sou · H1B363 · 2013-09-12 00:00:00 — Andra instrument föreskriver ett förfarande i ett steg, där förfarandet är kontradiktoriskt från början. I förfaranden som sker i flera steg föreslår utredningen att tings- rätten ska vara behörig att pröva såväl den första formella pröv- ningen som prövningen av ansökan om ändring. En part kan därefter överklaga tingsrättens beslut till hovrätten. En sådan lösning inne- bär enligt utredningens uppfattning att den reella verkställbarhets- prövningen överflyttas och att instansordningens princip upprätt- hålls. Utredningen föreslår att tingsrätten, vid den första formella pröv- ningen i ett exekvaturförfarande som föreskriver flera steg, ska vara domför med en lagfaren domare. Vid en ansökan om ändring får dock rätten bestå av tre lagfarna domare, om det finns särskilda skäl med hänsyn till ärendets beskaffenhet. En domare som företagit den första formella prövningen ska, enligt utredningens förslag, inte få delta i prövningen av en ansökan om ändring av beslutet. Vidare föreslås att en domare som deltagit i den första formella prövningen eller en ansökan om ändring inte ska få delta i pröv- ningen av verkställigheten av avgörandet. Utredningen föreslår att ärendelagen ska vara tillämplig vid rättens handläggning av ansökan om ändring (i förfaranden som sker i flera steg) och vid ansökan om verkställbarhet (i förfaranden som sker i ett steg). Överklagande ska kunna ske till såväl hovrätt som till , med de krav på prövningstillstånd som gäller enligt ärendelagen. Utredningens förslag till kompletterande bestämmelser och förslag till ändringar med anledning av överflyttandet av exekvaturpröv- ningen bör träda i kraft som den nya I-förord- ningen i huvudsak ska börja tillämpas, dvs. Utredningens förslag till kompletterande bestämmelser för den nya I-förordningen kräver inga övergångsbestämmelser. Däremot föreslås en övergångsbestämmelse när det gäller förslaget om att flytta exekvaturprövningen från till tingsrätt. Bestämmelsen innebär att äldre bestämmelser ska tillämpas på exekvaturförfaranden som inletts före ikraftträdandet. The remit of the Inquiry is to analyse Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of Parliament and of the Council of on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg- ments in civil and commercial matters (the new I Regu- lation) and to identify similarities and differences in relation to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the original I Regulation) and other relevant EU regulations in the area. The Inquiry is to examine and propose legislative provisions that are needed in light of the new I Regulation. The remit also includes examining the issue of a general transfer of the exequatur procedure from the of Appeal to district courts. The Inquiry is to present the legislative proposals called for by these considerations. The new I Regulation The original I Regulation has been in force since 1 2002. For EU Member States, this Regulation replaced the 1968 Convention. To improve the application of certain of the I Regu- lation provisions, further facilitate the free movement of judgments and enhance access to , Parliament and the Council of Union adopted the new I Regu- lation on . The new I Regulation entered into force on 10 January 2013, and will mainly be applied from 10 January 2015. Many of the new I Regulation articles reflect the original I Regulation, but the new Regulation also contains several new features. The biggest change in the new Regulation is that the requirement of a declaration of enforceability as a condition for enforcement in a other than the one in which the decision was given has been abolished. Otherwise, the most important changes in the new Regulation are that agreements on jurisdiction have been made more effective and that certain additional pro- tective provisions have been introduced for weaker parties, such as consumers and employees. An express provision has also been in- troduced stating that if a measure in the foreign decision is not known in the national law of the enforcing , that measure is, to the extent possible, to be adapted to a measure known in the law of that which has equivalent effects attached to it and pursues similar aims and interests. As before, under the new I Regulation, decisions from Member States are to be recognised without the need for any special procedure. Regarding enforcement, the requirement of a preceding declaration of enforceability, i.e. an exequatur, has been abolished in the new Regulation. This means that decisions covered by the scope of the new I Regulation are directly enforce- able in another . However, the person against whom enforcement is sought may apply for refusal of the recognition or enforcement of the decision. This may be done if any of the grounds for refusal stated in the Regulation are present. The abolishment of the exequatur procedure and the procedure for examination of the grounds for refusal under the new Regu- lation mean that supplementary provisions are needed. The Inquiry proposes that an application for the enforcement of a foreign decision under the new I Regulation is to be examined by the Swedish Enforcement Authority. Furthermore, the Inquiry proposes that a foreign decision covered by the new I Regulation is to be enforced as an equivalent Swedish decision. If there is no equivalent decision in Swedish law, it is proposed that the foreign decision is to be enforced as a judgment, provided that the Regulation does not stipulate otherwise. Under the Inquirys proposal, the provisions of the Debt Enforcement Code, or provisions referred to by the Debt Enforcement Code, are to be applied when implementing an enforcement procedure in . The Regulation also contains requirements concerning service and, in certain cases, translation of documents before enforcement can be carried out. The Swedish Enforcement Authority is respon- sible for serving and, when necessary, translating documents. The Regulation does not regulate how service is to be carried out; it is instead to be determined in each individual case in accordance with the provisions of the Service of Process Act or, if applicable, the EU Regulation on Service. Regarding the procedure for examination of the grounds for refusal according to the Regulation, the Inquiry proposes that such examinations be conducted by a district court as the court of first instance. Under the proposal, the competent district court is the district court that, under Chapter 18, Section 1 of the Debt Enforce- ment Code, examines appeals of decisions taken by the Swedish Enforcement Authority. The provision states that the competent district court is the district court stipulated by the Government in view of where the defendant has his or her habitual . Chapter 17 Section 1 of the Debt Enforcement Ordinance lists the 24 competent district courts. Jurisdiction is determined by the county (or former county) in which the defendant has his or her habitual . If the defendant does not have his or her habi- tual in , decisions taken by the Swedish Enforce- ment Authority are appealed to District Court (Chapter 17, Section 1, second paragraph of the Debt Enforcement Ordinance). The general principle is that the district court in the county seat has jurisdiction. However, the competent district court for County is District Court. The term defendant refers to the adversary party in the enforcement matter. The choice of competent district courts has been made in order to take into account that an examination of an application for refusal of recognition or enforcement can often be expected at the same time as, or in close connection with, an examination of impediments to enforcement under Chapter 3, Section 21 of the Debt Enforce- ment Code and of any other enforcement issues that the Swedish Enforcement Authority may examine. The Inquiry considers that it is beneficial to the processing and to the parties if an application for refusal of recognition or enforcement is examined by the same district courts that orders concerning enforcement are appealed to. When enforcement of a foreign decision is sought, a party, in addition to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement listed in the Regulation, may also refer to the impediments to enforce- ment stipulated in national legislation (see Chapter 3, Section 21 of the Debt Enforcement Code). Objections of this kind are examined by the Swedish Enforcement Authority in the first instance. Since the Swedish Enforcement Authority is not considered competent to examine grounds for refusal under the Regulation, it necessarily follows from the provisions that parallel procedures can arise in situations where a debtor refers to both impediments to enforce- ment under Chapter 3, Section 21 of the Debt Enforcement Code and grounds for refusal under the Regulation. The Inquiry pro- poses that in situations where a debtor submits circumstances to the Swedish Enforcement Authority that can be perceived as a re- quest for an examination of grounds for refusal under the Regulation, the Authority is obliged to inform the debtor, in writing and without delay, of the option of applying to a district court for an examina- tion of the grounds for refusal. In situations where a debtor chooses to apply directly to a court for an examination of the grounds for refusal under the Regulation, it is proposed that the court must inform the Swedish Enforcement Authority in writing that it has received such an application. In a situation where a debtor, in the context of an application to a court for examination of refusal of recognition or enforcement, refers to circumstances that can be associated with an objection to enforcement under Chapter 3, Section 21 of the Debt Enforcement Code, it is incumbent upon the court, within the scope of its ser- vice obligation, to refer the applicant to the proper authority. The new I Regulation also contains a provision on adapting foreign measures or orders. The Regulation entrusts the individual Member States with determining how, and by whom, the adaptation is to be carried out. The Inquiry proposes that the Swedish Enforcement Authority should be the competent authority for assessing issues of adaptation, and that such adaptation should be dealt with as an issue within the scope of the decision on enforcement that the Authority is to take. A special decision concerning adaptation is not required. However, the grounds for the enforcement order must clearly state that an adaptation has occurred and how it was carried out. Inquirys proposal means that a measure or order concerning adaptation will be a part of the enforcement order, it will be possible to appeal it within the scope of an appeal against the actual enforce- ment order. Under the proposal, processing and appeals of enforce- ment orders that contain an adaptation measure are otherwise to follow the provisions of the Debt Enforcement Code, or provisions referred to by the Code. The Inquiry proposes that the Court Matters Act should supple- ment the provisions of the Regulation when a Court examines the grounds for refusal under the Regulation. Appeals may be addressed to both the court of appeal and the Supreme Court, subject to the requirements concerning leave to appeal under the Court Matters Act. Under the Regulation, the court in the of origin is, upon request, to issue a certificate using the form annexed to the Regulation. This certificate is to be submitted by the party who invokes the judgment or requests enforcement of the judgment. The Regulation allows each to specify which of the official languages of EU institutions, in addition to its own, may be accepted as a translation of the certificate. In this area, the Inquiry proposes that Swedish authorities should accept forms using Swedish, Danish or English. Transfer of the exequatur procedure Enforcing foreign civil law judgments in usually requires that in an exequatur procedure, a court issues a declaration of enforce- ability. Rules on exequatur are found in several statutes. One such is the Act with supplementary provisions on the juris- diction of courts and on recognition and international enforcement of certain decisions (2006:74) (the 2006 version of the Act). The annexes to the instruments covered by the 2006 Act and the 2006 Act itself indicate that issues of exequatur are examined by the of Appeal as the court of first instance. The area of family law contains several instruments concerning court jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Two EU Regulations are among the most important of these instru- ments – The II Regulation and the Maintenance Regu- lation. The supplementary legislation to these Regulations stipulates that in situations where exequatur is required under these Regu- lations, of Appeal is to be the exequatur court. There are a large number of other laws that specify of Appeal as the exclusive forum for examining issues of recog- nition and enforcement of foreign decisions. Rules to this effect are found in e.g. the Act on Issues relating to Matrimonial Property Relations (1990:272). The Act concerning Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Decisions relating to Custody etc. (1989:14) (the Enforcement Act) contains provisions on recognition and enforcement of decisions pertaining to the 1980 European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children (the 1980 ) and the 1980 Hague Con- vention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the 1980 Hague Convention). Under the 1980 , the competent court is the district court where the child is habitually resident. The 1980 Hague Convention gives District Court exclusive jurisdiction in matters con- cerning the return of children. The fact that of Appeal is the court of first instance for exequatur procedures entails a deviation from the customary division of responsibilities among the courts. The appeals system has traditionally been based on a functional division between the different levels in the judicial structure, with the main focus of the administration of to lie with district courts. The primary task of the court of appeal is to review decisions taken by district courts. The issue of a transfer of exequatur procedures to district courts as the court of first instance has been raised in various contexts. It was determined that a reform of this kind should await the review of the I Regulation. A general transfer of the exequatur procedure The fact that of Appeal is the court of first instance in exequatur proceedings is contrary to the principles of the appeals system. The Inquiry considers that there are no compelling reasons why of Appeal should continue to hear these matters as the court of first instance. On the contrary, it would be most appropriate for these matters, as with other cases and matters, to be heard by district courts as the court of first instance. In light of this, the Inquiry proposes that exequatur proceedings that are currently handled by of Appeal are to be exa- mined by district courts as the court of first instance. The Inquiry proposes that where subsequent enforcement is carried out under the Debt Enforcement Code, an application for enforcement is to be submitted to the district court that, under Chapter 18, Section 1 of the Debt Enforcement Code, examines appeals of decisions taken by the Swedish Enforcement Authority. In certain situations where there is no actual defendant, the appli- cation is to be submitted to the district court, determined by Chapter 18, Section 1 of the Debt Enforcement Code, where one of the applicants has their habitual , or where the person or persons indicated in the application have their habitual . In enforcement issues under the II Regulation that con- cern the person of a child where the subsequent enforcement is carried out under Chapter 21 of the Children and Parents Code, it is instead proposed that the district court that, under Chapter 21, Section 1 of the Children and Parents Code, can examine enforce- ment of a judgment or an order on custody, or access is to be the competent court. The same is proposed for decisions under the 1996 Hague Convention that concern the person of a child. It follows from this that all district courts in the country will be competent to examine such an application for enforcement. In situations where a decision contains both orders concerning the person of a child and other orders, such as orders concerning the property of the child, it is proposed that the court that examines an application under Chapter 21 of the Children and Parents Code is to be competent to examine enforcement regarding the entire decision. No changes are proposed regarding the jurisdiction rules in the Enforcement Act. There are two different procedures for exequatur. Some instru- ments stipulate a procedure containing several steps. step, only a formal examination is carried out and the opposite party is not given the opportunity to comment on the application. The parties can subsequently apply to appeal a decision on the basis of an application for a declaration of enforceability (step two in the process). grounds for refusal are examined at this stage. Other instruments stipulate a one-step procedure, where the proceedings are adversarial in nature from the beginning. Regarding procedures that take place in several steps, the Inquiry proposes that district courts are to be competent to hear both the first formal examination and the examination of the application for an appeal. A party can subsequently appeal the district courts decision to the court of appeal. The Inquiry considers that a solution of this kind means that the actual declaration of enforceability is trans- ferred and that the principles of the appeals system are maintained. The Inquiry proposes that at the first formal hearing in an exequatur procedure that stipulates several steps, the district court is to be constituted by a single, legally trained judge. In an appeal of the declaration of enforceability, however, the court may consist of three legally trained judges if there are particular grounds with regard to the nature of the matter. Under the Inquirys proposal, a judge who has presided over the first, formal hearing is to be dis- qualified from participating in the hearing of an appeal of the decision. Furthermore, it is proposed that a judge who has participated in the first, formal hearing or an appeal is to be disqualified from dealing with any examination of enforcement of the decision. The Inquiry proposes that the Court Matters Act is to be appli- cable to the courts examination of appeals (in procedures that take place in several steps) and for applications for enforcement (in one- step procedures). Appeals may be addressed to both the court of appeal and the Supreme Court, subject to the requirements con- cerning leave to appeal under the Court Matters Act. Entry into force and transitional provisions The Inquirys proposed supplementary provisions and proposed changes due to the transfer of the exequatur procedure should enter into force at the same time as the new I Regulation will mainly begin to be applied, i.e. from 10 January 2015. The Inquirys proposed supplementary provisions for the new I Regulation do not require any transitional provisions. On the other hand, a transitional provision is proposed regarding the proposal of transferring the exequatur procedure from of Appeal to district courts. This provision would mean that older provisions are to be applied to exequatur procedures initiated prior to the entry into force. lag (0000:00) med kompletterande bestämmelser om domstols behörighet och om erkännande och internationell verkställighet av vissa avgöranden 1 § Denna lag innehåller bestämmelser som kompletterar 1.Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EU) nr 1215/2012 av om domstols behörighet och om erkän- nande och verkställighet av domar på privaträttens område1 (I-förordning), 2.rådets förordning (EG) nr 44/2001 av om domstols behörighet och om erkännande och verkställighet av domar på privat rättens område2 (I-förordning), 3.konventionen om domstols behörig- het och om verkställighet av domar på privaträttens område jämte tillträdeskonventioner3 (Brysselkonventionen), 4.konventionen om domstols behörighet och om verkställighet av domar på privaträttens område4 (Luganokonvention) samt konventionen om 1EUT L 351, 20.12.2012, s. 1. 2EGT L 12, , s. 1. 3EGT C 27, 26.1.1998, s. 1. 4EGT 1988 L 319, 25.11.1988, s. 9. domstols behörighet och om erkännande och verkställighet av domar på privaträttens område5 (Luganokonvention), och och rådets förordning (EG) nr 805/2004 av om införande av en europeisk exekutionstitel för obestridda fordringar6 (förordningen om den europeiska exe- kutionstiteln). De unionsrättsliga instrument som anges i punkterna 1 och 2 tillämpas, enligt avtal mellan Europeiska gemen- skapen och om domstols behörighet och om erkännande och verkställighet av domar på privaträttens område7 (), i förhållande till . 2 § Om det finns svensk domsrätt enligt en unionsrättsakt eller ett internationellt instrument som avses i 1 § och annan behörig dom- stol saknas, är behörig. 3 § Om en ansökan görs enligt en unionsrättsakt eller ett inter- nationellt instrument som avses i 1 § 1–4 ska ett avgörande som rör ett civilrättsligt anspråk inte erkännas eller verkställas i , om det har meddelats i en annan stat inom ramen för ett brottmål som avser ett icke uppsåtligt brott mot någon som 1.varken har hemvist eller är medborgare i den staten, 2.inte har följt ett föreläggande om personlig inställelse, och 3.inte har haft tillfälle att svara i målet. Erkännande och verkställighet enligt instrumenten i 1 § 2–4 4 § En ansökan om att ett utländskt avgörande ska erkännas eller förklaras vara verkställbart i enligt en unionsrättsakt eller ett internationellt instrument som avses i 1 § 2–4 ska göras hos den 5EUT L 339, 21.12.2007, s.3. 6EUT L 143, 30.4.2004, s. 15. 7EUT L 299, 16.11.2005, s. 62 tingsrätt som enligt 18 kap. 1 § utsökningsbalken prövar över- klagande av beslut. 5 § Vid handläggningen av en ansökan om ändring av ett beslut om att ett utländskt avgörande ska erkännas eller förklaras vara verk- ställbart i enligt en unionsrättsakt eller ett internationellt instrument som avses i 1 § 2–4 tillämpas bestämmelserna i lagen (1996:242) om domstolsärenden, om inte annat följer av en unions- rättsakt eller ett internationellt instrument som avses i 1 § 2–4. En ansökan om ändring ska, om den gjorts av den som har gjort ansökan om att ett utländskt avgörande ska erkännas eller förklaras vara verkställbart i , ha kommit in till tingsrätten från den dag då beslutet meddelades. En domare som har prövat en ansökan om att ett utländskt av- görande ska erkännas eller förklaras vara verkställbart i får inte delta i prövningen av en ansökan om ändring av beslutet. 6 § Har en ansökan enligt en unionsrättsakt eller ett internationellt instrument som avses i 1 § 2–4 om att ett utländskt avgörande ska förklaras vara verkställbart bifallits, ska avgörandet verkställas enligt utsökningsbalkens bestämmelser på samma sätt som en svensk dom som har vunnit laga kraft, om inte annat följer av unionsrättsakten eller det internationella instrumentet. Vid verkställighet av ett utländskt avgörande som rör en säker- hetsåtgärd ska i stället bestämmelserna om verkställighet av beslut om kvarstad eller annan säkerhetsåtgärd tillämpas. 7 § Om tingsrätten bifaller en ansökan om att ett utländskt avgöran- de ska förklaras vara verkställbart, ska tingsrättens beslut anses innefatta ett beslut om kvarstad eller om någon annan åtgärd som avses i 15 kap. . Erkännande och verkställighet enligt förordningen om den europeiska exekutionstiteln