By way of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Brussels Ibis Regulation’), a direct EU-wide enforceability for civil judgments was introduced on a large scale. Primarily in the interest of the judgment creditors, the EU legislator has transformed cross-border enforcement into a new system that amounts to a general ‘free movement of judgments’ within the EU. However, this raises the question as to how fundamental this paradigm shift has actually been and to what extent the situation for judgment creditors has really improved. A closer look shows that much remains the same. Nevertheless, the chances for judgment creditors to obtain their money are likely to have improved. Furthermore, it is noticeable that there is a considerable conceptual gap between the free movement of judgments that was introduced by the Brussels Ibis Regulation and the free movement of judgments that has already existed for some time under the EEO, EOP, and ESCP Regulations.

INTRODUCTION

Since 10 January 2015, the new version of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (‘Brussels I Regulation’) has been in force as Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (‘Brussels Ibis Regulation’). One of the core elements of the recast was the introduction of a direct Union-wide enforceability: pursuant to Art. 39 Brussels Ibis Regulation, judgments that are enforceable in one Member State are directly enforceable in all other Member States without any intermediary procedure (such as a declaration of enforceability) in the state of enforcement. The abolition of the exequatur has been described as a paradigm shift in European civil procedural law. However, it is noticeable at first glance that Art. 39 Brussels Ibis Regulation at most expresses ‘half the truth’: In fact, Art. 46 in conjunction with Art. 45 Brussels Ibis Regulation contains a catalogue of grounds on the basis of which the person against whom enforcement is sought (the debtor) in the target state can achieve a refusal of enforcement and thus invalidate the Union-wide enforceability at least for individual jurisdictions of the European Union.

In light of this, it seems questionable whether a new paradigm in cross-border enforcement has actually been established, or whether in reality the situation has more or less remained the same.