Table
of Contents:
On 9-11 October 2003 an international conference was organised in Lecco
(Italy) by the European Commission and the Italian Presidency on the subject:
"Judicial Co-Operation in Cross-Border Family Law Matters." I
participated in this congress on behalf of the European Association of Judges
as delegate of its President Mrs. Maja Tratnik. The meeting was mainly focused
on the role of judicial co-operation in this sensitive matter within EU countries,
even though a broader perspective was given by the presence of representatives
of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and of the Council of
Europe.
1. Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Family Law Decisions throughout
the EU: Legal and Political Background.
The legal and political background of judicial co-operation in family
law matters within EU Member States is represented by Articles 61-67 of the
Treaty of the European Union, as modified by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997,
according to which, "in order to establish progressively an area of
freedom, security and justice, the Council shall adopt (…) (c) measures in the
field of judicial cooperation in civil matters" (Article 61).
"Measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters having
cross-border implications, to be taken in accordance with Article 67 and
insofar as necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market, shall
include:
(a) improving and simplifying:
·
the system for cross-border service of judicial
and extrajudicial documents;
·
cooperation in the taking of evidence;
·
the recognition and enforcement of decisions in
civil and commercial cases, including decisions in extrajudicial cases;
(b)
promoting the compatibility of the rules applicable in the Member States
concerning the conflict of laws and of jurisdiction;
(c) eliminating obstacles to the good functioning of civil proceedings,
if necessary by promoting the compatibility of the rules on civil procedure
applicable in the Member States" (Article 65).
During the meeting of the European Council in Tampere (15 and 16 October
1999), the following conclusions were achieved:
"VI. Mutual recognition of judicial decisions
33. Enhanced mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgements and
the necessary approximation of legislation would facilitate co-operation
between authorities and the judicial protection of individual rights. The
European Council therefore endorses the principle of mutual recognition which,
in its view, should become the cornerstone of judicial co-operation in both
civil and criminal matters within the Union. The principle should apply both to
judgements and to other decisions of judicial authorities.
34. In civil matters the European Council calls upon the Commission to
make a proposal for further reduction of the intermediate measures which are
still required to enable the recognition and enforcement of a decision or
judgement in the requested State. As a first step these intermediate procedures
should be abolished for titles in respect of small consumer or commercial
claims and for certain judgements in the field of family litigation (e.g. on
maintenance claims and visiting rights). Such decisions would be automatically
recognised throughout the Union without any intermediate proceedings or grounds
for refusal of enforcement. This could be accompanied by the setting of minimum
standards on specific aspects of civil procedural law.
(…)
VII. Greater convergence in civil law
38. The European Council invites the Council
and the Commission to prepare new procedural legislation in cross-border cases,
in particular on those elements which are instrumental to smooth judicial
co-operation and to enhanced access to law, e.g. provisional measures, taking
of evidence, orders for money payment and time limits.
39. As regards substantive law, an overall
study is requested on the need to approximate Member States’ legislation in
civil matters in order to eliminate obstacles to the good functioning of civil
proceedings. The Council should report back by 2001."
On 3 December 1998 an Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on
how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of
freedom, security and justice was adopted (so called Vienna Action Plan).
Following this plan a number of Regulations and
initiatives were issued by the EU, among which we can mention:
·
Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May
2000 on insolvency proceedings;
·
Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May
2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial
documents in civil or commercial matters. [Official Journal L 160, 30.06.2000];
·
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22
December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments
in civil and commercial matters [Official Journal L 12, 16.01.2001];
·
Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May
2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of
evidence in civil and commercial matters;
·
a Green Paper on Compensation for crime victims
[COM(2001) 536 final];
·
a Green Paper (of 9 February 2000) on Legal aid
in civil matters: The problems confronting the cross-border litigant;
·
a Green Paper on alternative dispute resolution
in civil and commercial law [COM(2002) 196 final];
·
a Proposal for a Council Directive to improve
access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules
relating to legal aid and other financial aspects of civil proceedings
[COM(2002) 13 final];
·
a Proposal for a Council Regulation creating a
European enforcement order for uncontested claims [COM(2002) 159 final];
·
Council Decision of 28 May 2001 establishing a
European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.
2. Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Family Law Decisions throughout
the EU: Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 ("Brussels
II").
As far as family law is concerned, the first instrument in the field of
judicial co-operation has been the so-called "Brussels II"
Regulation: more precisely the Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May
2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of
both spouses.
On 28 May 1998, the Member States had signed the Convention on Jurisdiction
and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters (known
as the "Brussels II Convention") and the Protocol on its
interpretation by the Court of Justice (Official Journal C 221, 16.07.1998). This Convention was never ratified by the
Member States, because the Council issued the above-mentioned Regulation. This
Convention was intended to extend the 1998 Brussels Convention to cover
matrimonial matters, which were previously excluded from the scope of
cooperation between Member States.
The Amsterdam Treaty changed the legal basis for judicial cooperation in
civil matters, which has now been incorporated into the EC Treaty (Article 65).
The Convention was therefore converted into a Community instrument (Regulation)
to ensure that it is implemented quickly and to overcome the practical
difficulties encountered by citizens in their daily lives. A Regulation was
preferred to a directive because it enables strictly defined and harmonised
rules to be applied quickly. Furthermore, it incorporates the content of the
Convention, thereby ensuring continuity.
The Regulation covers civil proceedings relating to divorce, legal
separation and annulment of marriage, as well as matters concerning parental
responsibility for children of both spouses when the matrimonial proceedings
take place. Jurisdiction in matters relating to divorce, legal separation or
annulment of marriage is determined according to the country of residence of
one or both spouses or according to their nationality. The competent court also
has jurisdiction in all matters concerning parental responsibility over a child
of both spouses, if the child is resident in that Member State. Where this is
not the case, the same court may have jurisdiction in certain circumstances.
Where a case is brought in a Member State, the court concerned determines
whether it has jurisdiction by reference to the criteria set out in the
Regulation.
Where parallel cases are brought in different Member States, the second
court seized waits for the first court seized to accept jurisdiction, then
declines jurisdiction in favour of that court. In urgent cases it may take
provisional or protective measures.
Judgements in matrimonial matters or in matters of parental
responsibility delivered in one Member State are recognised in the other Member
States without any particular formalities, and no procedures are required for
the updating of civil status documents. There is provision for the
non-recognition of a judgement in matrimonial matters or in matters of parental
responsibility on certain grounds, but a judgement may not be reviewed as to
its substance in any circumstances. Automatical recognition does not mean
automatical enforceability. Therefore a judgement on the exercise of parental
responsibility in respect of a child of both parties must be declared
enforceable in a Member State at the request of an interested party who wants
to enforce it in a State different from the one in which the decision has been
rendered. A decision on an application for a declaration of enforceability may
be appealed against.
Upon its entry into force, this Regulation has replaced the existing
conventions between the Member States and took precedence over the
international conventions on the same subject. The Regulation has entered into
force on 1st March 2001.
3. Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Family Law Decisions throughout
the EU: the New Regulation on which the Council Reached Political Agreement on
3 October 2003 ("Brussels II bis").
The "Brussels II" Regulation has undergone a certain criticism
especially as far as decisions involving parental responsibility are concerned.
Actually the Regulation still requires a procedure of exequatur for this
kind of judgements. A French proposal was submitted on 3 July 2000, aiming at
eliminating the need for an exequatur in relation to judicial decisions
concerning rights of access of parents. Another limit of the Regulation is that
it does not deal with cases concerning parental responsibility if such cases
are not related to a procedure of divorce, legal separation or annulment of
marriage. Therefore it does not apply to children born out of wedlock. This
field was covered by a Commission’s proposal submitted on 6 September 2001.
These two proposals for amendment of the "Brussels II" Regulations
were merged together in a new proposal from the Commission, on 3 May 2002.
On 3 October 2003 the Council has reached an agreement on such a Commission’s proposal for a new Council Regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.
The new Regulation has two elements.
First, it takes over the provisions on divorce (as well as on legal separation
and marriage annulment) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 as they are.
Second, it integrates into a complete system of rules on parental
responsibility the provisions on parental responsibility of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1347/2000, the Commission proposal on parental responsibility and the
French initiative on rights of access. As a result, Council Regulation (EC) No
1347/2000 is repealed, its provisions having been taken over in their entirety
in the new Regulation.
The Council has opted for a single instrument on divorce (as well as on
legal separation and marriage annulment) and parental responsibility with a
view to facilitating the work of judges and practitioners when dealing with
questions on parental responsibility that often arise in the context of
matrimonial proceedings. The alternative would have been to repeal only the
provisions on parental responsibility of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000
to bring them together with the Commission proposal on parental responsibility
and the French initiative on rights of access. The end result would have been
two separate instruments dealing with related matters, one on divorce and one
on parental responsibility, the former being an existing instrument (Council
Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000) but with half of its provisions repealed. This
alternative was not deemed satisfactory neither for facilitating the
application of the law by judges and practitioners nor for promoting the
simplification and coherence of Community legislation.
The new Regulation aims at the recognition and enforcement within the
Community of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental
responsibility based on common rules on jurisdiction. As regards matrimonial
matters, the relevant provisions are taken over from Council Regulation (EC) No
1347/2000.
As regards matters of parental responsibility, a new set of rules is
proposed, which builds on the existing provisions on parental responsibility in
the context of divorce (as well as of legal separation and marriage annulment)
proceedings of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 and also brings together
the two proposals under discussion. In particular, a broad definition of
"parental responsibility" is given in Article 2, according to which
"the term ‘parental responsibility’
shall mean rights and duties given to a natural or legal person by judgment, by operation of law or by an agreement
having legal effect and relating to the person or the property of a child. In
particular, the term shall include rights of custody and rights of
access." It is therefore clear that–according to the new Regulation–no
distinction can be any longer made between legitimate children and children
born out of wedlock, whereas the "Brussels II" Regulation still
refers only to "children of both spouses."
However, the new Regulation does not cover maintenance obligations
between spouses and/or between parents and children, as such aspects are ruled
by the above mentioned "Brussels I" Regulation, still requiring a
procedure of exequatur for the cross-border enforcement of judgements in
these fields.
The European Council meeting at Tampere in October 1999 (Point 34)
identified the area of visiting rights as a priority for judicial co-operation,
as a response to a real social need. As people increasingly move from one
Member State to another, and families break up and are recomposed, children
need a secure legal environment for maintaining relations with persons who have
parental responsibility over them and who may now live in different Member
States. The objective of this new instrument is to protect the child’s best
interests. This means, in particular, to give concrete expression to his or her
fundamental right to maintain contact with both parents, as laid down in
Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
To this end, the new Regulation:
(a) provides for that "The courts of a Member State shall have
jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility over a child who is
habitually resident in that Member State at the time the court is seized"
(see Article 10);
(b) refers to and integrates the provisions of
the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
(see Articles 11 to 15);
(c) provides for the cross-border enforceability of (not only judgments
but as well of) agreements between the parties (see Article 49a);
(d) extends the principle of mutual recognition to all decisions on
parental responsibility (this corresponds to the Commission proposal on
parental responsibility);
(e) abolishes exequatur for
rights of access (this corresponds to the French initiative on rights of
access; it is as well in accordance with an initiative by which the Commission
is proposing abolishing exequatur for
certain judgments in the commercial law area through the creation of a European
Enforcement Order [EEO] for uncontested claims); and
(f)
elaborates a solution for the return of the child in cases of child abduction,
whereby the Member State to which the child has been abducted may take a
provisional protective measure not to return the child, which could in turn be
superseded by a judgment on custody issued by the courts of the Member State of
the child’s habitual residence. Furthermore, should the latter entail the
return of the child, the child should be returned without any special procedure
being required for the recognition and enforcement of the judgment in the
Member State to which the child has been abducted. This means that also in this
case (decision ordering the return of the child) exequatur is abolished.
As said before, in this particular field the provisions of the new Regulation
make a clear reference to the provisions of the Hague Convention and integrate
them (see Articles 11 to 15).
The
Member State shall designate at least one central authority, which will play a
vital role for the application of the new Brussels II Regulation. These may be
the existing authorities entrusted with the application of the 1980 Hague
Convention and should also be entrusted with the application of the 1996 Hague
Convention on parental responsibility. The central authorities will be
effectively integrated in the European Judicial Network and will serve as a
link between the national courts and the central authorities of other Member
States.
The Regulation will enter into force on 1st March 2005, which
is to say exactly 4 years after the first Regulation ("Brussels II")
had entered into force.
4. Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Family Law Decisions throughout
the EU: the Discussions in the Framework of the Lecco Conference; the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.
During the above-mentioned
conference in Lecco representatives of the Commission, as well as scholars and
practitioners have explained the main features of the new Council Regulation,
especially as far as cross-border right of access and child abduction are
concerned. The discussions in plenary assembly have been followed by three
workshops focusing on: (a) the role of international co-operation in cases of
cross-border access rights and child abduction; (b) cross-border marriages and
divorces and (c) successions and matrimonial property rights in a cross-border
context.
As far as these latter matters are
concerned, let me point out that they are excluded from the scope of all Regulations
currently in force or under way ("Brussels I," as well as
"Brussels II" and "Brussels II bis"). However,
already the Vienna Action Plan recommended to "examine the possibility of
drawing up a legal instruments on international jurisdiction, applicable law,
recognition and enforcement of judgments relating to matrimonial property
regimes and those relating to succession. In elaborating such instruments, the
connection between matrimonial property and rules relating to succession should
be taken into account. Work already undertaken within the framework of the
Hague Conference of Private International Law should be taken as well into
account. On such topics EU representatives explained in Lecco that the
Commission had charged a group of experts to draft a study report, which has
been subsequently adopted. This study report suggests, among other things, the
harmonisation of the rules of international private law in the fields of
matrimonial property and successions. Some quite new legal institutions are suggested,
like e.g. a new common "European Matrimonial Property System," which
could be agreed upon by spouses (instead of the property systems provided for
by each Member State’s law) and which would be governed by the same rules all
over Europe.
Another field in which the
Commission is working at this moment is the perspective of eliminating the exequatur
proceedings for all the decisions concerning alimony and maintenance rights
between spouses, which now are ruled by the "Brussels I" Regulation
(see e.g. the judgment of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities issued on February 27th,
1997 in the case C-220/95
– Van den Boogaard vs. Laumen, according to which if the reasoning of a
decision rendered in divorce proceedings shows that the provision which it
awards is designed to enable one spouse to provide for himself or herself or if
the needs and resources of each of the spouses are taken into consideration in
the determination of its amount, the decision will be concerned with
maintenance and will therefore fall within the scope of the Convention of 27
September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial matters, while, on the other hand, where the provision awarded is
solely concerned with dividing property between the spouses, the decision will
be concerned with rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship
and will not therefore be enforceable under the Brussels Convention; a decision
which does both these things may, in accordance with Article 42 of the Brussels
Convention, be enforced in part if it clearly shows the aims to which the
different parts of the judicial provision correspond).
Furthermore, the Commission is
studying the possibility to intervene in the field of cross-border patrimonial
relationships between couples cohabiting out of wedlock.
Representatives of the Commission
insisted on the need to develop a more intense co-operation among the
judiciaries of the Member States. In order to achieve this goal the Commission
has set up a European Judicial Network in civil and
commercial matters, according to a proposal presented by the Commission
and adopted by the Council in May 2001. The network consists of representatives
of the Member States’ judicial and administrative authorities and meets several
times each year to exchange information and experience and boost cooperation
between the Member States as regards civil and commercial law.
More precisely, the Network is composed of: (a) contact points
designated by the Member States; (b) central bodies and central authorities
provided for in Community instruments, instruments of international law to
which the Member States are parties or rules of domestic law in the area of
judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters; (c) the liaison
magistrates to whom Joint Action 96/277/JAI of 22 April 1996 concerning a
framework for the exchange of liaison magistrates to improve judicial
cooperation between the Member States of the European Union applies, where they
have responsibilities in cooperation in civil and commercial matters; (d) any
other appropriate judicial or administrative authority with responsibilities
for judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters whose membership of
the Network is considered to be useful by the Member State to which it belongs.
The Network is responsible for: (a) facilitating judicial cooperation
between the Member States in civil and commercial matters, including devising,
progressively establishing and updating an information system for the members
of the Network; (b) devising, progressively establishing and updating an
information system that is accessible to the public. Without prejudice to other
Community or international instruments relating to judicial cooperation in
civil or commercial matters, the Network develops its activities for the
following purposes in particular: (a) the smooth operation of procedures having
a cross-border impact and the facilitation of requests for judicial cooperation
between the Member States, in particular where no Community or international
instrument is applicable; (b) the effective and practical application of
Community instruments or conventions in force between two or more Member
States; (c) the establishment and maintenance of an information system for the public
on judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in the European Union,
relevant Community and international instruments and the domestic law of the
Member States, with particular reference to access to justice.
The main objective of this body is
therefore to make life easier for people facing litigation of whatever kind
where there is a transnational element – i.e. where it involves more than one
Member State. The Council Decision establishing the network consequently
provided for the establishment of the website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/ejn/)
and determined the main points of its operation. The main purpose of the
network’s website is to outline various national systems of civil and
commercial law. Individuals and firms, and even more so the legal
professions, will find it very useful to have access to knowledge about the
various national systems of civil and commercial law and the legislative
instruments of the European Union and other international organisations
including the United Nations, the Hague Conference and the Council of
Europe.
A vade mecum for the use of
judges and other practitioners shall be drafted within the framework of the
European Judicial Framework for the application of the new Brussels II
Regulation.
5. The role of the Hague Conference and of the Council of Europe in the
Field of Judicial Co-operation in Family Matters.
A pivotal role in Family Law matters
is played as well by the Hague Conference on Private International Law and by
the Council of Europe.
As far as the first institution is
concerned let me just recall, among others, the 1980 Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction, the 1993 Convention on Protection of
Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, and the 1996
Child Protection Convention. An important achievement of the Hague Convention
in this field is the setting up of an international data base on decisions
taken by national courts on international child abduction, known as
"Incadat" (http://212.206.44.26/index.cfm).
The database, which is open to the public, including judges, should encourage
consistent practices and uniform interpretation of the 1980 Convention. Another
important result is the Guide to Good Practice under the 1980 Convention, which
may also assist in interpreting the Convention and understanding its
implementation in different legal systems.
Another important development has
been the growth around the Hague Conventions of an international network of
judges concerned with international child protection matters. For the Hague
Conventions to work successfully, a degree of judicial cooperation, including
in some cases direct international judicial communications is necessary.
Collaboration between judges at the international level also assists in
promoting consistent interpretation of the Conventions. One of the remarkable
developments in recent years has been the holding of a variety of international
judicial conferences and seminars. These in turn have led to the establishment
of a network of judges in Contracting States who act as liaison persons in
facilitating direct judicial communications where these may be needed in Hague
cases and who pass on information to other judges in their own State. This
development has also been supported by the now regular publication of a
judicial newsletter on international child protection.
The international network of liaison judges was
first proposed at the 1998 De Ruwenberg Seminar for judges on the international
protection of children. It was felt that the development of such a network
would facilitate at the international level communications and co‑operation
between judges and would assist in ensuring the effective operation of the 1980
Convention. Direct judicial communications have been helpful in discussing
problems of delay and conflicting jurisdiction and have been used to remove
practical obstacles to secure the safe return of the child and the abducting
parent. In January 2002, a questionnaire addressing the feasibility and / or
desirability of the appointment of a liaison judge or authority, administrative
aspects of direct international judicial communications and practical and legal
aspects of such communications was circulated by the Permanent Bureau to Member
States, Contracting States and interested organisations in order to continue to
explore the practical mechanisms of these communications. A Preliminary Report
followed and was discussed during the September / October 2002 Special
Commission concerning the 1980 Hague Convention which again recognised the
general importance of judicial communications (further information available at
the following website: http://www.hcch.net/).
As far as the Council of Europe is concerned, this institution has
developed an intense activity in setting common standards in a number of ad
hoc recommendations and conventions, aiming, among other things, to
assure a better protection of children, drawing up a great number of
international instruments on this subject. The main result of the large work
which has been done in Strasbourg is represented by five conventions
specifically devoted to children, as well as several recommendations of the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning the fields of family
law and children’s rights.
The five
conventions are:
·
the European Convention on the Adoption of Children (1967),
·
the European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of
Wedlock (1975),
·
the European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions
Concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children (the
Custody Convention - 1980),
·
the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights (1996),
·
the European Convention on Contact Concerning Children
(2003).
As far as Council
of Europe’s recommendations are concerned, they are quite numerous and
important and concern different fields.
Two of them are specifically devoted to nationality of children and of
spouses, in order to ensure equality between husband and wife in acquiring the
nationality of the other spouse and in transmitting their nationality to the
children (see the Resolutions on the Nationality of
Children [(77) 13] and on the Nationality of Spouses of Different Nationalities
[(77) 12]). Other two recommendations deal with the protection
of children against ill-treatment and violence, the first having specific
reference to the social environment of the child and the second to the familiar
one (see the two Recommendations on the Protection of
Children against Ill-Treatment or Violence [(79) 17 and (85) 41]).
Other relevant recommendations in the field of family law are:
·
the resolution upon the age of full legal
capacity [Resolution (72) 291],
·
the resolution upon the equality of spouses in
civil law [Resolution (78) 371],
·
the recommendation upon parental responsibilities [Recommendation No. R
(84) 41],
·
the recommendation upon contributions following divorce [Recommendation
No. R (89) 11].
The main principles
deriving from these instruments are the following:
·
recognition of the child as a person who has capacity and rights, and
not only as someone who needs protection;
·
equality between spouses and between each one of them and their
children;
·
equal treatment for children born in or out of wedlock;
·
recognition of the principle of the child’s interest as a fundamental
criterion for the implementation and interpretation of any provision concerning
the child.
Further information on the activities of the Council of Europe is
available at the following website: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_Affairs/Legal_co-operation/Family_law_and_children%27s_rights/.
For a comprehensive study on the topic of international conventions in
family law matters see Oberto, International
Conventions in the Field of Family Law, since 24 January 2000
available at the following website: http://www.oocities.org/CollegePark/Classroom/6218/conventions/report.htm.
6. The possible role of the International Association of Judges and of the
European Association of Judges in the Field of Judicial Co-operation in Family
Matters.
Taking the floor in Lecco on behalf of the IAJ and of the EAJ, I pointed
out that we the judges are the people called to apply these international
documents. Therefore we should be involved not only in the activities aimed
(like the congress in Lecco) at presenting a Regulation which has already been
prepared and approved, but also in the very process of preparing and drafting
such instruments. We should not forget that future EU Regulations will more and
more affect the way the judiciary is organised within Member States. A
remarkable example in this field is that of Germany, where the number of courts
having jurisdiction on international family law cases has been dramatically
reduced, in order to achieve a greater degree of specialisation in cross-border
disputes: see §
5 of the Gesetz zur Ausführung von Sorgerechtsübereinkommen und zur Änderung
des Gesetzes über die Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit sowie
anderer Gesetze of 5 April 1990 (BGBl.
1990 I 701), as modified by § 1 of the Gesetz zur Änderung von
Zuständigkeiten nach dem Sorgerechtsübereinkommens-Ausführungsgesetz of 13
April 1999 (BGBl. 1999 I 702).
The growth of the complexity of this system
will sooner or later bring about deep reforms within the systems governing the
status of judges in each country belonging to the EU. Furthermore, the process
of globalisation is showing that maybe even the boundaries of Europe are too
narrow and a performing system of judicial co-operation with non-European
countries in civil law matters is more and more needed. It is therefore
necessary that the International Association of Judges–the only existing
organism gathering judges and prosecutors from 63 countries of the whole
world–be heard (and let itself be heard!) in Brussels.
In Lecco I pointed out that the International
Association of Judges and the European Association of Judges are ready to put
their experience at the disposal of the Commission. It is now up to us to
decide through which ways and through which structures we could cope with such
an impressive task.