26.05.2015<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regulation (EU) 1215\/2012 came into force on January 15, 2015. It regulates jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial cases.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The predecessor regulation had already created legal certainty regarding the jurisdiction of the courts of the member states. In addition to the "general place of jurisdiction", other places of jurisdiction were created: that of the performance of the contract, of the infliction of damage, or in the case of real estate, the location of the "located object", etc. The question of concluding a jurisdiction agreement was also regulated uniformly. However, the new regulation goes even further in that only the court named in the contract may be called upon, while a court that is obviously not competent must stay its proceedings. This means that so-called "torpedo actions" lose their appeal. At the enforcement level, the "exequatur procedure" has been abolished. Until now, a foreign judgment had to be formally recognized, which led to a delay. Now a decision issued by the courts of a member state is to be treated as if it had been issued in the enforcement state; formal recognition or declaration of enforceability is no longer necessary. Since Regulation (EU) 1215\/2012 applies in all EU member states, it can be justifiably claimed that cross-border recourse against contractual partners (including the subsequent enforcement of decisions obtained) is now more legally secure and simple than ever before.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Regulation (EU) 1215\/2012 came into force on January 15, 2015. It regulates jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial cases.<\/p>\n The predecessor regulation had already created legal certainty regarding the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States. In addition to the "general place of jurisdiction," further places of jurisdiction were created: the place of performance of the contract, the place of damage, or, in the case of real estate, the place of the "located thing," etc. The question of concluding a jurisdiction agreement was also regulated uniformly. However, the new regulation goes even further, stipulating that only the court named in the contract may be seized, while a court manifestly lacking jurisdiction must stay its proceedings.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1306","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pressebeitraege"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1306","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1306"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1306\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4696,"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1306\/revisions\/4696"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}