Suchergebnisse

The new Private International Law Act of the Republic of North Macedonia (hereinafter the PIL Act 2020) has been adopted in 2020. It represents one of the most comprehensive codification of European Union private international law (hereinafter the EU PIL) provisions in national private international law act. The PIL act 2020 implements most of the EU conflict of law rules and EU jurisdictional criteria especially those that have universal application. The most significant characteristics of PILA 2020 are: firstly, the act has limited the exclusive jurisdictional criteria; secondly, it introduced habitual residence as one of the main jurisdictional and conflict of law criteria; and thirdly, the act 'mirrors' the provisions that are present in the EU regulations. Moreover the PILA 2020 has positioned direct link between the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the EU PIL Regulations and the national courts, although N. Macedonia is still a candidate country to the EU. This Europeanisation of the Macedonian PIL has been done for two reasons: first, to modernize the rules in line with the new PIL trends, and secondly to prepare the Macedonian judges for the forthcoming radical change in the PIL when N. Macedonia becomes a full member in the EU. The intention of this article is not to give full detailed analyses of every provision in the new PILA 2020 but rather to provide for general overview of the solutions present in this act, as well to determine the main principles and new tendencies that would define the Macedonian private international law in future.

The diplomatic session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (Hague Conference) regarding the "Judgments Project" will be held between 18 June – 02 July 2019 in the Hague when it is expected that the long awaited Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (new 2019 Hague Convention) will be adopted. This Convention comes as a result of 27 years of work that has been done in the course of this project of the Hague Conference and it can be said that is one of the most awaited developments in Private International Law. The success of the convention cannot be predicted at this point because large number of factors impact the outcome of the convention. However benefits from having an international agreement dealing with cross border recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is self-evident. More than ever there is a need of a single instrument that will contain unified conditions for recognition and enforcement and ease the cross border circulation of judgments. Only a brief look at the New York Convention on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards (New York Convention) provides for glimpse of the benefits from having such instrument. So what will this mean for the countries of South Eastern Europe? What will be the interest of the countries to be part of this Convention? How much are the national legal systems compatible with the rules provided in the Hague convention? This article will try to answer these questions, together with the implications that the Hague Convention will have on the South Eastern Europe region. Moreover this is of huge importance since most of the countries of South Eastern Europe region are part of the European Union or are candidate countries. So has the time come for a structural change of the national recognition and enforcement systems and how far reaching will be the consequences on the national legal systems?

New trend emerges in the quest for establishing real actual trust between the main stakeholders in the complex cross border family law cases, which is providing for concentration of jurisdiction. The Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH) and the European Union (EU) are in forefront of establishing concentrating jurisdiction for those proceedings based on limitation of the number of courts in order to solve two problems: to enhance the predictability and the uniformity of the outcomes in these cases and to re-establish the mutual trust on realistic grounds instead of its current notion as a political decision. Such strategy is welcomed since it starts from the bottom and it tends to elevate the trust between the persons concerned in these proceedings and with that it stretches its prerogatives to the top, which is to enhance the trust between the legal systems. Whether it will succeed it depends again on the modalities of its establishment in the national legal systems. Generally, specialization of jurisdiction is frequently considered to be an important reform initiative in improving the development of a successful judicial system which is why it is recognized as a rapidly growing trend regarding the organization of the judiciary systems worldwide. The article will discuss the concepts of specialization of jurisdiction and its possible implementation in the national legal system of Republic of North Macedonia (N. Macedonia) regarding the complex cross border family law cases.

According to the sociologist Niklas Luhman trust represents a 'confidence in one's own expectation to another person's behavior. With such understanding of the etymology of the term "trust", its position in the everyday life has paramount importance in the social interaction of humans. Therefore, the understanding of the term 'mutual trust' must be derived from its definition as a basic fact of social life and a component of human behavior. This term has reached new level of meaning in Europe with the creation of the European Union. The whole apparatus of crossborder cooperation in criminal and civil matters in the EU is centered around the principle of "mutual trust" and its influence regarding "mutual recognition". In this article the authors will address these aspects from different point of views: cross-border cooperation in criminal matters and in civil matters in order to determine whether "mutual trust" really exist between the designated stakeholders in criminal and in civil matters, and try to identify the reasons for the drawbacks. Having in mind that these two fields are completely different, the authors will try to find common ground in the actual effective implementation of the principle of 'mutual trust' and understand the functioning of the principle in these two fields. Alternatively, their proposition is that the main stakeholders in the EU should use their resources in building a long term 'actual trust' instead of politically motivated 'mutual trust' that creates notable difficulties in the functioning of the 'mutual recognition' in the EU.