Draft programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters
Date: 2001-01-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: civil law, commercial law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle

15.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 12/1

I

(Information)

COUNCIL

Draft programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of
decisions in civil and commercial matters

(2001/C 12/01)

INTRODUCTION

The Treaty of Amsterdam inserted into the Treaty establishing the European Community a new Title IV
containing specific provisions on judicial cooperation in civil matters.

In order to lend impetus to this cooperation and to set precise guidelines therefor, the European Council
meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 held that ‘enhanced mutual recognition of judicial
decisions and judgments and the necessary approximation of legislation would facilitate cooperation
between authorities and the judicial protection of individual rights’. It approved the principle of mutual
recognition, which should become ‘the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal
matters within the Union’.

In civil matters, the Tampere European Council advocated ‘further reduction of the intermediate measures
which are still required to enable the recognition and enforcement of a decision or judgment 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 judgments 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’.

It asked the Council and the Commission to adopt, by the end of 2000, a programme of measures to
implement the principle of mutual recognition, and added that ‘in this programme, work should also be
launched on a European Enforcement Order and on those aspects of procedural law on which common
minimum standards are considered necessary in order to facilitate the application of the principle of
mutual recognition, respecting the fundamental legal principles of Member States’.

The Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 lays down rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This Convention has undergone several
amendments with the accession of new States to the Community (1) and is now in the process of being
converted into a regulation (2).

(1) A consolidated version of the Brussels Convention was published in OJ C 27 of 26 January 1998.
(2) Usually referred to as the ‘Brussels I’ Regulation.

C 12/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.1.2001

The Community has other major achievements to its credit: the ‘Brussels II’ Regulation on jurisdiction
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental
responsibility for children of both spouses, and the Regulation on insolvency proceedings (1).

The principle of mutual recognition of civil and commercial judgments between Member States is
therefore not new. However, its implementation has had limited effect to date, for two main reasons. The
first relates to the fact that many areas of private law do not come within the ambit of the existing
instruments. This applies, for example, to family situations arising through relationships other than
marriage, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, and succession.

The second reason lies with the fact that the existing texts retain certain barriers to the free movement of
judicial decisions. The intermediate procedures enabling a ruling handed down in one Member State to
be enforced in another are still too restrictive. Thus, despite the changes and simplifications it makes with
regard to recognition and enforcement of judgments, the future Brussels I Regulation does not remove all
the obstacles to the unhindered movement of judgments within the European Union.

Discussions on the subject were held at the informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in
Marseilles on 28 and 29 July 2000.

The current programme of measures establishes objectives and stages for the work to be undertaken
within the Union in the coming years to implement the principle of mutual recognition. It advocates the
adoption of measures that can facilitate both the activity of economic agents and the everyday lives of
citizens.

This programme contains measures that concern the recognition and enforcement in one Member State
of a decision taken in another Member State, which implies that harmonised jurisdiction rules should be
adopted, as was the case in the Brussels Convention and the Brussels II Regulation. It in no way prejudges
work that will be undertaken in other areas under judicial cooperation in civil matters, particularly with
regard to conflicts of law. The measures relating to harmonisation of conflict-of-law rules, which may
sometimes be incorporated in the same instruments as those relating to jurisdiction, recognition and
enforcement of judgments, actually do help facilitate the mutual recognition of judgments.

In the implementation of the measures advocated, account will be taken of the instruments adopted and
ongoing work in other international forums.

The approach adopted to establish the programme is threefold:

— identifying the areas in which progress should be made,

— determining the nature, detailed procedures and scope of potential progress,

— fixing the stages for the progress to be made.

I. AREAS OF MUTUAL RECOGNITION

STATE OF PLAY

persons, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial
relationship, wills and succession; bankruptcy; social security;
and arbitration. The scope will not be changed by the
future Brussels I Regulation, which is to replace the Brussels
Convention.

The 1968 Brussels Convention is the basic instrument. It
covers all areas of civil and commercial law except for those
which are expressly excluded from its scope, which are listed
exhaustively in the text: the status or legal capacity of natural

Supplementary instruments:
the areas excluded from the
scope of the Brussels Convention are not yet all covered by
instruments supplementing the 1968 provisions.

(1) Council Regulations (EC) No 1347/2000 and (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 (OJ L 160, 30.6.2000).

15.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 12/3

The Brussels II Regulation of 29 May 2000 applies to civil
proceedings relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage
annulment and to civil proceedings relating to parental
responsibility for the children of both spouses on the occasion
of such matrimonial proceedings.

The following are therefore not covered, and remain outside
the ambit of any instrument applicable between the Member
States:

— certain aspects of divorce litigation or legal separation
that are not covered by the Brussels II Regulation
(particularly decisions concerning parental responsibility
amending decisions taken at the time of the divorce or
legal separation),

— family situations arising through relationships other than

marriage,

— rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relation-

ship,

— wills and succession.

The Regulation of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings
applies to collective proceedings which entail the partial or
total divestment of the debtor and the appointment of a
liquidator (1).

PROPOSALS

relationship existing in Member States’ law between rights
in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship and
succession will be examined.

The question of property consequences of the separation of
unmarried couples will also be dealt with, so that all property
aspects of family law can be examined.

2.

(a)

International jurisdiction, recognition and enforce-
ment of judgments relating to parental responsibility
and other non-property aspects of the separation of
couples

Family situations arising through relationships other than
marriage

Here it is a matter of supplementing the area covered by the
Brussels II Regulation to take account of sociological reality:
increasingly, couples are choosing to dispense with any
matrimonial formalities, and there is a marked rise in the
number of children born out of wedlock.

In order to take this new social reality into consideration, the
scope of the Brussels II Regulation should be extended, by
means of a separate instrument
if necessary, notably to
judgments concerning the exercise of parental responsibility
with regard to the children of unmarried couples.

A.

IN AREAS NOT YET COVERED BY EXISTING INSTRUMENTS

(b)

Judgments on parental responsibility other than those taken at
the time of the divorce or separation

It is mainly in the area of family law that progress is needed.
Legal instruments will be drawn up in both the following
areas.

1.

International jurisdiction, recognition and enforce-
ment of judgments relating to the dissolution of
rights in property arising out of a matrimonial
relationship, to property consequences of the separ-
ation of unmarried couples and to succession

Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship
and succession were already featured among the priorities of
the Vienna action plan (December 1998). The economic
consequences of judgments delivered when matrimonial ties
are loosened or dissolved, during the lifetime of the spouses,
or on the death of a spouse, are clearly of major interest in the
creation of a European Judicial Area. In this context it is
possible that, when drawing up instruments, a distinction
needs to be drawn between rights in property arising out of a
matrimonial relationship and succession. In this respect the

The provisions of the Brussels II Regulation relate only to
judgments in matrimonial proceedings. In view of the fre-
quency and importance of judgments that are made sub-
sequently and may modify the conditions under which parental
responsibility is exercised, as fixed in judgments made at the
time of the divorce or separation, it is necessary to apply
to them the rules governing jurisdiction, recognition and
enforcement contained in the Brussels II Regulation. This
development must relate both to judgments concerning mar-
ried couples and to those made in the context of the separation
of unmarried couples.

In these new areas, which are not at present covered by any
instrument, it will be useful to examine the legal situation in
Member States’ national law, as well as existing international
instruments, in order to gauge the scope that should be given
to any instruments that might be drawn up.

B.

IN AREAS ALREADY COVERED BY EXISTING INSTRUMENTS

(1) This excludes insolvency proceedings concerning insurance under-
takings, credit institutions, investment undertakings which pro-
vide services involving the holding of funds or securities for third
parties, and collective investment undertakings.

Here, the aim is to make the existing machinery work better
by reducing or abolishing obstacles to the free movement of
judicial decisions. The Tampere conclusions refer generally to
‘civil matters’, but also stress that as a first step these
all

C 12/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.1.2001

intermediate procedures should be abolished for titles in
respect of small consumer or commercial claims and for
certain judgments in the field of family litigation (e.g. on
maintenance claims and rights of access).

Thus, two areas are involved: family law on the one hand,
more especially rights of access and maintenance claims, and
commercial and consumer law on the other. These areas are
thus identified as being priorities.

1. Rights of access

France has already tabled an initiative. It is designed to abolish
the exequatur procedure for the cross-border exercise of rights
of access arising from a judgment falling within the scope of
the Brussels II Regulation.

2. Maintenance claims

This matter, expressly mentioned in the conclusions of the
Tampere European Council, directly concerns the everyday
lives of citizens in the same way as the previous matter.
Although the guarantee of effective and rapid recovery of
maintenance claims is indeed essential to the welfare of very
large numbers of people in Europe, this does not necessarily
imply that a separate legal instrument has to be drawn up.
Maintenance creditors are already covered by provisions of the
Brussels Convention and of the future Brussels I Regulation,
but it would also be advisable in the long term to abolish the
exequatur procedure for maintenance creditors, thus boosting
the effectiveness of the means by which they safeguard their
rights.

3. Uncontested claims

The abolition of exequatur for uncontested claims should
feature among the Community’s priorities.

The substance of the concept of ‘uncontested claims’ will be
specified when the limits of the instruments drawn up in
application of the programme are defined. At present, that
concept generally covers situations in which a creditor, given
the verifiable absence of any dispute by the debtor over the
nature or extent of the debt, has obtained an enforcement
order against that debtor.

The fact that an exequatur procedure can delay the enforce-
ment of judgments concerning uncontested claims is a contra-
diction in terms. It fully justifies this area being the first in
which exequatur is abolished. Rapid recovery of outstanding
payments is an absolute necessity for business and is a constant
concern for the economic sectors whose interest lies in the
proper operation of the internal market.

4. Litigation on small claims

The concept of litigation on small claims referred to by the
Tampere European Council covers various situations of varying
degrees of importance that give rise to different procedures
according to the Member State concerned. Discussions on
simplifying and speeding up the settlement of cross-border
litigation on small claims,
in line with the Tampere con-
clusions, will also,
through the establishment of specific
common rules of procedure or minimum standards, facilitate
the recognition and enforcement of judgments (1).

II. DEGREES OF MUTUAL RECOGNITION

STATE OF PLAY

Current degrees of mutual recognition

In areas not covered by existing instruments, recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgments is governed by the law of
the requested State and by existing international, bilateral or
multilateral agreements on the subject.

In areas already covered, there are two degrees of mutual
recognition.

The first degree still features today in the 1968 Brussels
Convention and the Brussels II Regulation: recognition is
automatic unless contested; a declaration of enforceability
(exequatur) may be obtained upon application and can be
refused on one of the grounds on the exhaustive list in the
relevant instrument. This exequatur procedure is therefore less
complex than would generally result from the application of
national law.

The second degree resulted from the review of the Brussels
and Lugano Conventions and will be implemented following
adoption of the Brussels I Regulation, which is due to replace
the 1968 Brussels Convention: the procedure for obtaining a
declaration of enforceability is considerably streamlined; it is
obtained on completion of certain formalities and can only be
contested by the other party at the second stage (system of
‘reversing the responsibility for action’). This streamlined
exequatur will apply to all areas covered by the current 1968
Brussels Convention and to insolvency procedures covered by
the Regulation of 29 May 2000.

(1) The Commission is preparing a comparative study of law in the
area, based on a questionnaire addressed to the Member States.

15.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 12/5

PROPOSALS

Achieving further degrees of mutual recognition

A. MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING MUTUAL RECOGNITION

1. Areas not covered by the existing instruments

The approach must be to follow a gradual method to reach
the degree of mutual recognition currently achieved by the
Brussels II Regulation, before attaining the degree achieved by
the future Brussels I Regulation, and then to progress beyond
it. However,
it will be possible in certain cases to reach
new degrees of mutual recognition directly, without any
intermediate step.

2. Areas already covered by the existing instruments

In these areas, further progress should be made, with two
series of measures.

(a)

First series of measures: further streamlining of intermediate
measures and strengthening the effects in the requested State of
judgments made in the State of origin

(i)

(ii)

Limiting the reasons which can be given for chal-
lenging recognition or enforcement of a foreign
judgment (for example, removal of the test of public
policy, taking account of cases in which this reason
is currently used by the Member States’ courts).

Establishing provisional enforcement: the decision
stating enforceability in the requested country would
thus be enforceable on a provisional basis, despite
the possibility of appeal.

Such a development requires an amendment of
Article 47(3) of the draft Brussels I Regulation
(Article 39(1) of the Brussels Convention).

(iii) Establishing protective measures at European level
will enable a decision given in one Member State
to embrace the authorisation to take protective
measures against the debtor’s assets in the whole
territory of the Union.

This possibility, which is currently not afforded by
the draft Brussels I Regulation, would, for example,
enable a person who has obtained judgment against
a debtor in one Member State, in the event of the
to have
latter challenging recovery of his debt,

the debtor’s property forthwith frozen in another
Member State as a protective measure, without
recourse to a further procedure. These measures
would be without prejudice to the fact that certain
types of property may not be seized under domestic
law.

(iv)

Improving attachment measures concerning banks,
e.g. by establishing a European system for the
attachment of bank accounts: with a judgment
certified as enforceable in the Member State of
origin, measures could be taken in any other Mem-
ber State, without exequatur and ipso jure,
for
attachment of
the debtor’s bank accounts. The
judgment would become enforceable in the country
of attachment, at least for the purposes of the latter,
unless contested by the debtor.

(b)

Second series of measures: abolition of intermediate measures

Abolition, pure and simple, of any checks on the foreign
judgment by courts in the requested country allows
national judgments to move freely throughout the Com-
munity. Each requested State treats these national judg-
ments as if they had been delivered by one of its own
courts.

In some areas, abolition of the exequatur might take the
form of establishing a true European enforcement order,
obtained following a specific, uniform and harmonised
procedure (1) laid down within the Community.

B. MEASURES ANCILLARY TO MUTUAL RECOGNITION

1. Minimum standards for certain aspects of civil pro-

cedure

It will sometimes be necessary, or even essential, to lay down
a number of procedural rules at European level, which
will constitute common minimum guarantees intended to
legal
strengthen mutual trust between the Member States’
systems. These guarantees will make it possible, inter alia, to
ensure that the requirements for a fair trial are strictly observed,
in keeping with the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

(1) This might be either a uniform procedure laid down in a
regulation, or a harmonised procedure set up by each Member
State pursuant to a directive.

C 12/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.1.2001

For each measure under consideration, the question of drawing
up some of these minimum guarantees will be examined, in
order to determine their usefulness and their role. In certain
areas, and particularly where abolition of the exequatur is
planned, drawing up such minimum guarantees may be a
precondition for the desired progress.

If the establishment of minimum guarantees appears to be
insufficient, discussions should be directed towards a certain
degree of harmonisation of the procedures.

In order to take into account the fundamental principles of
law recognised by Member States, measures aiming at the
establishment of minimum guarantees or at a certain degree
of harmonisation of procedures will be sought most particu-
larly in the case of the mutual recognition of decisions relating
to parental responsibility (including those concerning rights of
access). Questions relating to the child’s best interests and the
child’s place in the procedure will, inter alia, be discussed in
this context.

legal documents, which is clearly one of

In order to increase the certainty, efficiency and rapidity of
service of
the
foundations of mutual trust between national legal systems,
consideration will be given to harmonising the applicable rules
or setting minimum standards.

If the parties to proceedings are able to adduce their arguments
in a manner recognised as valid by all the Member States, this
clearly increases confidence in the proper administration of
justice at an early stage in the proceedings, making it easier to
dispense with checks later on.

Such a development will take duly into account progress
already made on account of the entry into force of 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.

2. Efficiency of measures providing for improved

enforcement of decisions

Another series of ancillary measures would consist in seeking
to make more efficient the enforcement, in the requested State,
of judgments delivered in another Member State.

When devising measures of this kind, account should be taken
of the impact they could have on data protection and the
confidential nature of certain information as provided for in
Member States’ domestic law or in international law.

3.

Improving judicial cooperation on civil matters in
general

These would include measures conducive to implementation
of the principle of mutual recognition, i.e. which would make
for a climate of
improved cooperation between national
judicial authorities.

The establishment of the European Judicial Network on civil
and commercial matters should accordingly feature in the
programme of measures, as an ancillary measure (1).

Mention should also be made of an instrument for enhancing
cooperation between Member States’ courts on the taking of
evidence in civil and commercial matters (2).

the programme includes

Similarly,
the development of
measures giving easier access to justice. Here, account will be
taken of the follow-up to the Green Paper on legal aid
submitted by the Commission in February 2000, with a view
to taking initiatives with regard to legal aid in cross-border
cases.

Likewise, it would seem particularly useful to make the public
better informed on the rules on mutual recognition (3).

Lastly, implementation of the mutual recognition principle
may be facilitated through harmonisation of conflict-of-law
rules.

III. STAGES

METHOD

It is always difficult to set deadlines for work to be achieved in
the Community: deadlines which are too short are unrealistic,
while those set too far ahead do not provide sufficient incentive
for States. Progress should be made in stages, without any
precise deadlines, but simply some broad guidelines.

Some of these measures could concern more specifically
debtors’ assets. It would in fact be much easier to enforce
judgments within the European Union if it were possible to
obtain accurate information on the debtor’s financial position.
Measures could therefore be taken to enable precise identifi-
cation of a debtor’s assets in the territory of the Member States.

(1) On 25 September 2000, the Commission submitted a proposal
for a decision establishing a European Judicial Network in civil
and commercial matters.

(2) Germany has submitted a draft Regulation in this area.
(3) Provisions on information to the public are contained in the
Commission’s proposal on the establishment of the European
Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.

15.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 12/7

1.

2.

3.

4.

The programme will be put in hand as from adoption of
the Brussels I Regulation, which is the basic instrument
for mutual recognition.

— measures to strengthen the effects in the requested State
of judgments made in the State of origin (provisional
enforcement, protective measures, including the attach-
ment of bank accounts).

The programme distinguishes between the following four
areas of action:

Third stage

— areas of civil and commercial law covered by the

Brussels I Regulation,

— areas of

family law covered by the Brussels II
Regulation, and family situations arising through
relationships other than marriage,

— rights in property arising out of a matrimonial
relationship and the property consequences of the
separation of unmarried couples,

Abolition of exequatur in the areas covered by the Brussels I
Regulation.

B. AREA OF FAMILY LAW (BRUSSELS II AND FAMILY SITU-
ATIONS ARISING THROUGH RELATIONSHIPS OTHER THAN
MARRIAGE) (1)

— wills and succession.

First stage

In each area stages are established with a view to making
gradual progress. A stage is begun when the previous one
has ended, at least as regards essentials (for example,
Council agreement on an instrument, even if it has not
yet been formally adopted for technical reasons); however,
this requirement must not prohibit more rapid progress
from being made in certain subjects.

initiatives may be taken at the same time in

Several
several areas.

5. Ancillary measures mentioned in the programme are
taken whenever they seem necessary, in all areas and at
all stages of the programme.

— Abolition of exequatur for judgments on rights of

access (2).

— Instrument relating to family situations arising through
the
relationships other
Brussels II Regulation’s machinery. This may be a new
instrument or a revision of the Brussels II Regulation,
through extension of the latter’s scope.

than marriage: adoption of

— Extending the scope of any instrument(s) adopted earlier
to judgments modifying the conditions under which
parental responsibility is exercised, as fixed in judgments
made at the time of the divorce or separation.

Second stage

PROPOSALS

For every previously adopted instrument:

A. AREAS COVERED BY THE BRUSSELS I REGULATION

First stage

— application of the simplified procedures for recognition

and enforcement of the Brussels I Regulation,

— measures to strengthen the effects in the requested State
of the judgments made in the State of origin (provisional
enforcement and protective measures).

— European enforcement order for uncontested claims.

— Simplifying and speeding up the settlement of cross-

border litigation on small claims.

Third stage

— Abolition of exequatur for maintenance claims.

Abolition of exequatur for the areas covered by the Brussels II
Regulation and for family situations arising through relation-
ships other than marriage.

Second stage

Revision of the Brussels I Regulation:

— incorporation of previous developments,

— abolition of exequatur in other areas,

(1) It being specified that, with regard to measures concerning
judgments on parental responsibility (including judgments on
rights of access), the ancillary measures referred to in point II(B)(1)
concerning consideration of the child’s best interests and the
child’s place in the procedure should be taken into account.

(2) Initiative already presented by France.

C 12/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.1.2001

C. DISSOLUTION OF RIGHTS IN PROPERTY ARISING OUT OF A
MATRIMONIAL RELATIONSHIP AND THE PROPERTY CONSE-
QUENCES OF THE SEPARATION OF UNMARRIED COUPLES

First stage

Drawing up of one or more instruments on jurisdiction,
recognition and enforcement of judgments relating to rights
in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship and the
property consequences of the separation of unmarried couples:
adoption of the Brussels II Regulation’s machinery.

Second stage

Revision of the instrument(s) drawn up at the first stage:

E. ANCILLARY MEASURES

Two measures have already been proposed: their adoption
would seem to be necessary as soon as the programme is
launched:

— instrument on the taking of evidence;

— establishment of the European Judicial Network on civil

and commercial matters.

Furthermore, for each area of the programme and at each
stage, the following ancillary measures could be considered:

— minimum standards for civil procedure;

— harmonisation of rules on, or minimum standards for,

— application of the simplified procedures for recognition

the service of judicial documents;

and enforcement of the Brussels I Regulation,

— measures to strengthen the effects in the requested State
of the judgments made in the State of origin (provisional
enforcement and protective measures).

Third stage

Abolition of exequatur for the areas covered by the instru-
ment(s) drawn up.

D. WILLS AND SUCCESSION

First stage

Drawing up of an instrument on jurisdiction, recognition and
enforcement of judgments relating to wills and succession:
adoption of the Brussels II Regulation’s machinery.

Second stage

Revision of the instrument drawn up at the first stage:

— application of the simplified procedures for recognition

and enforcement of the Brussels I Regulation,

— measures to strengthen the effects in the requested State
of the judgments made in the State of origin (provisional
enforcement and protective measures).

Third stage

— measures to facilitate the enforcement of judgments,
including those allowing identification of a debtor’s assets;

— measures for easier access to justice;

— measures for easier provision of

information to the

public;

— measures relating to harmonisation of conflict-of-law

rules.

LAUNCHING, MONITORING AND COMPLETION OF
THE PROGRAMME

The programme starts with the launching of work on the first
stage in one or more areas. It continues by following the order
of stages in each area, on the understanding that progress may
be achieved more rapidly in one area than in another.

Five years after adoption of the programme, the Commission
will submit to the Council and the Parliament a report on its
implementation. The Commission will make any recommen-
dations to the Council that it deems useful for the proper
execution of the programme, indicating in particular those
areas in which it considers that special efforts should be made.

The monitoring report drawn up by the Commission may also
contain recommendations concerning measures which were
not initially planned in the programme but which it seemed
necessary to adopt subsequently.

Abolition of exequatur for the areas covered by the instrument
drawn up.

The programme of measures is completed by the general
abolition of exequatur.

15.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 12/9

Areas

Brussels I

Brussels II and family
situations arising through
relationships other than
marriage

Rights in property arising
out of a matrimonial
relationship and
the property consequences
of the separation of an
unmarried couple

Wills and succession

Ancillary measures

Measures

First stage:

First stage:

First stage:

First stage:

Instrument on the taking of
evidence

of access

Small claims

European enforcement Abolition of exequatur Drafting of one or more Drafting of an instru-
order for uncontested for judgments on rights instruments on mutual ment on mutual recog- Establishment of the Euro-
recognition with regard nition with regard to pean Judicial Network on
claims
to rights in property wills
and succession: civil and commercial mat-
arising out of a matri- adoption
monial relationship and Brussels II machinery
conse-
the
the separ-
quences of
ation
unmarried
of
couples: adoption of the
Brussels II machinery

Instrument on family
arising
situations
relationships
through
other
than marriage
(separate instrument or
revision of Brussels II)

Minimum standards of civil
procedure

Abolition of exequatur
for maintenance claims

property

the ters

Harmonisation of rules on,
or minimum standards for,
the service of judicial docu-
ments

of

the

any

Extension of the scope
of
instrument(s)
adopted to judgments
modifying
con-
ditions under which
responsibility
parental
is exercised, as fixed in
judgments made at the
time of the divorce or
separation

Measures to facilitate the
enforcement of judgments,
allowing
including those
identification of a debtor’s
assets

Measures for easier access
to justice

for easier pro-
Measures
vision of information to the
public

Measures relating to har-
monisation of conflict-of-
law rules

Second stage:

Second stage:

Second stage:

Second stage:

Revision of the Brussels For
I Regulation:

adopted instrument:

every previously Revision of the instru- Revision of the instru-
ment(s) drawn up at the ment(s) drawn up at the
first stage:

first stage:

of — application of sim-

— incorporation
previous
ments

develop-

— extension of abol-
ition of exequatur

— measures

to
strengthen
the
effects in the request-
judg-
ed State of
ments made in the
State of origin (pro-
enforce-
visional
protective
ment,
including
measures,
the
attachment of
bank accounts)

recognition — application of sim- — application of sim-
plified
plified
plified
recognition
recognition
enforcement
and
and
enforcement
and
enforcement
procedures
in the
in the
procedures
in the
procedures
Brussels I Regulation
Brussels I Regulation
Brussels I Regulation

— measures

to
the — measures

strengthen
effects in the request-
judg-
ed State of
ments made in the
State of origin (pro-
visional enforcement
and
protective
measures)

to — measures
strengthen
the
effects in the request-
ed State of
judg-
ments made in the
State of origin (pro-
visional enforcement
protective
and
measures)

to
strengthen
the
effects in the request-
ed State of
judg-
ments made in the
State of origin (pro-
visional enforcement
protective
and
measures)

Third stage:

Third stage:

Third stage:

Third stage:

Abolition of exequatur Abolition of exequatur Abolition of exequatur Abolition of exequatur
for all the areas covered for the areas covered by for the areas covered by for the areas covered by
by the Brussels I Regu-
the instrument(s) drawn the instrument drawn
lation

II Regu-

up

the Brussels
lation and for
situations
through
other than marriage

family up
arising
relationships