analyze also the communications made by the Member States under this Regulation. In the end, the third part integrates the study of several judgments of both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which relate to the interpretation of certain concepts in this area or from the national courts, which allow us to make a comparison such as effective judicial protection is treated in the different Member States.
See more here.
Author(s) Sofia Teresa Borges de Oliveira
Advisor(s) Alessandra Silveira
Year 2015
Synopsis This study deals with the Regulation (EC) number 1393/2007 –and, more specifically, the problem of in service and notification of judicial and extrajudicial acts in the EU space made by post services. These service and notification, although are effected between the different Member States, not necessarily have to be translation object. The Regulation only requires the claimant to inform the addressee of the act of the possibility of refusal of service if they do not understand them. The objective of this study is to test whether the right to refuse the service of documents is sufficient to ensure the addressee’s rights of defense. It is of great interest to determine whether that obligation not to undertake translation or not their rights. Interesting is also discussing this issue from the point of view of effective judicial protection, in particular as regards the duality between the right to the action of the claimant and the right to defense of the defendant. We chose to structure this thesis into three parts: In the first part we decided to make a brief historical background of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in the European Union in order to contextualize the system of judicial documents. The second part consists of the comprehensive review of Regulation (EC) number 1393/2007, in order to realize fully how to process the service of documents between Member States. We question at this point, the service of documents by post, more specifically, their translations, molded in Article 14 of that Regulation. We analyze also the communications made by the Member States under this Regulation. In the end, the third part integrates the study of several judgments of both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which relate to the interpretation of certain concepts in this area or from the national courts, which allow us to make a comparison such as effective judicial protection is treated in the different Member States.
See more here.