‘Dearbhaíonn an tAontas Eorpach, i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 27(1) den Choinbhinsiún, go bhfeidhmíonn sé inniúlacht ar na hábhair uile atá faoi rialú ag an gCoinbhinsiún seo. Ní dhéanfaidh a Bhallstáit an Coinbhinsiún a shíniú, a dhaingniú, a ghlacadh ná a fhormheas, ach beidh siad faoi cheangal ag an gCoinbhinsiún de bhua é a bheith tugtha i gcrích ag an Aontas Eorpach.

Ainmneoidh an Coimisiún an duine a chumhachtófar chun an ionstraim aontachais dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 24(4) den Choinbhinsiún a thaisceadh thar ceann an Aontais.

(10)Agus é ag aontú leis an gCoinbhinsiún, ba cheart don Aontas a dhearbhú faoi Airteagal 27 den Choinbhinsiún go bhfeidhmíonn sé inniúlacht ar na hábhair uile atá faoi rialú an Choinbhinsiúin. Dá thoradh sin, ba cheart na Ballstáit a bheith faoi cheangal ag an gCoinbhinsiún de bhua é a bheith tugtha i gcrích ag an Aontas.

(7)I gcomhréir le hAirteagal 3(2) den Chonradh tá an inniúlacht eisiach ag an Aontas chun comhaontú idirnáisiúnta a thabhairt i gcrích sa mhéid is go bhféadfadh sé difear a dhéanamh do chomhrialacha an Aontais nó a raon feidhme a athrú. Déanann an Coinbhinsiún difear do reachtaíocht thánaisteach an Aontais maidir le dlínse agus maidir leis na breithiúnais a eascraíonn astu a aithint agus a fhorfheidhmiú, go háirithe Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1215/2012 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle. Dá bhrí sin, tá inniúlacht eisiach ag an Aontas sna hábhair uile a rialaítear leis an gCoinbhinsiún.

(6)De bhun Airteagal 26 den Choinbhinsiún, eagraíochtaí réigiúnacha um chomhtháthú eacnamaíoch a bhfuil an inniúlacht acu ar roinnt de na hábhair nó ar na hábhair go léir atá faoi rialú ag an gCoinbhinsiún, amhail an tAontas, d’fhéadfaidís an Coinbhinsiún a shíniú, a ghlacadh, a fhormheas agus aontú leis.

(4)De cheal creat cuimsitheach idirnáisiúnta chun breithiúnais eachtracha in ábhair shibhialta agus thráchtála a aithint agus a fhorfheidhmiú, tá timpeallacht dhlíthiúil scaipthe os comhair shaoránaigh agus gnólachtaí an Aontais i láthair na huaire atá ag iarraidh go ndéanfaí breithiúnas a tugadh san Aontas a aithint agus a fhorfheidhmiú i dtír nach Ballstát den Aontas í. Is é an fás sa trádáil idirnáisiúnta agus sna sreabha infheistíochta a mhéadaíonn na rioscaí dlíthiúla sin do ghnólachtaí agus do shaoránaigh an Aontais ach ba cheart aghaidh a thabhairt ar an staid sin trí chóras intuartha trasteorann le haghaidh aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas in ábhair shibhialta nó thráchtála.

Agus é ag aontú leis, ba cheart don Aontas Eorpach, dá bhrí sin, dearbhú a dhéanamh i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 27 den Choinbhinsiún go bhfeidhmíonn an tAontas inniúlacht ar na hábhair uile a rialaítear leis an gCoinbhinsiún agus nach mbeidh a Bhallstáit ina bPáirtithe Conarthacha sa Choinbhinsiún, ach go mbeidh siad faoi cheangal ag an gCoinbhinsiún de bhua aontachas an Aontais. I gcomhréir le Prótacal (Uimh. 22) maidir le seasamh na Danmhairge atá i gceangal leis an gConradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh ar dá réir nach bhfuil an Danmhairg rannpháirteach i mbearta arna nglacadh de bhun Airteagal 81(2) den Chonradh, níl an Danmhairg san áireamh in aontú an Aontais leis an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais.

I bhfianaise inniúlacht sheachtrach eisiach an Aontais Eorpaigh agus ós rud é go gceadaítear leis an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais, de bhua Airteagal 26 de, go n-aontaíonn Eagraíocht Réigiúnach um Chomhtháthú Eacnamaíoch, ba cheart go mbeadh an tAontas ina Pháirtí Conarthach sa Choinbhinsiún féin gan na Ballstáit bunaithe ar chinneadh dearfach ón gComhairle.

Comhfhreagróidh sásra meastóireachta agus faireacháin inmheánach an Aontais Eorpaigh a mhéid is féidir le sásra measta ag an HCCH. Déanfar an mheastóireacht go tráthrialta agus áireofar inti measúnú ar na tionchair a thiocfaidh as aontachas an Aontais leis an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais chomh maith leis an meastóireacht ar cé acu a baineadh amach na príomhchuspóirí arna saothrú tríd an aontachas nó nár baineadh amach iad. Thairis sin, áireofar sa mheastóireacht freisin anailís ar inmhianaitheacht dearbhuithe chun a mheas ar cheart an dearbhú/na dearbhuithe a rinneadh cheana a choinneáil nó a chúlghairm nó ar cheart dearbhú/dearbhuithe nua a dhéanamh.

Maidir le faireachán agus meastóireacht a dhéanamh ar fheidhmiú praiticiúil an Choinbhinsiúin, glacfaidh an tAontas páirt i gcruinnithe an Choimisiúin Speisialta a eagraíonn HCCH go rialta chun cur i bhfeidhm praiticiúil an Choinbhinsiúin a mheas.

Níl aon impleacht bhuiséadach ar bhuiséad an Aontais. Féadfaidh costais aonuaire a bheith ag na Ballstáit chun an Coinbhinsiún a chur chun feidhme agus d’fhéadfadh costais beagán níos airde a bheith ar bhreithiúna na mBallstát mar gheall ar an méadú beag a mheastar a thiocfaidh ar líon na gcásanna. Meastar, áfach, go ndéanfar na costais sin a fhritháireamh sa mheántéarma agus san fhadtéarma leis an laghdú a mheastar a thiocfaidh ar fhad na n-imeachtaí.

Leis an togra seo, cuirfear feabhas ar rochtain ar cheartas do ghnólachtaí agus do shaoránaigh an Aontais mar go dtiocfaidh feabhas go ginearálta ar aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas trasteorann, dlúthchuid den cheart rochtana ar an gceartas, agus go mbeidh siad níos intuartha. Den chuid is mó, léiríonn an Coinbhinsiún na rialacha maidir le haithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas is infheidhme go hinmheánach san Aontas (Rialachán Ia na Bruiséile). Dá réir sin, níl difríocht shuntasach i bprionsabal idir an Coinbhinsiún agus cearta bunúsacha an Aontais ná prionsabail na cothroime nós imeachta. Go háirithe, foráiltear sa Choinbhinsiún maidir le foras chun aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas nach bhfuil ag luí le prionsabail bhunúsacha na cothroime nós imeachta nó le beartas poiblí an Stáit ina n-iarrtar aithint agus forfheidhmiú a dhiúltú. Chabhródh sé sin lena áirithiú ar bhonn cur chuige a rinneadh a thástáil go bhfuil cearta bunúsacha amhail an ceart chun cosanta nó an ceart chun triail chóir a fháil urramaithe go cuí i dtír nach Ballstát den Aontas í. Ina theannta sin, trí fheabhas a chur ar aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas a thugann cúirteanna an Aontais Eorpaigh i dtríú tíortha, leis an gCoinbhinsiún, éascófar an tsaoirse chun gnólacht a sheoladh agus chun feabhas a chur ar urramú an chirt chun maoine san Aontas.

Níl impleachtaí costais ag an togra do FBManna. Ina theannta sin, toisc go mbíonn FBManna i bhfabhar dlíthíocht chúirte i dtaca le headráin, agus mar gheall ar an méadú ar dheimhneacht dhlíthiúil mar aon le costais níos ísle agus fad na n-imeachtaí i ndlíthíocht idirnáisiúnta, táthar ag súil go mbeidh tionchar dearfach aige sin ar thoilteanas FBManna dul i mbun idirbheartaíocht idirnáisiúnta nó cur léi. De bharr aontú leis an gCoinbhinsiún féadfar feabhas a chur ar iomaíochas na FBManna freisin. Is amhlaidh atá sé toisc go dtiocfaidh laghdú ar chostais na dlíthíochta idirnáisiúnta agus, dá bhrí sin, tiocfaidh laghdú ar chostais go hindíreach a bhaineann le gnó idirnáisiúnta a dhéanamh, rud a thabharfaidh buntáiste comparáideach do FBManna san Aontas thar ghnólachtaí ó thíortha nár dhaingnigh an Coinbhinsiún. Táthar ag súil go mbeidh tionchar dearfach ag an togra ar thrádáil agus ar infheistíocht idirnáisiúnta freisin.

Ar an taobh eile, measadh nár ghá dearbhú lena n-eisiafaí na hábhair eile a breithníodh. Déantar foráil sa Choinbhinsiún maidir le cosaint leordhóthanach do pháirtithe níos laige (tomhaltóirí, fostaithe nó sealbhóir an pholasaí árachais, an t-árachaí nó tairbhí polasaí árachais), cé go mbeidh sí ar shlí eile ná mar atá in acquis an Aontais. Thairis sin, neamhchosúil le léasanna tráchtála ar mhaoin dhochorraithe atá suite san Aontas, d’fhéadfadh dearbhuithe eile, dearbhuithe atá níos leithne ó thaobh raon feidhme de, bac a chur ar chuspóirí an tionscnaimh seo a bhaint amach go hiomlán.

Tá an rogha thosaíochta beartais go háirithe i gcomhréir go hiomlán le acquis an Aontais maidir leis an ábhar, eadhon Rialachán Ia na Bruiséile. Faoin rogha thosaíochta, eisiatar na léasanna tráchtála (tionóntachtaí) ó chur i bhfeidhm an Choinbhinsiúin, ó tharla go dtugtar dlínse eisiach do chúirteanna san Aontas le Rialachán Ia na Bruiséile chun déileáil le díospóidí a bhaineann le tionóntachtaí tráchtála maoine dochorraithe atá suite san Aontas.

Mar gheall ar chóras níos simplí agus níos intuartha le haghaidh aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas eachtrach in ábhair shibhialta agus thráchtála, cuirfear trádáil agus infheistíocht idirnáisiúnta chun cinn freisin. Ós rud é gur dócha go dtiocfaidh fás ar thrádáil agus ar infheistíocht idirnáisiúnta, d’fhéadfadh tionchair dhearfacha a bheith ann ar an micrileibhéal agus ar an macraileibhéal, mar aon le héifeachtaí dearfacha ar na deiseanna fostaíochta. Bainfidh FBManna go háirithe tairbhe as an rochtain fheabhsaithe ar an gceartas agus as an deimhneacht dhlíthiúil san idirbheartaíocht idirnáisiúnta a thagann as an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais.

Cuirfear leis an rogha thosaíochta feabhas ar rochtain ar cheartas agus méadófar deimhneacht dhlíthiúil agus intuarthacht i ndlíthíocht cúirteanna idirnáisiúnta. Meastar gur idir EUR 1.1 agus 2.6 milliún faoi 2026 na sochair dhíreacha a bheidh ann do shaoránaigh agus do ghnólachtaí an Aontais Eorpaigh agus iad ag iarraidh breithiúnas de chuid an Aontais a aithint agus a fhorfheidhmiú sna tíortha roghnaithe sin nach Ballstát den Aontas iad. Is é atá i gceist leis sin laghdú réamh-mheasta de 10 %-20 % de na costais a bhaineann le haitheantas agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas an Aontais i dtíortha nach Ballstát den Aontas iad. Ina theannta sin, meastar go dtiocfaidh laghdú trí mhí go sé mhí ar mheánfhad na n-imeachtaí ar an meán.

Chun tionchair an Choinbhinsiúin maidir le Breithiúnais ar chúrsaíocht breithiúnas idir tíortha an Aontais agus tíortha nach ballstáit den Aontas iad a chainníochtú, rinneadh toimhde oibre go mbeidh ocht dtír roghnaithe nach Ballstát den Aontas iad páirteach sa Choinbhinsiún. Ba iad na tíortha nach Ballstát den Aontas iad a roghnaíodh an Astráil, an Airgintín, an Bhrasaíl, Ceanada, an tSín, an tSeapáin, an Chóiré Theas agus Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá. Rinneadh meastachán ar na tionchair uile le haghaidh thréimhse thagartha 2022-2026.

Measadh inmhianaitheacht an Aontais aontú leis an gCoinbhinsiún faoi chuimsiú tuarascála ar an Measúnú Tionchair. I gcás ina n-aontóidh an tAontas leis an gCoinbhinsiún, cuireadh roinnt roghanna beartais malartacha san áireamh. Sna roghanna beartais sin cuireadh san áireamh an t-aontachas gan aon dearbhú nó le dearbhuithe atá sainithe go sonrach – le dearbhú faoi Airteagal 18 den Choinbhinsiún lena n-eisiatar ábhair áirithe ón raon feidhme (ábhair tomhaltóirí, fostaíochta nó árachais agus/nó léasanna tráchtála ar mhaoin dhochorraithe), nó le dearbhú faoi Airteagal 19 den Choinbhinsiún lena n-eisiatar breithiúnais in ábhair shibhialta agus thráchtála a bhfuil baint ag Stáit nó eintitis Stáit leo.

Ar deireadh, bhí an Coimisiún ag brath ar an saineolas fairsing maidir le haithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas ar leibhéal an Aontais le cur i bhfeidhm Rialachán Ia na Bruiséile, Rialachán (CE) 44/2001 a tháinig i bhfeidhm roimhe, rialachán arb é féin an comharba ar Choinbhinsiún na Bruiséile 1968 ar an ábhar céanna. Treoir fhairsing ó CBAE ann maidir le léirmhíniú agus cur i bhfeidhm na n-ionstraimí sin ar leibhéal an Aontais.

Leis an staidéar, thángthas ar an gconclúid gurb é an bealach is oiriúnaí chun na cuspóirí beartais a bhaint amach aontú leis an gCoinbhinsiún gan aon dearbhú. Léirítear an chonclúid sin sa togra seo ós rud é nach moltar aontú leis an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais ach le dearbhú teoranta spriocdhírithe a mheastar a bheith riachtanach chun comhleanúnachas a bhaint amach le acquis an Aontais atá ann cheana. Ag an tráth céanna, ní chuireann dearbhú teoranta den sórt sin bac ar bhaint amach chuspóirí eile an togra seo ná ar a éifeachtúlacht ó thaobh na sochar díreach a bhfuiltear ag súil leo do ghnólachtaí agus do shaoránaigh an Aontais.

Bhí an Coimisiún ag brath freisin ar staidéar a rinne conraitheoir seachtrach chun tacú leis an anailís ar an measúnú tionchair. Tá anailís chuimsitheach eacnamaíoch agus dhlíthiúil ar na roghanna beartais éagsúla atá ar fáil sa staidéar seo. Baintear úsáid as uirlisí anailíseacha éagsúla sa staidéar, idir úsáid sonraí eimpíreacha a bhailítear ar bhealaí éagsúla (suirbhé ar líne, ceistneoir agus agallaimh), agus staitisticí nó anailís deisce. I gcás nach raibh sonraí cainníochtúla ar fáil, baineadh úsáid as meastacháin cháilíochtúla. Dheimhnigh saineolaithe seachtracha na meastacháin sin, mar aon leis na toimhdí éagsúla ar baineadh úsáid astu, ag cruinniú ceardlainne.

Bhí an t-ionchur ó na gníomhaíochtaí comhairliúcháin sin an-tábhachtach chun tuairimí ón gCoimisiúin a chruthú maidir leis an gcur chuige is fearr atá le glacadh sa togra seo. Dá thoradh sin, chinn an Coimisiún a mholadh go n-aontódh an tAontas Eorpach le Coinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais agus go mbeadh dearbhú teoranta spriocdhírithe ann lena n-eisiafaí na cúirteanna san Aontas aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas tríú tíortha lenar tugadh rialú ar léasanna tráchtála (tionóntachtaí) ar mhaoin dhochorraithe atá suite san Aontas.

Ar deireadh, aontú do chreat iltaobhach atá ann cheana ar ina leith a chuidigh an tAontas an chaibidlíocht a dhéanamh, bheadh sé sin níos éifeachtúla ná dul i mbun caibidlíochta le Stáit nach Ballstáit den Aontas iad ar leibhéal déthaobhach. Ag brath ar líon na Stát a chloífidh leis an gCoinbhinsiún, d’áiritheodh sé creat coiteann dlíthiúil chun déileáil le breithiúnais ó thríú tíortha cibé áit arb as dóibh. D’áiritheofaí leis creat coiteann dlíthiúil amháin do ghnólachtaí agus do shaoránaigh an Aontais Eorpaigh a bheadh ag lorg aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas a thugann cúirteanna san Aontas i dtíortha nach Ballstát den Aontas iad.

Ní féidir na cuspóirí sin a bhaint amach ach amháin trí chloí le córas aitheanta agus forfheidhmithe fhrithpháirtigh breithiúnas i measc Stát, amhail an córas a glacadh sa Choinbhinsiún maidir le breithiúnais. Níl an deis ag na Ballstáit coinbhinsiúin iltaobhacha ná dhéthaobhacha maidir le haithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas a chaibidliú a thuilleadh toisc gur ag an Aontas Eorpach go heisiach atá inniúlacht sheachtrach in ábhair a bhaineann le dlínse idirnáisiúnta agus aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas in ábhair shibhialta agus thráchtála.

Is iad cuspóirí an togra seo rochtain ar cheartas a fheabhsú do pháirtithe an Aontais trí aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas a thugann cúirteanna san Aontas Eorpach a éascú cibé áit a bhfuil sócmhainní ag an bhféichiúnaí, chun deimhneacht dhlíthiúil a mhéadú do ghnólachtaí agus do shaoránaigh a bhfuil baint acu le hidirbheartaíocht idirnáisiúnta agus chun costais agus fad na n-imeachtaí i ndlíthíocht cúirte trasteorann a laghdú. Ag an tráth céanna, féachann an togra seo le haithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas tríú tíortha san Aontas a cheadú ach amháin i gcás ina n-urramaítear bunphrionsabail dhlí an Aontais agus nach ndéantar difear don acquis inmheánach.

I gcomhréir le hAirteagal 3(2) CFAE tá an inniúlacht eisiach ag an Aontas chun comhaontú idirnáisiúnta a thabhairt i gcrích sa mhéid is go bhféadfadh tabhairt i gcrích den sórt sin difear a dhéanamh do chomhrialacha AE nó a raon feidhme a athrú. Mar thoradh ar ghlacadh Rialachán I na Bruiséile, tá inniúlacht eisiach eachtrach den sórt sin faighte ag an Aontas chun rialáil a dhéanamh ar ábhair a bhaineann le haitheantas agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas tríú tíortha in ábhair shibhialta agus tráchtála.

Tá an Coinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais ann mar thoradh ar phróiseas leanúnach chun cúrsaíocht breithiúnas a éascú ar fud an domhain. Neartaíonn sé Coinbhinsiún 2005 maidir le Roghnú Cúirte, coinbhinsiún a bhfuil sé d’aidhm aige raon feidhme na mbreithiúnas a d’fhéadfadh a chur i gcúrsaíocht i measc na Stát a leathnú. Is é is aidhm do na Coinbhinsiúin a glacadh faoi choimirce Chomhdháil na Háige é sin a dhéanamh gan cur isteach ar choinbhinsiúin speisialaithe a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ann i réimsí ar leith amhail ábhair mhuirí agus iompair ná ar choinbhinsiúin dhéthaobhacha atá ann cheana.

Dá bhrí sin, ba cheart dearbhú spriocdhírithe a dhéanamh tráth an aontachais gan aithint ná forfheidhmiú breithiúnas i ndáil le tionóntachtaí tráchtála maoine dochorraithe atá suite san Aontas a bheith ann. Leis an dearbhú teoranta sin, ráthaítear go mbeidh an Coinbhinsiún comhleanúnach le acquis an Aontais gan bac a chur ar chuspóirí beartais uile an togra seo a bhaint amach ina n-iomláine.

Ní athródh an Coinbhinsiún acquis inmheánach an Aontais in éagmais aon dearbhaithe toisc go bhfuil feidhm ag an dá ionstraim i gcomhthéacsanna éagsúla. Is amhlaidh atá toisc go bhfuil feidhm ag Rialachán Ia na Bruiséile maidir le breithiúnais laistigh den Aontas a aithint agus a fhorfheidhmiú, agus bheadh feidhm ag an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le breithiúnais de thionscnamh tíortha nach Ballstáit den Aontas iad. Tá dearbhú de dhíth, áfach, chun a áirithiú nach ndéanfaidh aontachas an Choinbhinsiúin difear do ghnóthú chuspóirí beartais Rialachán Ia na Bruiséile. Go háirithe i gcásanna a bhaineann le tionóntachtaí tráchtála, tugtar le Rialachán Ia na Bruiséile dlínse eisiach do chúirteanna i mBallstát ina bhfuil an mhaoin dhochorraithe lonnaithe. Ní bhíonn rialacha dlínse eisiacha den sórt sin le haghaidh tionóntachtaí tráchtála sa Choinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais. Faoin gCoinbhinsiún, bheadh sé d’oibleagáid ar na Ballstáit, dá bhrí sin, breithiúnais tríú tíortha maidir le léasanna tráchtála ar mhaoine dochorraithe atá suite ar a gcríoch a aithint agus a fhorfheidhmiú. Bheadh sé sin contrártha leis an gcuspóir beartais atá taobh thiar de Rialachán Ia na Bruiséile chun dlínse eisiach a shannadh do chúirteanna san Aontas le haghaidh díospóidí a bhaineann le maoin dhochorraithe atá suite san Aontas.

Chomhlánódh an Coinbhinsiún maidir le breithiúnais an creat dlíthiúil atá ann cheana san Aontas, rud a d’áiritheodh cúrsaíocht breithiúnas eachtrach thar an gcóras atá ann cheana is infheidhme i measc Bhallstáit an Aontais agus Stáit LEE agus na hEilvéise.

Ar an leibhéal idirnáisiúnta, thug an tAontas Eorpach an coinbhinsiún idirnáisiúnta i gcrích le Stáit LEE agus leis an Eilvéis (Coinbhinsiún Lugano 2007). Ina theannta sin, tugadh Coinbhinsiún 2005 maidir le Roghnú Cúirte i gcrích mar thoradh ar chéad iarracht creat iltaobhach a bhunú chun breithiúnais a aithint agus a fhorfheidhmiú. Áirithítear leis an gcoinbhinsiún seo aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas i gcásanna inar chomhaontaigh na páirtithe ar an gcúirt a bhfuil dlínse eisiach aici a ndíospóid a éisteacht. Dhaingnigh an tAontas an Coinbhinsiún seo in 2015, rud a chiallaíonn go bhfuil sé mar chuid de acquis an Aontais anois.

Tá an togra seo i gcomhréir le cuspóirí an Choimisiúin a leagtar amach sna Treoirlínte Polaitiúla don Choimisiún Eorpach (2019-2024), go háirithe maidir leis an tosaíocht ‘Ugach nua do Dhaonlathas na hEorpa’. Tá sé i gcomhréir le tiomantas an Aontais don iltaobhachas sa chaidreamh idirnáisiúnta agus is dóigh go spreagfar tíortha eile agus comhpháirtithe trádála an Aontais le páirt a ghlacadh sa Choinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais. Bheadh aontachas an Aontais le coinbhinsiún iltaobhach maidir le breithiúnais in ábhair shibhialta agus thráchtála a aithint agus a fhorfheidhmiú i gcomhréir freisin le beartas an Aontais arb é is aidhm dó fás a mhéadú sa trádáil idirnáisiúnta agus san infheistíocht eachtrach agus soghluaisteacht saoránach ar fud an domhain.

Thacaigh an tAontas Eorpach i gcónaí le córas iltaobhach a chruthú le haghaidh aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas in ábhair shibhialta nó thráchtála agus dá bhrí sin bhí sé rannpháirteach go gníomhach i bpróiseas caibidlíochta an Choinbhinsiúin d’fhonn aontachas a d'fhéadfadh sé a dhéanamh leis an gcóras idirnáisiúnta sin a bheith ann amach anseo. Bunaithe ar an sainordú a thug an Chomhairle don Choimisiún Eorpach i mí na Bealtaine 2016, rinne an Coimisiún ionadaíocht thar ceann leasanna an Aontais le linn phróiseas na caibidlíochta ag HCCH.

Tá sé d’acmhainn ag an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais, coinbhinsiún a glacadh faoi choimirce Chomhdháil na Háige um an Dlí Idirnáisiúnta Príobháideach (‘HCCH’), an córas atá ann faoi láthair maidir le cúrsaíocht breithiúnas eachtrach a fheabhsú. Is é is aidhm don Choinbhinsiún rochtain éifeachtach ar cheartas a chur chun cinn do chách agus trádáil agus infheistíocht agus soghluaisteacht iltaobhach atá bunaithe ar rialacha a éascú, trí chomhar breithiúnach.

Is é an fás sa trádáil idirnáisiúnta agus sna sreabha infheistíochta a mhéadaíonn na rioscaí dlíthiúla sin do ghnólachtaí agus do shaoránaigh an Aontais ach is féidir aghaidh a thabhairt ar an staid sin trí chóras intuartha le haghaidh aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas sibhialta nó thráchtála ar bhonn trasteorann. Go dtí le déanaí, áfach, níor rialaíodh aithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas eachtrach in ábhair shibhialta agus thráchtála go cuimsitheach ar leibhéal idirnáisiúnta, fiú más ann do roinnt comhaontuithe déthaobhacha nó iltaobhacha a bhfuil raon feidhme teoranta acu. Athraíodh an staid sin nuair a glacadh an Coinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais Eachtracha in Ábhair Shibhialta nó Thráchtála a Aithint agus a Fhorfheidhmiú (an ‘Coinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais’) i mí Iúil 2019.

De cheal creat cuimsitheach idirnáisiúnta chun breithiúnais eachtracha in ábhair shibhialta agus thráchtála a aithint agus a fhorfheidhmiú, tá timpeallacht dhlíthiúil scaipthe os comhair shaoránaigh agus ghnólachtaí an Aontais i láthair na huaire atá ag iarraidh breithiúnas a tugadh san Aontas a aithint agus a fhorfheidhmiú i dtír nach Ballstát den Aontas í. Ciallaíonn sé sin nach mór do chreidiúnaithe breithiúnais dul trí mheascán de dhlíthe náisiúnta i dtíortha nach Ballstáit den Aontas iad maidir le glacadh le breithiúnais eachtracha, mar aon le conarthaí déthaobhacha, réigiúnacha agus iltaobhacha atá i bhfeidhm. Dá bhrí sin, chun seans a bheith ann go bhforfheidhmeofar a mbreithiúnas, ní mór dóibh siúd atá i mbun dlíthíocht idirnáisiúnta acmhainní, am agus go minic saineolas seachtrach a infheistiú chun straitéis láidir dlíthíochta a ullmhú. Is fachtóirí díspreagtha iad an chastacht sin, mar aon leis na costais agus an éiginnteacht dhlíthiúil a bhaineann leis sin, fachtóirí a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ina gcúis le gnólachtaí agus saoránaigh dlíthíocht chúirte a sheachaint agus cineálacha eile réitigh díospóide a lorg, géilleadh do leanúint dá n-éilimh, nó rogha a dhéanamh gan dul i mbun idirbheartaíocht idirnáisiúnta ar fad. Dá réir sin, d’fhéadfadh sé sin tionchar diúltach a bheith aige ar thoilteanas ghnólachtaí agus shaoránaigh an Aontais dul i mbun gníomhaíochtaí trádála agus infheistíocht idirnáisiúnta. Ina theannta sin, toisc gurb éiginnte forfheidhmiú bhreithiúnais an Aontais i dtíortha nach Ballstáit den Aontas iad, tá bac ar cheart rochtana ar cheartas ghnólachtaí agus shaoránaigh an Aontais.

AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH An Bhruiséil,16.7.2021 COM(2021) 388 final IARSCRÍBHINN

a ghabhann leis an Togra le haghaidh CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE maidir le haontú an Aontais Eorpaigh leis an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le Breithiúnais Eachtracha in Ábhair Shibhialta nó Thráchtála a Aithint agus a Fhorfheidhmiú {SEC(2021) 279 final} - {SWD(2021) 192 final} - {SWD(2021) 193 final}



CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS The Contracting Parties to the present Convention, Desiring to promote effective access to justice for all and to facilitate rule-based multilateral trade and investment, and mobility, through judicial co-operation, Believing that such co-operation can be enhanced through the creation of a uniform set of core rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters, to facilitate the effective recognition and enforcement of such judgments, Convinced that such enhanced judicial co-operation requires, in particular, an international legal regime that provides greater predictability and certainty in relation to the global circulation of foreign judgments, and that is complementary to the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements, Have resolved to conclude this Convention to this effect and have agreed upon the following provisions – CHAPTER I – SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS Article 1

Scope 1. This Convention shall apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil or commercial matters. It shall not extend in particular to revenue, customs or administrative matters. 2. This Convention shall apply to the recognition and enforcement in one Contracting State of a judgment given by a court of another Contracting State. Article 2

Exclusions from scope 1. This Convention shall not apply to the following matters – (a) the status and legal capacity of natural persons; (b) maintenance obligations; (c) other family law matters, including matrimonial property regimes and other rights or obligations arising out of marriage or similar relationships; (d) wills and succession; (e) insolvency, composition, resolution of financial institutions, and analogous matters;

(f) the carriage of passengers and goods; (g) transboundary marine pollution, marine pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction, ship-source marine pollution, limitation of liability for maritime claims, and general average; (h) liability for nuclear damage; (i) the validity, nullity, or dissolution of legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, and the validity of decisions of their organs; (j) the validity of entries in public registers; (k) defamation; (l) privacy; (m) intellectual property; (n) activities of armed forces, including the activities of their personnel in the exercise of their official duties; (o) law enforcement activities, including the activities of law enforcement personnel in the exercise of their official duties; (p) anti-trust (competition) matters, except where the judgment is based on conduct that constitutes an anti-competitive agreement or concerted practice among actual or potential competitors to fix prices, make rigged bids, establish output restrictions or quotas, or divide markets by allocating customers, suppliers, territories or lines of commerce, and where such conduct and its effect both occurred in the State of origin; (q) sovereign debt restructuring through unilateral State measures. 2. A judgment is not excluded from the scope of this Convention where a matter to which this Convention does not apply arose merely as a preliminary question in the proceedings in which the judgment was given, and not as an object of the proceedings. In particular, the mere fact that such a matter arose by way of defence does not exclude a judgment from the Convention, if that matter was not an object of the proceedings. 3. This Convention shall not apply to arbitration and related proceedings. 4. A judgment is not excluded from the scope of this Convention by the mere fact that a State, including a government, a governmental agency or any person acting for a State, was a party to the proceedings. 5. Nothing in this Convention shall affect privileges and immunities of States or of international organisations, in respect of themselves and of their property. Article 3

Definitions 1. In this Convention – (a) “defendant” means a person against whom the claim or counterclaim was brought in the State of origin; (b) “judgment” means any decision on the merits given by a court, whatever that decision may be called, including a decree or order, and a determination of costs or expenses of the proceedings by the court (including an officer of the court), provided that the determination relates to a decision on the merits which may be recognised or enforced under this Convention. An interim measure of protection is not a judgment.

2. An entity or person other than a natural person shall be considered to be habitually resident in the State – (a) where it has its statutory seat; (b) under the law of which it was incorporated or formed; (c) where it has its central administration; or (d) where it has its principal place of business. CHAPTER II – RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT Article 4

General provisions 1. A judgment given by a court of a Contracting State (State of origin) shall be recognised and enforced in another Contracting State (requested State) in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. Recognition or enforcement may be refused only on the grounds specified in this Convention. 2. There shall be no review of the merits of the judgment in the requested State. There may only be such consideration as is necessary for the application of this Convention. 3. A judgment shall be recognised only if it has effect in the State of origin, and shall be enforced only if it is enforceable in the State of origin. 4. Recognition or enforcement may be postponed or refused if the judgment referred to under paragraph 3 is the subject of review in the State of origin or if the time limit for seeking ordinary review has not expired. A refusal does not prevent a subsequent application for recognition or enforcement of the judgment. Article 5

Bases for recognition and enforcement 1. A judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement if one of the following requirements is met – (a) the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought was habitually resident in the State of origin at the time that person became a party to the proceedings in the court of origin; (b) the natural person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought had their principal place of business in the State of origin at the time that person became a party to the proceedings in the court of origin and the claim on which the judgment is based arose out of the activities of that business; (c) the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought is the person that brought the claim, other than a counterclaim, on which the judgment is based; (d) the defendant maintained a branch, agency, or other establishment without separate legal personality in the State of origin at the time that person became a party to the proceedings in the court of origin, and the claim on which the judgment is based arose out of the activities of that branch, agency, or establishment; (e) the defendant expressly consented to the jurisdiction of the court of origin in the course of the proceedings in which the judgment was given; (f) the defendant argued on the merits before the court of origin without contesting jurisdiction within the timeframe provided in the law of the State of origin, unless it is evident that an objection to jurisdiction or to the exercise of jurisdiction would not have succeeded under that law;

(g) the judgment ruled on a contractual obligation and it was given by a court of the State in which performance of that obligation took place, or should have taken place, in accordance with (i) the agreement of the parties, or (ii) the law applicable to the contract, in the absence of an agreed place of performance, unless the activities of the defendant in relation to the transaction clearly did not constitute a purposeful and substantial connection to that State; (h) the judgment ruled on a lease of immovable property (tenancy) and it was given by a court of the State in which the property is situated; (i) the judgment ruled against the defendant on a contractual obligation secured by a right in rem in immovable property located in the State of origin, if the contractual claim was brought together with a claim against the same defendant relating to that right in rem; (j) the judgment ruled on a non-contractual obligation arising from death, physical injury, damage to or loss of tangible property, and the act or omission directly causing such harm occurred in the State of origin, irrespective of where that harm occurred; (k) the judgment concerns the validity, construction, effects, administration or variation of a trust created voluntarily and evidenced in writing, and – (i) at the time the proceedings were instituted, the State of origin was designated in the trust instrument as a State in the courts of which disputes about such matters are to be determined; or (ii) at the time the proceedings were instituted, the State of origin was expressly or impliedly designated in the trust instrument as the State in which the principal place of administration of the trust is situated. This sub-paragraph only applies to judgments regarding internal aspects of a trust between persons who are or were within the trust relationship; (l) the judgment ruled on a counterclaim – (i) to the extent that it was in favour of the counterclaimant, provided that the counterclaim arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim; or (ii) to the extent that it was against the counterclaimant, unless the law of the State of origin required the counterclaim to be filed in order to avoid preclusion; (m) the judgment was given by a court designated in an agreement concluded or documented in writing or by any other means of communication which renders information accessible so as to be usable for subsequent reference, other than an exclusive choice of court agreement. For the purposes of this sub-paragraph, an “exclusive choice of court agreement” means an agreement concluded by two or more parties that designates, for the purpose of deciding disputes which have arisen or may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, the courts of one State or one or more specific courts of one State to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts. 2. If recognition or enforcement is sought against a natural person acting primarily for personal, family or household purposes (a consumer) in matters relating to a consumer contract, or against an employee in matters relating to the employee’s contract of employment – (a) paragraph 1(e) applies only if the consent was addressed to the court, orally or in writing; (b) paragraph 1(f), (g) and (m) do not apply. 3. Paragraph 1 does not apply to a judgment that ruled on a residential lease of immovable property (tenancy) or ruled on the registration of immovable property. Such a judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement only if it was given by a court of the State where the property is situated.

Article 6

Exclusive basis for recognition and enforcement Notwithstanding Article 5, a judgment that ruled on rights in rem in immovable property shall be recognised and enforced if and only if the property is situated in the State of origin. Article 7

Refusal of recognition and enforcement 1. Recognition or enforcement may be refused if – (a) the document which instituted the proceedings or an equivalent document, including a statement of the essential elements of the claim – (i) was not notified to the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable them to arrange for their defence, unless the defendant entered an appearance and presented their case without contesting notification in the court of origin, provided that the law of the State of origin permitted notification to be contested; or (ii) was notified to the defendant in the requested State in a manner that is incompatible with fundamental principles of the requested State concerning service of documents; (b) the judgment was obtained by fraud; (c) recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the requested State, including situations where the specific proceedings leading to the judgment were incompatible with fundamental principles of procedural fairness of that State and situations involving infringements of security or sovereignty of that State; (d) the proceedings in the court of origin were contrary to an agreement, or a designation in a trust instrument, under which the dispute in question was to be determined in a court of a State other than the State of origin; (e) the judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given by a court of the requested State in a dispute between the same parties; or (f) the judgment is inconsistent with an earlier judgment given by a court of another State between the same parties on the same subject matter, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the requested State. 2. Recognition or enforcement may be postponed or refused if proceedings between the same parties on the same subject matter are pending before a court of the requested State, where – (a) the court of the requested State was seised before the court of origin; and (b) there is a close connection between the dispute and the requested State. A refusal under this paragraph does not prevent a subsequent application for recognition or enforcement of the judgment. Article 8

Preliminary questions 1. A ruling on a preliminary question shall not be recognised or enforced under this Convention if the ruling is on a matter to which this Convention does not apply or on a matter referred to in Article 6 on which a court of a State other than the State referred to in that Article ruled. 2. Recognition or enforcement of a judgment may be refused if, and to the extent that, the judgment was based on a ruling on a matter to which this Convention does not apply, or on a matter referred to in Article 6 on which a court of a State other than the State referred to in that Article ruled. Article 9

Severability

Recognition or enforcement of a severable part of a judgment shall be granted where recognition or enforcement of that part is applied for, or only part of the judgment is capable of being recognised or enforced under this Convention. Article 10

Damages 1. Recognition or enforcement of a judgment may be refused if, and to the extent that, the judgment awards damages, including exemplary or punitive damages, that do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered. 2. The court addressed shall take into account whether and to what extent the damages awarded by the court of origin serve to cover costs and expenses relating to the proceedings. Article 11

Judicial settlements (transactions judiciaires) Judicial settlements (transactions judiciaires) which a court of a Contracting State has approved, or which have been concluded in the course of proceedings before a court of a Contracting State, and which are enforceable in the same manner as a judgment in the State of origin, shall be enforced under this Convention in the same manner as a judgment. Article 12

Documents to be produced 1. The party seeking recognition or applying for enforcement shall produce – (a) a complete and certified copy of the judgment; (b) if the judgment was given by default, the original or a certified copy of a document establishing that the document which instituted the proceedings or an equivalent document was notified to the defaulting party; (c) any documents necessary to establish that the judgment has effect or, where applicable, is enforceable in the State of origin; (d) in the case referred to in Article 11, a certificate of a court (including an officer of the court) of the State of origin stating that the judicial settlement or a part of it is enforceable in the same manner as a judgment in the State of origin. 2. If the terms of the judgment do not permit the court addressed to verify whether the conditions of this Chapter have been complied with, that court may require any necessary documents. 3. An application for recognition or enforcement may be accompanied by a document relating to the judgment, issued by a court (including an officer of the court) of the State of origin, in the form recommended and published by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. 4. If the documents referred to in this Article are not in an official language of the requested State, they shall be accompanied by a certified translation into an official language, unless the law of the requested State provides otherwise. Article 13

Procedure 1. The procedure for recognition, declaration of enforceability or registration for enforcement, and the enforcement of the judgment, are governed by the law of the requested State unless this Convention provides otherwise. The court of the requested State shall act expeditiously. 2. The court of the requested State shall not refuse the recognition or enforcement of a judgment under this Convention on the ground that recognition or enforcement should be sought in another State. Article 14

Costs of proceedings 1. No security, bond or deposit, however described, shall be required from a party who in one Contracting State applies for enforcement of a judgment given by a court of another Contracting State on the sole ground that such party is a foreign national or is not domiciled or resident in the State in which enforcement is sought.

2. An order for payment of costs or expenses of proceedings, made in a Contracting State against any person exempt from requirements as to security, bond, or deposit by virtue of paragraph 1 or of the law of the State where proceedings have been instituted, shall, on the application of the person entitled to the benefit of the order, be rendered enforceable in any other Contracting State. 3. A State may declare that it shall not apply paragraph 1 or designate by a declaration which of its courts shall not apply paragraph 1. Article 15

Recognition and enforcement under national law Subject to Article 6, this Convention does not prevent the recognition or enforcement of judgments under national law. CHAPTER III – GENERAL CLAUSES Article 16

Transitional provision This Convention shall apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments if, at the time the proceedings were instituted in the State of origin, the Convention had effect between that State and the requested State. Article 17

Declarations limiting recognition and enforcement A State may declare that its courts may refuse to recognise or enforce a judgment given by a court of another Contracting State if the parties were resident in the requested State, and the relationship of the parties and all other elements relevant to the dispute, other than the location of the court of origin, were connected only with the requested State. Article 18

Declarations with respect to specific matters 1. Where a State has a strong interest in not applying this Convention to a specific matter, that State may declare that it will not apply the Convention to that matter. The State making such a declaration shall ensure that the declaration is no broader than necessary and that the specific matter excluded is clearly and precisely defined. 2. With regard to that matter, the Convention shall not apply – (a) in the Contracting State that made the declaration; (b) in other Contracting States, where recognition or enforcement of a judgment given by a court of a Contracting State that made the declaration is sought. Article 19

Declarations with respect to judgments pertaining to a State 1. A State may declare that it shall not apply this Convention to judgments arising from proceedings to which any of the following is a party – (a) that State, or a natural person acting for that State; or (b) a government agency of that State, or a natural person acting for such a government agency. The State making such a declaration shall ensure that the declaration is no broader than necessary and that the exclusion from scope is clearly and precisely defined. The declaration shall not distinguish between judgments where the State, a government agency of that State or a natural person acting for either of them is a defendant or claimant in the proceedings before the court of origin.

2. Recognition or enforcement of a judgment given by a court of a State that made a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 may be refused if the judgment arose from proceedings to which either the State that made the declaration or the requested State, one of their government agencies or a natural person acting for either of them is a party, to the same extent as specified in the declaration. Article 20

Uniform interpretation In the interpretation of this Convention, regard shall be had to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application. Article 21

Review of operation of the Convention The Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law shall at regular intervals make arrangements for review of the operation of this Convention, including any declarations, and shall report to the Council on General Affairs and Policy. Article 22

Non-unified legal systems 1. In relation to a Contracting State in which two or more systems of law apply in different territorial units with regard to any matter dealt with in this Convention – (a) any reference to the law or procedure of a State shall be construed as referring, where appropriate, to the law or procedure in force in the relevant territorial unit; (b) any reference to the court or courts of a State shall be construed as referring, where appropriate, to the court or courts in the relevant territorial unit; (c) any reference to a connection with a State shall be construed as referring, where appropriate, to a connection with the relevant territorial unit; (d) any reference to a connecting factor in relation to a State shall be construed as referring, where appropriate, to that connecting factor in relation to the relevant territorial unit. 2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a Contracting State with two or more territorial units in which different systems of law apply shall not be bound to apply this Convention to situations which involve solely such different territorial units. 3. A court in a territorial unit of a Contracting State with two or more territorial units in which different systems of law apply shall not be bound to recognise or enforce a judgment from another Contracting State solely because the judgment has been recognised or enforced in another territorial unit of the same Contracting State under this Convention. 4. This Article shall not apply to Regional Economic Integration Organisations. Article 23

Relationship with other international instruments 1. This Convention shall be interpreted so far as possible to be compatible with other treaties in force for Contracting States, whether concluded before or after this Convention. 2. This Convention shall not affect the application by a Contracting State of a treaty that was concluded before this Convention. 3. This Convention shall not affect the application by a Contracting State of a treaty concluded after this Convention as concerns the recognition or enforcement of a judgment given by a court of a Contracting State that is also a Party to that treaty. Nothing in the other treaty shall affect the obligations under Article 6 towards Contracting States that are not Parties to that treaty. 4. This Convention shall not affect the application of the rules of a Regional Economic Integration Organisation that is a Party to this Convention as concerns the recognition or enforcement of a judgment given by a court of a Contracting State that is also a Member State of the Regional Economic Integration Organisation where – (a) the rules were adopted before this Convention was concluded; or

(b) the rules were adopted after this Convention was concluded, to the extent that they do not affect the obligations under Article 6 towards Contracting States that are not Member States of the Regional Economic Integration Organisation. CHAPTER IV – FINAL CLAUSES Article 24

Signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession 1. This Convention shall be open for signature by all States. 2. This Convention is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by the signatory States. 3. This Convention shall be open for accession by all States. 4. Instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, depositary of the Convention. Article 25

Declarations with respect to non-unified legal systems 1. If a State has two or more territorial units in which different systems of law apply in relation to matters dealt with in this Convention, it may declare that the Convention shall extend to all its territorial units or only to one or more of them. Such a declaration shall state expressly the territorial units to which the Convention applies. 2. If a State makes no declaration under this Article, the Convention shall extend to all territorial units of that State. 3. This Article shall not apply to Regional Economic Integration Organisations. Article 26

Regional Economic Integration Organisations 1. A Regional Economic Integration Organisation which is constituted solely by sovereign States and has competence over some or all of the matters governed by this Convention may sign, accept, approve or accede to this Convention. The Regional Economic Integration Organisation shall in that case have the rights and obligations of a Contracting State, to the extent that the Organisation has competence over matters governed by this Convention. 2. The Regional Economic Integration Organisation shall, at the time of signature, acceptance, approval or accession, notify the depositary in writing of the matters governed by this Convention in respect of which competence has been transferred to that Organisation by its Member States. The Organisation shall promptly notify the depositary in writing of any changes to its competence as specified in the most recent notice given under this paragraph. 3. For the purposes of the entry into force of this Convention, any instrument deposited by a Regional Economic Integration Organisation shall not be counted unless the Regional Economic Integration Organisation declares in accordance with Article 27(1) that its Member States will not be Parties to this Convention. 4. Any reference to a "Contracting State" or "State" in this Convention shall apply equally, where appropriate, to a Regional Economic Integration Organisation. Article 27

Regional Economic Integration Organisation as a Contracting Party without its Member States 1. At the time of signature, acceptance, approval or accession, a Regional Economic Integration Organisation may declare that it exercises competence over all the matters governed by this Convention and that its Member States will not be Parties to this Convention but shall be bound by virtue of the signature, acceptance, approval or accession of the Organisation. 2. In the event that a declaration is made by a Regional Economic Integration Organisation in accordance with paragraph 1, any reference to a “Contracting State” or “State” in this Convention shall apply equally, where appropriate, to the Member States of the Organisation.

Article 28

Entry into force 1. This Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of the period during which a notification may be made in accordance with Article 29(2) with respect to the second State that has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession referred to in Article 24. 2. Thereafter this Convention shall enter into force – (a) for each State subsequently ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to it, on the first day of the month following the expiration of the period during which notifications may be made in accordance with Article 29(2) with respect to that State; (b) for a territorial unit to which this Convention has been extended in accordance with Article 25 after the Convention has entered into force for the State making the declaration, on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months after the notification of the declaration referred to in that Article. Article 29

Establishment of relations pursuant to the Convention 1. This Convention shall have effect between two Contracting States only if neither of them has notified the depositary regarding the other in accordance with paragraph 2 or 3. In the absence of such a notification, the Convention has effect between two Contracting States from the first day of the month following the expiration of the period during which notifications may be made. 2. A Contracting State may notify the depositary, within 12 months after the date of the notification by the depositary referred to in Article 32(a), that the ratification, acceptance, approval or accession of another State shall not have the effect of establishing relations between the two States pursuant to this Convention. 3. A State may notify the depositary, upon the deposit of its instrument pursuant to Article 24(4), that its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall not have the effect of establishing relations with a Contracting State pursuant to this Convention. 4. A Contracting State may at any time withdraw a notification that it has made under paragraph 2 or 3. Such a withdrawal shall take effect on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months following the date of notification. Article 30

Declarations 1. Declarations referred to in Articles 14, 17, 18, 19 and 25 may be made upon signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession or at any time thereafter, and may be modified or withdrawn at any time. 2. Declarations, modifications and withdrawals shall be notified to the depositary. 3. A declaration made at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall take effect simultaneously with the entry into force of this Convention for the State concerned. 4. A declaration made at a subsequent time, and any modification or withdrawal of a declaration, shall take effect on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months following the date on which the notification is received by the depositary. 5. A declaration made at a subsequent time, and any modification or withdrawal of a declaration, shall not apply to judgments resulting from proceedings that have already been instituted before the court of origin when the declaration takes effect. Article 31

Denunciation 1. A Contracting State to this Convention may denounce it by a notification in writing addressed to the depositary. The denunciation may be limited to certain territorial units of a non-unified legal system to which this Convention applies. 2. The denunciation shall take effect on the first day of the month following the expiration of 12 months after the date on which the notification is received by the depositary. Where a longer period for the denunciation to take effect is specified in the notification, the denunciation shall take effect upon the expiration of such longer period after the date on which the notification is received by the depositary. Article 32

Notifications by the depositary