CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

DIMITRIS I. LIAKOPOULOS CYIL 11 (2020) regulations that can apply independently of reciprocity: The United Kingdom has therefore decided to keep them as EU retained law. The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 50 to this end bring to the British legislation some changes that will allow to apply in the country following the Brexit provisions of content corresponding to that of the two regulations. This solution was desired by many because it is two balanced and well-tested regimes 51 . The Member States of the Union will naturally continue, for their part, to apply the regulations to cases connected with the United Kingdom since the conflict of laws rules established in them are universal and therefore also concern situations connected with third States 52 . Substantial regulatory uniformity can be maintained. Obviously, given their nature as European acts, the two Regulations Rome I and Rome II are subject to the preliminary interpretation of the CJEU, which has already made pronouncements on numerous occasions regarding some of the provisions contained therein. It could therefore be feared 53 , that the unilateral application of the regulations by the British authorities, combined with the fact that the United Kingdom would no longer be bound by compliance with the decisions of the Court of Luxembourg 54 , could have the effect of losing the desired uniformity in the relations 50 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111180785/contents. 51 See the document of 22 March 2017 of Justice Committee House of Commons, Implications of Brexit for the justice system of 22 March 2017, the conservation of the regime created by the Rome I and Rome II regulations was considered practically obvious. The request to keep the two regulations as EU retained law was also formulated by the business world: Financial Markets Law Committee, Issues of Legal Uncertainty Arising in the Context of the Withdrawal of the U.K. from the E.U.-The Application of English Law, the Jurisdiction of English Courts and the Enforcement of English Judgments, December 2016, par. 3.3, pp. 3ss. For further details see also: O’SULLIVAN, S. ‘Brexit and choice of law in the law of obligations’, (2018), 24 ILJ 77-96. HESS, N., KRAMER, W.E. From common rules to best practices in European civil procedure , (Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden, 2017, 29ss). PENADES FONS, M. ‘Brexit and the law applicable regime to contractual and non contractual obligations’, (2017), 17 AEDIP 125-154, while considering the withdrawal from the EU on a general level as an excellent opportunity to redesign private international law in the United Kingdom, it also expresses itself in favor of maintaining the regimes set by the Rome I and Rome II regulations. 52 Art. 2 of regulation 593/2008 and art. 3 of regulation 864/2007. 53 Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses, OJ L 160, 30.6.2000, p. 19-36.A proposal for a revised Regulation was adopted by the European Commission on June 30, 2016. Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast), COM(2016) 411 final. See in argument: STORME, M. ‘Harmonisation of civil procedure and the interaction with substantive private law’, in KRAMER, X.E., VAN RHEE, C.H. Civil litigation in a globalizing World, (T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 2012) 142ss. VAN BALLEGOOI, W. The nature of mutual recognition in European law , (ed. Intersentia, Antwerp & Oxford, 2015). CAAMIŇA DOMÌNGUEZ, C.M. ‘La ‘supresiòn’ del exequàtur en el R 2201/2003’, (2011), 3 CDT 66ss. CUNIBERTI, G. ‘Abolition de l’exequatur et présomption de protection des droits fondamentaux’, (2014), 103 (1) RCDIP 304ss. PFEIFFER, T. ‘The abolition of exequatur and the free circulation of judgments’, in FERRARI, F., RAGNO F. (eds) Cross-border litigation in Europe: The Brussels I Recast Regulation as a panacea? , (ed. Wolters Kluwer/Cedam, The Hague, 2016) 188ss. THÕBE, M. Die Abschaffung des Exequaturverfahrens und die EuGVVO. Veröffentlichungen zum Verfahrensrecht, (ed. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2016). HAMED, A., TATSIANA, K. ‘A step forward in the harmonization of European jurisdiction: Regulation Brussels I Recast’, (2016), 6 BJ&P 162ss. 54 RÜHL, G. ‘Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters after Brexit: Which way forward?’, (2018), 27 (1) ICLQ 124ss.

272