Legal relationship between Public Policy and contradictoriness of foreign judgments enforcement under Brussels Ia Regulation

Diplomsko delo obravnava razloge zoper priznanje in izvršitev tujih sodnih odločb v okviru Bruseljske uredbe Ia. Podrobneje sta kot razlog nepriznanja opisana pridržek javnega reda in kršitve načela kontradiktornosti. Delo skozi primere sodne prakse prikazuje odločitve Sodišča EU glede vprašanj, ki so jih nanj naslovila sodišča držav članic v zvezi z zavrnitvenimi razlogi zoper priznanje in izvršitev tuje sodne odločbe. Predstavljeno je vročanje tujih sodnih odločb in posledice nevročitve, ki predstavljajo razlog za zavrnitev tuje sodne odločbe bodisi z vidika poseganja v javni red države, v kateri se zahteva priznanje tuje sodne odločbe, ali pa zaradi kršitve temeljnih pravic posameznika. Vsakdo ima pravico do sodelovanja v postopku, ki teče zoper njega, prav tako pa mu mora biti dana možnost priprave obrambe, da se lahko uspešno brani pred sodiščem. Poudarjena je omejena razlaga javnega reda in njegovana restriktivna vloga, kot se je izoblikovala tudi v praksi Sodišča EU. Iz diplomskega dela je razvidno, da je klavzula javnega reda zelo omejena in se lahko uporabi samo v izjemnih primerih. Na drugi strani pa je pomembno tudi razmejevanje med javnim redom in načelom kontradiktornosti. Delo tako izpostavlja in analizira prakso Sodiščae EU, ki je v zvezi s temje v podobnih primerih podalo različno razlago na vprašanje glede uporabea ali se lahko uporabijo določbe javnega reda inalikateri drug razlog iz 45. člena BU Ia za zavrnitev tuje sodne odločbe določbe o kontradiktornosti, zaradi česar je lahko obseg razlage obeh razlogov za zavrnitev priznanja oziroma njuno medsebojno razlikovanje v določeni meri nejasno. This thesis discusses grounds against enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments under the Brussels Regulation Ia. It is focused on refusal grounds of public order clause and breach of contradictoriness principle. Through the cases the study shows Court of Justice decisions about questions sent by courts of Member States regarding refusal grounds for non-recognition and non-enforcement of the judgment. Delivery of foreign judgments and consequences of non-delivery that represent grounds of non-recognition are interpreted in the study either from interfering into public policy of Member state where recognition is sought or when a breach of fundamental rights of individual takes place. Every individual has the right to cooperate in the procedure against him or her and has to be given an opportunity to prepare defense and be able to successfully defend before the Court. The focus is on the limited explanation of the Public Policy and its restrictive role as shown from practice of Court of Justice. It is evident from the thesis that the Public Policy Clause is very restrictive and can only be applied in exceptional cases. On the other hand, it is important to delimit Public Policy and contradictoriness principle. Thesis exposes and analyzes practice of Court of Justice which in respect to similar cases gave a different interpretation to the question of the application of the provisions of Public Policy and provisions of contradictoriness, for this reason the scope of the interpretation of the two grounds for non-recognition and their mutual differentiation is at certain extent unclear.