IL CONFLITTO DI DECISIONI NELLO SPAZIO GIUDIZIARIO EUROPEO

In the transnational context we traditionally refer to conflict of decisions when the effects of two (or more) decisions, given between the same parties and, in some cases, involving the same cause of action, entail legal consequences that are mutually exclusive. Such scenarios undermine legal certainty in the European area of justice along with the procedural guarantees of the right of action and defense that are confirmed by the principle of due process – as enshrined in Art. 6 of the ECHR – and the right of access to civil justice. Conversely, the practical implementation of these guarantees should be coordinated with the need to ensure an undemanding circulation of decisions in the European judicial area, consistent with the line taken by the European legislator to abolish as much as possible controls on decisions rendered in the Member States and marked by the principle of mutual trust between judicial authorities. According to the simplified circulation regime currently outlined by the European regulations, in fact, decisions falling within the material scope of the regulations, given by a Member State in compliance with the principle of adversarial proceedings between parties and, in wider terms, with the generally provided procedural guarantees, may circulate. The effects of such decisions may be invoked in any other Member State, behind the constraint on the court of the requested Member State to comply with the findings of the court of origin. Based on these premises, the thesis, after retracing the dynamics of transnational litigation that could lead to irreconcilable decisions, aims to examine the discipline of the conflict of decisions provided for by the European legislator by looking, firstly, at the rules on coordination of parallel proceedings. As is common knowledge, in fact, in order to ensure the harmonious administration of justice, a series of procedural instruments are provided for to prevent, to the extent possible, the occurrence of irreconcilable decisions from the outset. This is, precisely, the rationale behind the provisions on lis pendens and related actions. In such a perspective, the requirements of the lis pendens rule – then recalled by the legislator also to define the assumptions of conflicting decisions – are, therefore, examined. Attention thus shifts, in the second part of the dissertation, to the rules intervening at a later stage, looking beyond the coincidence of the requirements mentioned above in order to verify whether there are additional assumptions likely to give rise to conflicting decisions and, having clarified this, whether the provisions on the conflict of decisions are compatible with the principle of mutual recognition of judgments that informs the European area of justice. The analysis is conducted by adopting a cross-sectional perspective and thus looking at civil and commercial matters, according to the provisions set forth in Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, family disputes, notably, in light of Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Regulation (EU) 2016/1103, Regulation (EU) 2016/1104, Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, and succession matters as set forth in Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, having regard to the interpretation given by the Court of Justice of the European Union and national case law of Member States.