Examples of using Cross-border litigation in English and their translations into Polish
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Financial
-
Official/political
-
Programming
-
Computer
As many as 10 million of the 500 million citizens of the European Union are involved in cross-border litigation.
These problems are inherent in every cross-border litigation irrespective of the contested or uncontested nature of a claim.
The preferred policy options would lead to savings for European citizens engaged in cross-border litigation.
More specifically, the proposal aims at facilitating cross-border litigation and the free circulation of judgments in the European Union.
It is essential that efforts to establish an area of freedom, security andjustice produce tangible benefits for persons engaging in cross-border litigation.
E-justice is necessary at a time when the number of people involved in cross-border litigation in Europe is estimated at 10 million.
This may be explained by the fact that the procedure is mainly used by companies and lawyers andby the fact that relatively few citizens are involved in cross-border litigation.
It is estimated that around 10 million people are involved in cross-border litigation in Europe, with all the inherent challenges such as language, distance, unfamiliar legal systems and so on.
The establishment of a standard form for legal aid applications andfor the transmission of legal aid applications in the event of cross-border litigation will make the procedures easier and faster.
The abolition of exequatur would allow the European citizens engaged in cross-border litigation to save the major part of the current costs of the procedure(on average€ 2,200 to be paid for processing the application) and eliminate delays, which in some cases amount to a couple of months.
The speedy administration of evidence at minimal cost and the simplification of judicial procedures using simple,practical instruments will facilitate access to the justice system for citizens in the event of cross-border litigation.
We must answer the question of whether additional legal protection for consumers orvictims in mass claims, cross-border litigation and litigation which affects more than one Member State really is necessary.
In addition, the aim of making cross-border litigation concerning children less time consuming and costly justifies the abolition of the declaration of enforceability prior to enforcement in the Member State of enforcement for all decisions on parental responsibility matters.
Although recital 9 stated that one of the objectives of the Decision was"effective access to justice for persons engaging in cross-border litigation", this effort was, according to recital 14 and Article 3, confined to establishing an information system for the public at European level.
Each Member State may, however, designate a limited number of other contact points if they consider this necessary on the basis of the existence of separate legal systems, the domestic distribution of jurisdiction, the tasks to be entrusted to the contact points or inorder to associate judicial bodies that frequently deal with cross-border litigation directly with the activities of the contact points.
In general, the Regulation is considered to be a highly successful instrument,which has facilitated cross-border litigation through an efficient system of judicial cooperation based on comprehensive jurisdiction rules, coordination of parallel proceedings, and circulation of judgments.
Whilst the existence of cross-border implications is a prerequisite for Community competence,this does not mean that the rules that can be adopted pursuant to this basis could only apply to cross-border litigation, i.e. to cases of a concrete cross-border nature.
Taken as a whole,they enhance predictability in cross-border litigation by ensuring a genuinely free circulation of judgments based on the principle of mutual recognition and enhance the respect of fundamental rights, in particular the rights of the child, by providing the necessary safeguards.
The Commission's grounds for this initiative are based on the fact that Member States' civil procedural law systems differ,resulting in high costs and the delays entailed in cross-border litigation, which can become disproportionate, particularly where proceedings for the recovery of uncontested debts are concerned.
As the objectives of the proposed action, namely to enhance effective judicial cooperation between the Member States andto ensure effective access to justice for persons engaging in cross-border litigation, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty.
The conscious use of the more open terminology of matters with cross-border implications in the specific context of Article 65 allows some flexibility to adopt legislation that governs more than cross-border litigation particularly where a common tool embracing both cross-border and domestic cases plays an instrumental role for the working of the internal market.
The objectives of the proposed action, namely to improve effective judicial cooperation between the Member States andeffective access to justice for persons engaging in cross-border litigation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore by reason of the scale or effects of the action be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty.
The judge will always apply the lex fori whether or not the litigation has cross-border elements.
Traditional litigation in cross-border patent disputes involves multiple procedures in multiple jurisdictions and carries the risk of lengthy procedures, inconsistent outcomes and high litigation costs.