http___www.vzakone.biz_irlandia.php_1.xml
1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 14.2 15.1 15.2 15.3 16.1 16.2 16.3 17.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 21.1 21.2 21.3 22.1 23.1 24.1 25.1 26.1 27.1 28.1 29.1 30.1 31.1 32.1 33.1 34.1 34.2 35.1 36.1 36.2 36.3 37.1 37.2 38.1 38.2 39.1 39.2
Australia. Performance and recovery solutions in Australia in the Russian Federation. How to execute the decision. Attention, then automatic translation! Welcome to the center of legal services! We carry out the process of execution of a judgment or other judicial act on the territory of a foreign state. To order the service, receive advice or information, please contact us by e-mail MIR.ZAKONA@MAIL.RU we will reply you as soon as possible. Thank you. In recent years, the interaction of legal systems of most countries is constantly gaining momentum. One of the essential components of this interaction is the recognition and enforcement of court decisions of one country in another. So, in January of this year, it took place the consideration of the enforcement of the decision of the court of your country on the territory of a foreign state. In connection with this interesting, and the reverse situation, namely: in what circumstances foreign judgments will be enforced in the territory of your country? Grounds for decision Despite the fact that the two countries can be signed several international agreements on legal cooperation, none of them can not contain mechanisms for the recognition and enforcement of decisions of the state courts in civil or commercial disputes. United Kingdom, for example, does not have such agreements with many other countries, including the US, Japan, China and the Middle East. Despite the absence of international treaties, decisions of the courts in these countries, it is possible to enforce in England and Wales in accordance with the principles of the so-called English common law. Notable is the fact that the recognition of foreign decisions in accordance with the common law is not based on the principle of reciprocity, which time the courts refer to from time to time. Instead, English law considers a foreign decision as creating a one party's liability to the other process. In fact, such a responsibility is a duty that the plaintiff may recover in the UK. When enforcement of a foreign judgment is not reviewed on their merits. No revision shall be the testimony given by the parties in a foreign court proceedings, as well as the reasons for which a foreign court has ruled. However, such a method of execution has limitations: only a certain category of decisions shall be executed in accordance with the common law in addition, there are a number of grounds on which recognition and enforcement may be refused. The provisions of common law In accordance with the provisions of common law party in whose favor the decision was made to the court of a foreign state may file a private lawsuit in the country on the basis of such a decision. A foreign judgment must meet several requirements. Firstly, it must provide for the payment of a certain amount of cash, and this amount can not be unpaid taxes, fines or other payments similar nature. Second, the foreign decision shall be final. It is necessary to distinguish between the concept of "finality" and entry into force, in the sense in which it is interpreted by national legislation. The possibility to appeal the decision in the High Court does not mean that the decision is not a "final" in accordance with national law; in this case it is only required that the decision could not be changed by the same court in which it was made. Thirdly, it is necessary that the foreign judgment was rendered by a court "of competent jurisdiction". In fact, this requirement is the consideration of a foreign court the issue of whether it was the case in respect of which made decision of the court, the jurisdiction of that court in terms of national law establishing that the foreign court has "the competent jurisdiction" if the person against whom it was issued a foreign court decision: (A) physically located in a foreign country during the excitation of the foreign proceedings; (B) voluntary participated in the foreign litigation; or (C) Before the start of the trial has concluded an agreement defining the jurisdiction of a foreign court. Grounds for refusal One of the main differences between the judgments of countries with which the international agreement is concluded, and the countries with which a contract is concluded, a number of possible reasons for failure in the performance: in the absence of an international treaty list of such grounds is much longer. For example, in the first place, the reason for failure in the performance of a foreign judgment is the existence of a previously imposed is contrary to the decision of a foreign court that meets the requirements for the recognition and enforcement on the merits in the dispute between the same parties and the same subject or on the same grounds. Second, the foreign decision will not be enforced if it was made in violation of an agreement on jurisdiction or arbitration clause. Thirdly, the foreign decision is not enforceable if it is insignificant in terms of the foreign law. Cost distinguish nullity solutions and the opportunity to challenge it; the latter is not a ground for refusing enforcement. Fourth, the foreign judgment will not be enforced if it was issued in violation of principles of natural justice. The rule of natural justice require that the defendant was properly notified of a foreign court and had the opportunity to submit to the court his case. Despite the fact that the one-something base failure, as the failure to comply with natural justice, well-known law, the foreign court is not easy to be convinced that natural justice was indeed broken, and published decisions, where design was refused on this basis, no. Along with natural justice, there are a number of precedents indicating that the foreign decision must accord with the principles of substantial justice. Another similar grounds for refusal is contrary to public policy. Exhaustive list of cases where he could apply the principle of public policy, does not exist. Decisions found that contradictions action Public policy is not enough; for failure in the performance needed to itself the judgment violated the public order. Historically, this ground for refusal is not often applied with success in business affairs. Recently, the concept of "natural justice", "substantial justice" and "public order" is actually considered as one category together with the requirement that foreign decisions should not violate the rights of the parties, granted to them by the European Convention on Human Rights. Finally, there is a rule that a foreign judgment will not be enforced if it was obtained by fraud. Usually this occurs in a situation where the defendant argues that the plaintiff has made decisions by providing in a foreign lawsuit false testimony. The obvious conclusion is that the recognition and enforcement of judgments of national state arbitration courts, as well as the acts of courts of general jurisdiction in civil matters in the territory of a foreign state is possible - both in theory and in practice. But all cases are individual.
1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 14.2 15.1 15.2 15.3 16.1 16.2 16.3 17.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 21.1 21.2 21.3 22.1 23.1 24.1 25.1 26.1 27.1 28.1 29.1 30.1 31.1 32.1 33.1 34.1 34.2 35.1 36.1 36.2 37.1 37.2 38.1 38.2 39.1 39.2
Éire Rúis. Déanamh agus a bhailiú an breithiúnas hÉireann i gCónaidhm na Rúise. Conas a fhorghníomhú an cinneadh. Rabhadh! Aistriúchán uathoibríoch. Fáilte go dtí an t-ionad seirbhísí dlí! Déanaimid an próiseas forghníomhaithe breithiúnais nó gníomh breithiúnach eile ar chríoch stát coigríche. A ordú ar an tseirbhís, comhairle nó faisnéis a fháil, téigh i dteagmháil linn tríd an ríomhphost MIR.ZAKONA@MAIL.RU cuirfimid freagra duit chomh luath agus is féidir. Go raibh maith agat. Le blianta beaga anuas, tá an t-idirghníomhú na gcóras dlíthiúil bhformhór na dtíortha a fháil i gcónaí móiminteam. Is é ceann de na comhpháirteanna riachtanacha an idirghníomhaíocht le haithint agus forghníomhú cinntí cúirte tír amháin i gceann eile. Mar sin, i mí Eanáir na bliana seo, thóg sé ar siúl ar an breithniú fhorfheidhmiú an cinneadh na cúirte de do thír ar chríoch stát coigríche. I dtaca leis seo suimiúil, agus ar an staid droim ar ais, is iad sin: Beidh cé na cúinsí breithiúnais coigríche a chur i bhfeidhm i gcríoch do thír féin? Forais cinneadh In ainneoin an bhfíric gur féidir leis an dá thír a bheith sínithe le comhaontuithe idirnáisiúnta éagsúla maidir le comhar dlíthiúil, ní féidir aon cheann acu go bhfuil na meicníochtaí maidir le haithint agus forghníomhú breitheanna ó na cúirteanna stáit i ndíospóidí shibhialta nó tráchtála. An Ríocht Aontaithe, mar shampla, nach bhfuil na comhaontuithe sin ag le go leor tíortha eile, lena n-áirítear na Stáit Aontaithe, an tSeapáin, an tSín agus an Meánoirthear. In ainneoin an easpa conarthaí idirnáisiúnta, breitheanna ó na cúirteanna sna tíortha seo, is féidir a chur i bhfeidhm i Sasana agus sa Bhreatain Bheag i gcomhréir le prionsabail an dlí Shasana choitinn mar a thugtar air. Is suntasach an bhfíric nach bhfuil an t-aitheantas na gcinntí eachtracha i gcomhréir leis an dlí coiteann atá bunaithe ar phrionsabal na cómhalartaíochta, an ama a tharchur na cúirteanna a ó am go ham. Ina áit sin, measann dlí Shasana cinneadh coigríche dhliteanas pháirtí amháin a chruthú don phróiseas eile. Go deimhin, tá a leithéid de fhreagracht dualgas go bhféadfaidh an gearánaí a ghnóthú sa Ríocht Aontaithe. Nuair nach Déantar athbhreithniú forghníomhú breithiúnais coigríche ar a bhfiúntas. Ní bheidh aon athbhreithniú a an fianaise a thug na páirtithe i imeachtaí cúirte eachtrach, chomh maith leis na cúiseanna a bhfuil cúirt eachtrach rialaigh. Mar sin féin, tá a leithéid de mhodh fhorghníomhú teorainneacha: ní bheidh ach catagóir áirithe cinntí a fhorghníomhú i gcomhréir leis an dlí coiteann ina theannta sin, tá roinnt de na forais ar a bhféadfar aithint agus forghníomhú a dhiúltú. Beidh feidhm ag forálacha an dlí choitinn De réir fhorálacha pháirtí dlí coiteann ar ina fhabhar a rinneadh an cinneadh chun na cúirte stáit eachtracha is féidir comhad a lawsuit príobháideach sa tír ar bhonn cinneadh den sórt sin de. Ní mór Ní fhéadfar breithiúnas coigríche a chomhlíonadh roinnt riachtanais. Ar dtús, ní mór dó foráil a dhéanamh chun go n-íocfar méid áirithe airgid, agus ní féidir an méid sin a bheith chánacha gan íoc, fíneálacha nó íocaíochtaí eile dá samhail. Dara, beidh breith eachtrach críochnaitheach. Is gá idirdhealú a dhéanamh idir an coincheap "críochnaitheacht" agus teacht i bhfeidhm, sa chiall ina bhfuil sé léiriú ag reachtaíocht náisiúnta. An fhéidearthacht an cinneadh a achomharc san Ard-Chúirt nach chiallaíonn nach bhfuil an cinneadh ar "deiridh" i gcomhréir leis an dlí náisiúnta; sa chás seo tá sé ag teastáil ach nach bhféadfaí an cinneadh a athrú ag an gcúirt chéanna ina ndearnadh é. An tríú dul síos, tá sé riachtanach go ndearnadh an breithiúnas coigríche ag cúirt "dlínse inniúla". Go deimhin, is é an riachtanas seo an breithniú cúirte eachtrach an tsaincheist cibé an raibh sé an cás ar ina leith a rinneadh cinneadh na cúirte, dlínse na cúirte sin maidir le dlí náisiúnta á shuíomh go bhfuil an chúirt coigríche "an dlínse inniúla" más choinneáil amhlaidh eisíodh é don duine le cinneadh cúirte coigríche: (A) atá lonnaithe go fisiciúil i dtír iasachta le linn an excitation na n-imeachtaí eachtracha; (B) deonach páirt sa dlíthíocht eachtrach; nó Tá (C) Roimh thús na trialach i gcrích ar chomhaontú ina saineofar an dlínse cúirte coigríche. Forais do dhiúltú Ceann de na príomhdhifríochtaí idir na breithiúnais na dtíortha lena bhfuil an comhaontú idirnáisiúnta i gcrích, agus na tíortha lena bhfuil conradh i gcrích, ar roinnt cúiseanna a d'fhéadfadh teip i gcomhlíonadh: in éagmais liosta conradh idirnáisiúnta fhorais den sórt sin i bhfad níos faide. Mar shampla, sa chéad áit, is é an chúis mar gheall ar mhainneachtain i gcomhlíonadh breithiúnas coigríche dá haire go bhfuil a fhorchuirtear roimhe bhfuil contrártha do chinneadh na cúirte coigríche a chomhlíonann na ceanglais maidir le haithint agus forghníomhú i dtaobh tuillteanas sa díospóid idir na páirtithe céanna agus ar an ábhar céanna nó ar na forais chéanna. Dara, ní bheidh an cinneadh coigríche a chur i bhfeidhm má rinneadh é i sárú chomhaontú i dtaobh dlínse nó clásal eadrána. An tríú dul síos, nach bhfuil an cinneadh coigríche infhorghníomhaithe má tá sé neamhshuntasach i dtéarmaí an dlí eachtraigh. Costas idirdhealú réitigh neamhniú agus an deis chun dúshlán é; nach bhfuil an dara ceann ar an talamh le diúltú forghníomhú. Ceathrú, ní bheidh an breithiúnas coigríche a chur i bhfeidhm dá eisíodh é mar shárú ar na prionsabail an cheartais aiceanta. An riail an cheartais aiceanta a cheangal go raibh an cosantóir in iúl go cuí chúirt eachtrach agus bhí an deis a chur faoi bhráid na cúirte a chás. In ainneoin an bhfíric go bhfuil an teip bonn amháin-rud éigin, mar an mainneachtain déanamh an cheartais nádúrtha, dlí mór le rá, nach bhfuil an chúirt coigríche éasca a bheith cinnte gur ceartas aiceanta briste go deimhin, agus cinntí, nuair a diúltaíodh dearadh ar an mbonn, ní fhoilsigh. Mar aon le ceartas aiceanta, tá roinnt de na fasaigh a léiríonn go gcaithfidh an cinneadh coigríche teacht leis na prionsabail a bhaineann le ceartas substaintiúil. Eile forais den chineál céanna do dhiúltú atá bunoscionn leis an mbeartas poiblí. liosta uileghabhálach de na cásanna ina bhféadfadh sé prionsabal na mbeartas poiblí nach bhfuil, ann. Cinntí fuarthas amach go nach bhfuil contrárthachtaí gníomhaíocht beartais poiblí go leor; mar gheall ar mhainneachtain i gcomhlíonadh is gá chun é féin breithiúnas sháraigh an ord poiblí. Go stairiúil, níl an bhforas do dhiúltú i bhfeidhm go minic le rath i gcúrsaí gnó. Le déanaí, tá an coincheap "ceartais aiceanta", "ceartais substaintiúil" agus "ord poiblí" mheas i ndáiríre mar chatagóir amháin mar aon leis an gceanglas nár cheart do chinntí eachtrannacha sáraíonn cearta na bpáirtithe, a thugtar dóibh leis an gCoinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine. Ar deireadh, tá riail nach mbeidh breithiúnas coigríche a fhorghníomhú dá bhfuarthas é trí chalaois. De ghnáth tharlaíonn sé seo i gcás ina argóint an cosantóir go bhfuil an gearánaí cinntí a rinne a sholáthar i fianaise lawsuit coigríche bréagach. Is é an chonclúid léir go bhfuil an t-aitheantas agus forghníomhú breithiúnas ó chúirteanna eadrána náisiúnta stáit, chomh maith leis na gníomhartha cúirteanna le dlínse ginearálta in ábhair shibhialta i gcríoch stáit choigríche féidir - araon i dteoiric agus i gcleachtas. Ach tá gach cás ar leith.