Page - 59 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 2/2017

ALJ 2/2017 Provisional Account Preservation Measures in European Civil Procedure Law 59 II. Recognition and Enforcement of Interim Measures according to Brussels Ia A. Preconditions and Legal Remedies 1. Requirements for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Provisional Measure The recognition and enforcement of judgments issued in other Member States is regulated in Chapter III of the Brussels Ia Regulation. For the purposes of Chapter III, the term judgment in- cludes provisional, including protective, measures ordered by a court or tribunal which, by virtue of this Regulation, has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. However, it does not include provisional measures ordered by a court or tribunal without the defendant being summoned to appear, unless the judgment containing the measure is served on the defendant prior to en- forcement (Art. 2 point a subpara. 2 Brussels Ia Regulation). This means that – contrary to previ- ous case law11 on Article 32 Brussels I Regulation – there is no longer any absolute requirement for a contradictory proceeding. 12 However, the suggested13 inclusion of provisional measures that were issued without prior service on the defendant (if the defendant has the right to subse- quently challenge the measure under the national law of the Member State of origin) did not make it into the Brussels I recast.14 Instead, if the defendant was not summoned prior to the decision making, he or she at least has to be served with the decision prior to enforcement in a different Member State. This mechanism ensures the right to a fair hearing but comes at the cost of a far lower surprise effect of the provisional measure.15 According to Recital 33 of the Brussels Ia Regulation, however, this restriction does not preclude the recognition and enforcement of such measures under national law. Since the Brussels Ia Regulation now explicitly regulates ex parte provisional measures (Art. 2 point a subpara. 2 Brussels Ia Regulation; unlike previously Art. 32 Brussels I Regulation), some authors argue that more favourable16 bilateral treaties are no longer applicable.17 Others maintain that, on the basis of Recital 33 Brussels Ia Regulation, ex parte pro- visional measures can still be recognised and enforced according to domestic law.18 The jurisdiction regime of the Brussels Ia Regulation (as well as its precedents) applies only to cross-border cases. 19 With regard to recognition and enforcement, Articles 36 and 39 Brussels Ia Regulation clearly state that a judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised and en- 11 Case C-125/79, Denilauler v. Couchet Frères, ECLI:EU:C:1980:130. 12 Burkhard Hess, in EU-ZIVILPROZESSRECHT Art. 2 EuGVVO ¶ 12–13 (Peter Schlosser & Burkhard Hess eds., 4th ed. 2015); Stefan Leible, in 1 EUROPÄISCHES ZIVILPROZESS- UND KOLLISIONSRECHT EUZPR/EUIPR Art. 2 Brüssel Ia-VO ¶ 15 (Thomas Rauscher ed., 4th ed. 2016). 13 Cf. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial matters (Recast), COM (2010) 748 final (Dec. 14, 2010) Art. 2. 14 Tanja Domej, Ein wackeliger Balanceakt – Die geplante Verordnung über die Europäische vorläufige Kontenpfändung, 21 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 496, 516–517 (2013); Xandra Kramer, Cross-Border Enforcement and the Brussels I-Bis Regulation: Towards A New Balance Between Mutual Trust and National Control over Fundamental Rights, 60 NETHERLANDS INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 343, 362 (2013). 15 Leible, supra note 12, at Art. 2 Brüssel Ia-VO ¶ 15. 16 Such treaties existed, for example, between Austria and Germany, Austria and Norway or Austria and Sweden. 17 Thomas Garber, Einstweiliger Rechtsschutz nach der neuen EuGVVO, 12 ECOLEX 1071, 1074 (2013); Georg Kodek, in EUROPÄISCHES GERICHTSSTANDS- UND VOLLSTRECKUNGSRECHT – BRÜSSEL IA-VERORDNUNG (EUGVVO 2012) UND ÜBEREINKOMMEN VON LUGANO 2007 Art. 36 EuGVVO ¶ 20 (Dietmar Czernich et al. ed., 4th ed. 2015). 18 Martin Illmer, Arnaud Nuyts & Jonathan Fitchen, Scope and Definitions, in THE BRUSSELS I-REGULATION RECAST 55, 103– 104 (Andrew Dickinson & Eva Lein eds., 2015). 19 Ansgar Staudinger, in 1 EUROPÄISCHES ZIVILPROZESS- UND KOLLISIONSRECHT EUZPR/EUIPR Einl Brüssel Ia-VO ¶ 19 (Thomas Rauscher ed., 4th ed. 2016); Georg Kodek, in 5/1 KOMMENTAR ZU DEN ZIVILPROZESSGESETZEN Art. 1 EuGVVO ¶ 18 (Hans W. Fasching & Andreas Konecny eds., 2nd ed. 2008).