| Abstract [eng] |
Analysing the concept of the free movement of judgments from the linguistic point, the wrong presumption about the allocation of the above mentioned concept to the EU single market fundamental rights might be made. The free movement of judgments in the EU civil process must be understood as the international „circulation“ feature acquired by the national judgments, when the civil judgment made in one EU member state is recognized and enforced in other EU member states. However, it should not mean that the analysed concept has nothing in common with the fundamental rights of the EU single market, because their mutual connection becomes apparent through the functional approach of the free movement of judgments, which means that the free movement of judgments provides legal certainty and legal security in the EU that are necessary for the existence of the EU single markets’ fundamental rights. It should be noted that the free movement of judgments often collides with the nuisances such as exequatur, non-recognition grounds of the foreign judgments, the legal system’s diversity of each EU member state and geographical fragmentation. It is being tried to overcome some of these nuisances by the EU secondary legal acts, regulating the free movement of judgments. However, taking into account the absence of the single legal act and the incompatibility of the recognition and enforcement rules, the overcoming process of the above mentioned nuisances is diverged and really depends on the type of the regulated legal relations. Furthermore, different legal regulation exists not only because of the material scope of the EU regulations, but due to the limits of the geographical scope of the particular EU law instruments, that derive from Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom position on the judicial cooperation area. Despite the facts that these member states form a small part of the entire European Union, the disability of application of the rules harmonised by the EU law and unprecedented „Brexit“ process bring in some degree of incompatibility and uncertainty to the foreign judgments’ recognition and enforcement area. |
