DOCSLIB.ORG

Stronachs Llp a Guide to Brexit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stronachs Llp a Guide to Brexit STRONACHS LLP A GUIDE TO BREXIT DISCLAIMER Every possible effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this guidance is accurate at the time of publication, and the editors, publishers and authors cannot accept responsibility for any errors, or omissions, however caused. No responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting, or refraining from action, as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by the editors, the publisher or any of the authors. The law is as stated at 1700 hours on 2nd March 2021 Page | 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Stronachs LLP would like to thank the following people who have contributed to the full Brexit Manual. David Chalmers, Partner James Downie, Partner Ewan Neilson, Partner Robert McDiarmid, Partner James Muir, Partner David Marshall, Senior Associate Annika Neukirch, Senior Solicitor Patrick Norris, Solicitor Lewis Armstrong, Trainee Solicitor Stef Hendry, Trainee Solicitor Cameron McCrum, Trainee Solicitor Mattie McGuire, Trainee Solicitor Lynn McDougall, Administration It is acknowledged by the firm their substantial effort in making this production possible. Ewan C Neilson 2nd March 2021 INDEX Introduction Page 1 Definitions Page 3 Structure of Brexit Page 6 What Effect will Brexit have on Commercial Contracts? Page 14 Enforcement of Court Judgements Page 20 How Will Data be Protected? Page 26 European Trade Mark Protection from 1 January 2021 Page 30 International Trade Mark Protection from 1 January 2021 Page 38 Changes to SPC and Patent Law from 1 January 2021 Page 45 Changes to EU and International Designs Protection from 1 January 2021 Page 48 Copyright Law from 1 January 2021 Page 54 Exhaustion of IP Rights and Parallel Trade Page 56 State Aid Page 57 Public Procurement Page 64 Importing Goods to the UK following Brexit Page 72 Exporting Goods from the UK following Brexit Page 78 VAT after Brexit Page 81 Rules of Origin Page 84 The Impact on UK Fishing Page 91 Agriculture Page 97 What Happens to REACH Page 101 What Changes Will be Made to Immigration, Right to Work and Employment Law? Page 105 European Travel Page 111 Questions and Answers Page 117 Contact List Page 129 INTRODUCTION This publication, A Guide to Brexit Planning was first published in March 2019 and then republished as a guide in December 2020 before the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) and ancillary agreements had been published. When the TCA and other agreements were available to the public it soon became apparent that the TCA in particular was a radical departure from the earlier Bills put before Parliament. The Manual produced by Stronachs offers a guide for businesses, public bodies and interested individuals in particular areas of the Brexit Trade Deal but does not represent a definitive guide in all aspects of it. It is interesting to see the developments of the UK’s involvement in the Europe over the years. It was General Marshall’s offer of US loans and assistance to all European countries including the Soviet Union and the countries the Soviet Union had effectively occupied in Europe in 1948 that possibly triggered the Cold War through the rejection by the Soviet Union and the countries it occupied of that offer. This in itself led to the US promoting the concept of European unity through organisations to prevent Communist creep in Western Europe; the European organisations would be based on market economies, liberal democracy and the reduction of trade barriers. The UK had its own spheres of international interest being at that time the sterling area of influence and the Commonwealth countries. The then Prime Minister Attlee and the opposition leader, Churchill, promoted the concept of 3 interlocking circles – the US, Europe and the Commonwealth. When Jean Monnet first proposed that France should have a right to control and use the Saar coal for the French steel industry this was rebuffed by the US and other countries and evolved into the concept of a European Coal and Steel Community which was established in 1951 by the Treaty of Paris. The Shuman Declaration on 5th May 1949 was to declare a High Authority for the running of the French and German coal and steel industries putting them under joint control. It was also a deadline to the UK to either join it or leave the other countries to form it; this left the UK out of the original ECSC and out of the beginning of a political integration and a Customs Union in Europe. The UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973 but maybe a turning point for the UK and its relationship with Europe was the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 which then evolved into the Treaty of Lisbon. Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon was negotiated as a failsafe mechanism so that if any country wanted to leave the European Community as an alternative to further political integration in Europe it could do so. It was never intended at the time that any country would actually use it. However, on the 23rd June 2016 there was a Referendum in the UK in which a majority of 51.9% of the electorate voted to leave the European Union. There then followed the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the final divorce on 31st December 2020. The actual negotiations of the UK-EU Trade and Corporation Agreement, the UK-UE Security of Classified Information Agreement and the UK-Euratom Nuclear Corporation Agreement forming the forward looking Brexit Treaties were negotiated in secret so it was only at the beginning of January 2021 were the full terms disclosed. Page | 1 It could be said that the UK has gone full circle and returned to the Attlee/Churchill doctrine in which the UK’s interests are to maintain its relationship with the US, the EU and its international trading partners under free trade agreements with the European Union and other trading partners and therefore step outside further political integration in Europe. We view the TCA in particular as a fairly revolutionary approach to an FTA and we believe it represents a starting point with further negotiation between the UK and the EU both in months and years as to their future relationship. We hope this Brexit guide gives an introduction to some of the very complex issues that reside in the UK’s new relationship with Europe. Ewan C Neilson 2nd March 2021 Page | 2 DEFINITIONS TERM DEFINITION AEO Authorised Economic Operator AHC Animal Health Certificate BCR Binding Corporate Rules CAP Common Agricultural Policy CDS Customs Declaration Service CFP Common Fisheries Policy CHIEF Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union CLP Classification, Labelling and Packaging CMA Competition and Markets Authority Commission European Commission Cooperation Agreement UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement CPC Customs Procedure Code Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications DP Brexit Regulations (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ECA 1972 European Communities Act 1972 ECSC European Coal and Steel Community EEA European Economic Area EHIC European Health Insurance Card EMA European Medicines Agency EORI Economic Operators Registration and Identification EU European Union EU GDPR General Data Protection Regulation EUIPO European Union Intellectual Property Office Page | 3 EUTM European Union Trademark EUWA European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 FTA Free-trade agreement FTS Find a Tender GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GBER General Block Exemption Regulation GDPR General Data Protection Regulation GHIC UK Global Health Insurance Card Government UK Government GPA Government Procurement Agreement HSE Health and Safety Executive HMRC HM Revenue and Customs ICO Information Commissioner’s Office IP Intellectual Property IPO Intellectual Property Office MAC Material adverse change MFN Most-Favoured Nation NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NES National Export System NI Protocol Northern Ireland Protocol NT National Treatment OJEU Official Journal of the European Union OR Only Representatives Patents Regulations Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Page | 4 PBS Points-Based Immigration System PSR Product-specific rules of origin RCD registered Community Design Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals REACH (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) SCC Standard Contractual Clauses SGEI Services of General Economic Interest SIA Single Issuing Authority SIEF Substance Information Exchange Forum SPC Supplementary Protection Certificate TAC Total Allowable Catch TFEU The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Treaty The Treaty on European Union TRQ Tariff rate quotas TUPE Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations UCD unregistered Community Design UK United Kingdom UK GDPR United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation VAT Value Added Tax VATA Value Added Tax Act 1994 WA Withdrawal Agreement WAA 2020 EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization WTO World Trade Organization Page | 5 STRUCTURE OF BREXIT Summary On the 24 December 2020, the UK announced a trade deal with the EU. The UK-EU concluded three agreements – the Trade and Cooperation Agreement; UK-EU Security of Classified Information Agreement; and UK-Euratom Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. All three still need to be approved by the European Parliament. Critically, the Withdrawal Agreement and Northern Ireland Protocol still apply. The agreements which form the Brexit deal do not provide for all aspects of the UK-EU trading relationship - unsurprising considering the speed at which the agreements were concluded. There remains outstanding questions surrounding substantial parts of the UK-EU trading relationship. Further reform is therefore expected and it remains to be seen how effectively the new agreements will be implemented within the UK. Contextual Background The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union on the 23rd of June, 2016.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulation of Professional Services in EU Member States
    SERVICEGAP Discussion Paper No. XXX Regulation of Professional Services in EU Member States Classification, Measurement and Evaluation November 2012 Iain Paterson, Bianca Brandl* and Richard Sellner* * Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, Austria Corresponding Author: Iain Paterson ([email protected]) This paper was developed as part of Deliverable 2.3 of SERVICEGAP “Papers on linkages between manufacturing and services, regulation in professional services and banks” SERVICEGAP project is funded by the European Commission, Research Directorate General as part of the 7th Framework Programme, Theme 8: Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities. Grant Agreement no: 244 552 1 Regulation of Professional Services in EU Member States: Classification, Measurement and Evaluation Iain Paterson Bianca Brandl, and Richard Sellner November 2012 Abstract This paper has a two-fold purpose: on the one hand of presenting methods and results from studies (mainly involving the authors) that have fed into ongoing efforts at European Union level to classify regulatory systems in Member States, to find ways to measure the extent of regulation, and to evaluate whether state-legislated or self-regulation is anti-competitive as distinct from quality- enhancing regulation for consumers’, rather than producers’, benefit. On the other hand, the paper presents results from a partial update of regulatory knowledge (regulation indices) and further develops a new measure of regulatory effect of professional services throughout the Member States’ economies based on newly developed empirical measures of interlinkage (Cf. Paterson and Sellner 2012). The results of the updated indicator show some modest decrease in anti-competitive regulation in professional services, mainly with respect to market conduct behaviour: more openness to new forms of businesses, price setting, fees and advertising.
    [Show full text]
  • The Macroeconomics of Regulation
    International Finance 18:3, 2015: pp. 343–360 DOI: 10.1111/infi.12077 BOOK REVIEW The Macroeconomics of Market Regulation y z Matteo Cacciatore and Giuseppe Fiori y z HEC Montreal, and North Carolina State University. Boeri,T.,M.Castanheira,R. Faini and V. Galasso, eds., Structural Reforms Without Prejudices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006. Schindler, M., H. Berger, B. B. Bakker and A. Spilimbergo, eds., Jobs and Growth: Supporting the European Recovery. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund. 2014. Solow, R., ed., Structural Reform and Economic Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. I. Introduction In each country, a complex set of laws and institutions regulates the functioning of product and labour markets. Broadly defined, the regulation of labour directly affects hiring and firing decisions, the number of working hours, the intensity of job search and wage dynamics. Examples include employment protection legislation, the generosity and duration of unemployment benefits, restrictions on the length of contracts, the level of centralization in wage bargaining, labour unions and © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 344 Matteo Cacciatore and Giuseppe Fiori minimum wages. Product market regulation affects producer entry and exit in a given market or industry, the incentives to create and commercialize goods and services, and the behaviour of prices. Examples include the procedures governing market entry (e.g. the legal requirements to be met for a business to start operating), the laws and institutions that limit the market supply of goods and services, and price controls. The rationale for the emergence and consolidation of such laws and institutions has been related to various factors, including the promotion of social equity goals, the correction of market imperfections (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 31.5.2018 COM(2018
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 31.5.2018 COM(2018) 379 final 2018/0204 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) {SEC(2018) 272 final} - {SWD(2018) 286 final} - {SWD(2018) 287 final} EN EN EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL • Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Among the EU’s tasks is that of developing a European area of justice in civil matters based on the principles of mutual trust and the mutual recognition of judgments. The area of justice requires judicial cooperation across borders. For this purpose, and to facilitate the proper functioning of the internal market, the EU has adopted legislation on the cross-border service of judicial documents1 and on cooperation in the taking of evidence2. These instruments are crucial in the regulation of judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters between the Member States. Their common purpose is to provide an efficient framework for cross-border judicial cooperation. They have replaced the earlier international, more cumbersome system of the Hague Conventions3 between the Member States4. This legislation on judicial cooperation has a real impact on the everyday lives of EU citizens, be it as private individuals or business operators. It is applied in judicial proceedings with cross-border implications, where its proper functioning is indispensable to ensuring access to justice and fair trials (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost of Service Regulation in the Investor-Owned Electric Utility Industry: a History of Adaptation
    Cost of Service Regulation In the Investor-Owned Electric Utility Industry A History of Adaptation Prepared by: Dr. Karl McDermott June 2012 © 2012 by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI). All rights reserved. Published 2012. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system or method, now known or hereinafter invented or adopted, without the express prior written permission of the Edison Electric Institute. Attribution Notice and Disclaimer This work was prepared by Dr. Karl McDermott. When used as a reference, attribution to EEI is requested. EEI, any member of EEI, and any person acting on its behalf (a) does not make any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information, advice or recommendations contained in this work, and (b) does not assume and expressly disclaims any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of any information, advice or recommendations contained in this work. The views and opinions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect those of EEI or any member of EEI. This material and its production, reproduction and distribution by EEI does not imply endorsement of the material. Published by: Edison Electric Institute 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-2696 Phone: 202-508-5000 Web site: www.eei.org Cost of Service Regulation in the Investor-Owned Electric Utility Industry: A History of Adaptation Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • On Democracy and the “Public Interest”
    Center for European Studies Working Paper No. 93 On Democracy and the “Public Interest”: in the European Union by Andrew Moravcsik Andrea Sangiovanni Professor of Government Department of Government Director, European Union Center Harvard University Harvard University Visiting Fellow (2002) Center for European Studies Cambridge University 27 Kirkland Street [email protected] Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Tel: (617) 495-4303 x205; Fax: (617) 495-8509 e-mail: [email protected] This is a draft. Before citing, please contact the authors at [email protected] or [email protected] ABSTRACT Perhaps the most fundamental question in contemporary European Union politics is whether the existing division and sharing of competences between national and supranational levels is pragmatically and normatively justifiable. In his classic book, Governing in Europe (1999), Fritz Scharpf argues that the current policy mix is sub-optimal and, therefore, democratically illegitimate, because the multi-level European polity lacks the ‘problem-solving capacity’ necessary to permit citizens and their representatives to bargain to optimal outcomes. Instead it is likely to trigger a vicious circle of downward adaptations in social policy and public services that are likely to sap the EU's support. Scharpf recommends granting domestic social welfare policies constitutional status in EU jurisprudence, and permitting ‘differentiated integration’ or ‘flexibility’ for high-standard countries to legislate as an EU sub-group. In this challenge by Scharpf to the ‘output legitimacy’ of the EU, we argue, a number of important issues remain unresolved. First, his argument rests on an implicit and insufficiently elaborated conception of the public interest in maintaining or expanding current patterns of social welfare protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation OTT Regulation
    OTT Regulation OTT Regulation MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS EUROPEAN UNION DELEGATION TO BRAZIL (MCTIC) Head of the European Union Delegation Minister João Gomes Cravinho Gilberto Kassab Minister Counsellor - Head of Development and Cooperation Section Secretary of Computing Policies Thierry Dudermel Maximiliano Salvadori Martinhão Cooperation Attaché – EU-Brazil Sector Dialogues Support Facility Coordinator Director of Policies and Sectorial Programs for Information and Communication Asier Santillan Luzuriaga Technologies Miriam Wimmer Implementing consortium CESO Development Consultants/FIIAPP/INA/CEPS Secretary of Telecommunications André Borges CONTACTS Director of Telecommunications Services and Universalization MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Laerte Davi Cleto (MCTIC) Author Secretariat of Computing Policies Senior External Expert + 55 61 2033.7951 / 8403 Vincent Bonneau [email protected] Secretariat of Telecommunications MINISTRY OF PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT + 55 61 2027.6582 / 6642 [email protected] Ministry Dyogo Oliveira PROJECT COORDINATION UNIT EU-BRAZIL SECTOR DIALOGUES SUPPORT FACILITY Secretary of Management Gleisson Cardoso Rubin Secretariat of Public Management Ministry of Planning, Development and Management Project National Director Telephone: + 55 61 2020.4645/4168/4785 Marcelo Mendes Barbosa [email protected] www.sectordialogues.org 2 3 OTT Regulation OTT © European Union, 2016 Regulation Responsibility
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Centralized Authority
    Telecommunication Regulation in the United States and Europe: The Case for Centralized Authority William Lehr1 Thomas Kiessling Columbia University & MIT Global One & Harvard University [email protected] [email protected] Paper presented to the Twenty-sixth Telecommunications Policy Research Conference Alexandria, VA First Draft, Comments Welcome October 3-5, 1998 Telecommunications regulators in both the US and the European Union are facing a year 2000 problem: how best to reform the current dual regulatory regime (Federal/State in the US; European Commission/Member States in Europe) in light of industry convergence, globalization, and liberalization. These trends are perhaps best exemplified by the emergence of the Internet as a global communications platform for communications services, as well as, electronic commerce and what it entails. This paper argues that in both the US and the European Union there are important economic reasons why the regulatory balance needs to tilt in favor of a stronger centralized authority. In the US, this means affirming the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) ability to preempt State authority in areas relating to the promotion of wholesale-level carrier competition; while in Europe, this means interpreting the subsidiarity principle more narrowly to permit the European Commission (EC) to assert more authority over the National Regulatory Authorities (NRA) in the member states. This paper is organized into five sections. Section 1 provides an overview of our main arguments, explaining why it is important to have a stronger centralized authority. Section 2 reviews the economic and legal justification for the dual-regulatory system of centralized/local regulation that exists in both the US and Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTICLE 99 INSPECTION Report of the Schengen Joint Supervisory Authority on an Inspection of the Use of Article 99 Alerts in the Schengen Information System
    ARTICLE 99 INSPECTION Report of the Schengen Joint Supervisory Authority on an inspection of the use of Article 99 alerts in the Schengen Information System Report nr. 07-02 Brussels, 18 December 2007 Contents I. Introduction..................................................................................................................................3 II. Data Protection Supervision........................................................................................................3 III. Reason for inspection...................................................................................................................4 IV. Scope and method of inspection...................................................................................................5 V. Reactions received .......................................................................................................................6 VI. Results..........................................................................................................................................6 A. Decision of Article 99 Alert .................................................................................................... 6 1. Competent Authorities that may decide on an Article 99 alert.................................................................................6 2. A specific procedure has been established for Article 99 alerts...............................................................................7 3. A prerequisite for such alerts is the prosecution of criminal offences
    [Show full text]
  • Current Gaps and Future Perspectives in European Private International Law: Towards a Code on Private International Law?
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGAL AFFAIRS Current gaps and future perspectives in European private international law: towards a code on private international law? NOTE Abstract Private international law is to a great extent regulated by EU rules. However, particular areas are still governed by national rules. This paper identifies the existing gaps in the EU regulatory framework, and discusses future perspectives. In the short and the mid term, the focus should be on filling gaps by using separate instruments, while preserving coherence. In the long term a more comprehensive framework or code would be an option. PE 462.476 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs AUTHOR Prof. Dr. Xandra KRAMER Erasmus University Rotterdam Erasmus School of Law P.O. Box 1738 NL-3000 DR Rotterdam e-mail: [email protected] RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Ms Vesna Naglič Policy Department C – Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B – 1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] European Parliament, manuscript completed in December 2012. © European Union, 2012. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Obstacles in Member States to Single Market Rules
    STUDY Requested by the IMCO committee Legal obstacles in Member States to Single Market rules Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Directorate-General for Internal Policies Authors: Erik DAHLBERG et al. EN PE 658.189 - November 2020 Legal obstacles in Member States to Single Market rules Abstract This study analyses the current state of national obstacles to free movement in the EU Single Market. It focuses on various aspects of obstacles related to free movement of goods and services, the right to establishment, the Digital Single Market, consumer protection and public procurement. This document was provided by the Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies at the request of the committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO). This document was requested by the European Parliament's committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. AUTHORS Erik DAHLBERG, Sigurd NÆSS-SCHMIDT and Laura VIRTANEN, Copenhagen Economics Scott MARCUS, Bruegel Mattia DI SALVO and Jacques PELKMANS, CEPS Virginia DALLA POZZA and Katarina KUBOVICOVA, VVA ADMINISTRATORS RESPONSIBLE Christina RATCLIFF Mariusz MACIEJEWSKI EDITORIAL ASSISTANTS Roberto BIANCHINI Irene VERNACOTOLA LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Policy departments provide in-house and external expertise to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU internal policies. To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Legal Requirements for Cross Border Judicial Cooperation: the Case of the Service of Documents Amato, Rosanna
    www.ssoar.info Exploring the Legal Requirements for Cross Border Judicial Cooperation: The Case of the Service of Documents Amato, Rosanna Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Amato, R. (2019). Exploring the Legal Requirements for Cross Border Judicial Cooperation: The Case of the Service of Documents. European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities, 8(2), 36-53. https://nbn-resolving.org/ urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-62481-8 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC-ND Lizenz This document is made available under a CC BY-NC-ND Licence (Namensnennung-Nicht-kommerziell-Keine Bearbeitung) zur (Attribution-Non Comercial-NoDerivatives). For more Information Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.de European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities EQPAM Volume 8, No.2, April 2019 ISSN 2285 – 4916 ISSN-L 2285 - 4916 Exploring the Legal Requirements for Cross Border Judicial Cooperation: The Case of the Service of Documents _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Rosanna Amato Research Institute on Judicial Systems National Research Council Italy Date of submission: April 19th, 2019 Date of acceptance: April 23rd, 2019 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract In legal terms, the free movement of citizens, goods, services and capital leads to the creation of cross-border legal relationships involving more than one legal system. Therefore, cooperation between the judicial authorities of the Member States of the European Union is a keystone for a common area of freedom, security and justice. Keywords: judicial system This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
    [Show full text]
  • Jehl 01 2019-1
    table of contents Christian Neschwara: „Zum immerwährenden Gedenken an die Ausrufung des Freistaates“: Das Selbstbild der (deutsch-)österreichischen Republik 1918/19 und seine Verdrängung . 2. Martin Paar: Zur Geschichte des österreichischen Weinrechts von 1907 bis 1985 . 15. Thomas Gergen: Entscheidungsfindung auf kommunaler Ebene vor 80 Jahren – Mobilmachung 1939 im Landkreis Saarlouis . 26. Malte Wilke, Stefan Segerling: Politisierte Beleidigungsprozesse in der Weimarer Republik . 31. Martin Löhnig: Die norwegische Verfassung von 1814 in der deutschen Verfassungspublizistik des 19 . Jahrhunderts . 40. Javier Belda Iniesta, Michela Coretti: The Clementines Dispendiosam and Saepe Contingit and the Evolution of the Medieval Summary Procedure . 46. Dmitry Poldnikov: Two Divergent Approaches to Comparative Legal Studies in Europe and Their Implications for Legal History . 68. Bartosz Kamil Truszkowski: Registration of Civil Status in the Second Polish Republic (1918 – 1939) . 76. Karol Siemaszko: Criminals and Criminality on the so–called Recovered Territories (Poland) after the End of WW II (1945 – 1950) in the Light of Judicature of the Selected Polish Regional Courts . 85. József Szalma: Die Kodifikationsentwicklung des Zivilrechts in Serbien – insbesondere über den Vorentwurf des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches und über das neue Handelsgesetzbuch der Republik Serbien . 90. th st Editorial staff Pavel Salák: The Dating of Last Wills in the Territory of the Czech Lands from the 19 to the 21 Century . 98. JOURNAL ON EUROPEAN HISTORY OF LAW: Pál Sáry: The Ancient Roman Pollicitatio and a Similar Hungarian Legal Institution . 107 Prof. Dr. Christian Baldus Kinga Beliznai Bódi: Judicial Robe . The Insignia of the Judicial Profession . 112 Faculty of Law, Heidelberg University, Germany Jenő Szmodis: Some Newer Views to the Problems of the Hungarian Holy Crown and Holy Crown-Doctrine .
    [Show full text]