THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN CIVIL PROCEDURE M. Freudenthal Readers are reminded that this work is protected by copyright. While they are free to use the ideas expressed in it, they may not copy, distribute or publish the work or part ofit, in any form, printed, electronic or othenwise, except for reasonable quoting, clearly indicating th source. Readers are permitted to make copies, electronically or printed, for personal and classroom use 1. Introduction On the lst of May 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force. Since that time European civil procedure has become one of the most important topics of private harmonisation within the Union. In exactly four years, several regulations on civil procedure were realised and more have been instigated, all based on Article 65 of the European Community Treaty. These procedural instruments aimed, in the first place, at the realisation and the improvement of legal cooperation in order to promote the well-functioning of the internal market. Although compatibility and harmonisation of the national rules of civil procedure did not constitute a target of these regulations, they nevertheless encroached upon the member states domestic civil procedure; thus, these regulations provide an impetus to European harmonisation and, as a consequence, to the coming into being of a European law of civil procedure. This is certainly the main difference between the European regulations on civil procedure and the Hague Conventions on civil procedure, real ised successively in 1904, 1954, 1965 and 1970, since these Hague Conventions strictly regulate and simplify cross- border legal cooperation while guaranteeing the sovereignty of the contracting states. The harmonisation of European civil procedure is not only contributed to by European legal instruments of civil procedure; an important contribution to that effect is also provided by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950. Principles such as the right to be heard, the equality of both parties to a dispute and the right to proceedings within a reasonable time have become important issues which have been implemented in national law.4 n this contribution, I will not only discuss what has been developed up to now, but I The author is Senior Lecturer in Civil Procedure, Molengraaff Institute for Private Law, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. E-mail: M Freudenthal@law. uu. nl The Hague Conventions relating to civil procedure of 1905 and 1954; the Hague Convention on the Serv ice Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of 1965 and the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters of 1970 Especially the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of 1965 resulted in changes in the Dutch law of civil procedure in the sense that the Burgemeestertje- the automatic service of documents upon the burgomaster if the dom icile or residence was unknown- was abolish The consequences of Article 6 of the EChR will not be considered in this contribution
1 THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN CIVIL PROCEDURE M. Freudenthal1 Readers are reminded that this work is protected by copyright. While they are free to use the ideas expressed in it, they may not copy, distribute or publish the work or part of it, in any form, printed, electronic or otherwise, except for reasonable quoting, clearly indicating the source. Readers are permitted to make copies, electronically or printed, for personal and classroom use. 1. Introduction On the 1st of May 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force. Since that time, European civil procedure has become one of the most important topics of private harmonisation within the Union. In exactly four years, several regulations on civil procedure were realised and more have been instigated, all based on Article 65 of the European Community Treaty. These procedural instruments aimed, in the first place, at the realisation and the improvement of legal cooperation in order to promote the well-functioning of the internal market. Although compatibility and harmonisation of the national rules of civil procedure did not constitute a target of these regulations, they nevertheless encroached upon the member states’ domestic civil procedure; thus, these regulations provide an impetus to European harmonisation and, as a consequence, to the coming into being of a European law of civil procedure. This is certainly the main difference between the European regulations on civil procedure and the Hague Conventions on civil procedure, realised successively in 1904, 1954, 1965 and 1970,2 since these Hague Conventions strictly regulate and simplify crossborder legal cooperation while guaranteeing the sovereignty of the contracting states.3 The harmonisation of European civil procedure is not only contributed to by European legal instruments of civil procedure; an important contribution to that effect is also provided by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950. Principles such as the right to be heard, the equality of both parties to a dispute and the right to proceedings within a reasonable time have become important issues which have been implemented in national law.4 In this contribution, I will not only discuss what has been developed up to now, but I 1 The author is Senior Lecturer in Civil Procedure, Molengraaff Institute for Private Law, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. E-mail: M.Freudenthal@law.uu.nl. 2 The Hague Conventions relating to civil procedure of 1905 and 1954; the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of 1965 and the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters of 1970. 3 Especially the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of 1965 resulted in changes in the Dutch law of civil procedure in the sense that the Burgemeestertje - the automatic service of documents upon the burgomaster if the domicile or residence was unknown - was abolished. 4 The consequences of Article 6 of the ECHR will not be considered in this contribution
will also try to look ahead and see what impact in particular the new European Convention, when accepted, may have on European civil procedure. a closer study of these new developments is necessary since, to date, European civil procedure has been developed in a way which is too incidental and without being based on a well-considered basic concept. It becoming increasingly clear that such a basic concept is needed in order to realise a genuine harmonised/uniform European procedural system. I will try to discover whether one can already speak of the emergence of such an independent European law of civil procedure, which distinguishes itself from national civil procedure as well as from international civil procedure. 2. European civil procedure before the Treaty of Amsterdam The increasing economic activities within the European Union have realised a growth in European cross-border transactions. Inherent in this growth is the growth of cross-border conflicts. The variety of laws of civil procedure in Europe has created an already long- existing problem by which effective access to the courts is seriously hampered. The idea to solve this problem by harmonising part of the law of civil procedure has, however, only recently emerged. As a rule, the law of civil procedure was and still is considered to be closely connected to the forum and the forum state with its own cultural and trad itional specific aspects, and therefore not fit for harmonisation. For this reason, even now the forum decides on the rules of civil procedure that will be applied, which is almost always strictly national law. A first successful step towards partial harmonisation of the law of civil procedure within the European Union was made in 1968 by the acceptance of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, a convention which was created within the european Community common rules for jurisdiction, recognition and execution of judicial decisions. 9 In spite of the positive effects of this Convention-which were for an important part caused by its uniform interpretation by the Court of Justice in Luxembourg-it was only after 1990 that the harmonisation of civil procedure gained momentum M. Freudenthaland F.J.A. van der Velden, Europees procesrecht van het Verdrag van Amsterdam,in E H. Hondiuset al (eds ) Van Nederlands naar Europees Procesrecht? Liber Amicorum Paul Meijknecht Kluwer 2000, pp. 81-98; see also footnote 40 there B Hess, Der Binnenmarktprozess, JZ1998, pp. 1021-1032 7 At this moment, seventeen different systems of civil procedure exist. The U.K. already hasthree different systems: one in England and Wales, one in Scotland and one in Northem Ireland; see T. Drappatz, Die Uberfuhrung des internationalen Zivilverfahrensrechts in eine Gemeinschaftskompetenz nach art. 65 EGI Max-Planck-Institut, 2002, P 3 K D. Kearmeus, Angleichung des zivilprozessrechts in Europa, Rabelsz, Bd 66, 2002, p 5; CH.van Rhee, Civil Procedure: A European lus Commune?, ERPL, 2000, pp. 589-61 The legal basis is Art. 293(ex Art. 220)of the Treaty establishing the European Community. The EU Convention on Insolvency Proceedings of 23 November 1995 was created using the same legal basis. Because due to the bse crisis, the United Kingdom failed to sign the Convention before the deadline, the Convention never entered into force
2 will also try to look ahead and see what impact in particular the new European Convention, when accepted, may have on European civil procedure. A closer study of these new developments is necessary since, to date, European civil procedure has been developed in a way which is too incidental and without being based on a well-considered basic concept. It is becoming increasingly clear that such a basic concept is needed in order to realise a genuine harmonised/uniform European procedural system.5 I will try to discover whether one can already speak of the emergence of such an independent European law of civil procedure, which distinguishes itself from national civil procedure as well as from international civil procedure.6 2. European civil procedure before the Treaty of Amsterdam The increasing economic activities within the European Union have realised a growth in European cross-border transactions. Inherent in this growth is the growth of cross-border conflicts. The variety of laws of civil procedure in Europe has created an already longexisting problem by which effective access to the courts is seriously hampered.7 The idea to solve this problem by harmonising part of the law of civil procedure has, however, only recently emerged. As a rule, the law of civil procedure was and still is considered to be closely connected to the forum and the forum state with its own cultural and traditional specific aspects, and therefore not fit for harmonisation. For this reason, even now the forum decides on the rules of civil procedure that will be applied,8 which is almost always strictly national law. A first successful step towards partial harmonisation of the law of civil procedure within the European Union was made in 1968 by the acceptance of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, a convention which was created within the European Community common rules for jurisdiction, recognition and execution of judicial decisions.9 In spite of the positive effects of this Convention - which were for an important part caused by its uniform interpretation by the Court of Justice in Luxembourg - it was only after 1990 that the harmonisation of civil procedure gained momentum. 5 M. Freudenthal and F.J.A. van der Velden, Europees procesrecht van het Verdrag van Amsterdam, in: E.H. Hondius et al. (eds.), Van Nederlands naar Europees Procesrecht? Liber Amicorum Paul Meijknecht, Kluwer 2000, pp. 81-98; see also footnote 40 there. 6 B. Hess, Der Binnenmarktprozess, JZ 1998, pp. 1021-1032. 7 At this moment, seventeen different systems of civil procedure exist. The U.K. already has three different systems: one in England and Wales, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland; see T. Drappatz, Die Überführung des internationalen Zivilverfahrensrechts in eine Gemeinschaftskompetenz nach art. 65 EGV, Max-Planck-Institut, 2002, p. 3. 8 K.D. Kearmeus, Angleichung des Zivilprozessrechts in Europa, RabelsZ, Bd 66, 2002, p. 5; C.H. van Rhee, Civil Procedure: A European Ius Commune?, ERPL, 2000, pp. 589-611. 9 The legal basis is Art. 293 (ex Art. 220) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. The EU Convention on Insolvency Proceedings of 23 November 1995 was created using the same legal basis. Because, due to the BSE crisis, the United Kingdom failed to sign the Convention before the deadline, the Convention never entered into force
The Treaty of Maastricht of 1992 opened the door for European cooperation and legislation in matters of civil procedure In Title VI, the Treaty brought judicial cooperation in civil matters within the then created third pillar of the Community, the intergovernmental tasks of the European Union. Under the third pillar three conventions were realised, namely a convention on the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the brussels I convention 1968, a convention on juris iction and enforcement of judgments in family matters and a convention on the service of documents Of these three only the accession convention has entered into force II Despite the positive wording of Title Vi of the Treaty of Maastricht of 1992, Member States still showed a clear disinclination to harmonise civil procedure. This can be illustrated by the way in which the directive on the combating of late payments in commercial transactions came into existence. Originally the proposal for this d irective included a special debt-collection procedure, 2 like the German Mahnverfahren, which was simple, inexpensive and exped itious. However, such far-reaching procedural harmonisation was declared unacceptable as a result of the general resistance within the Council against the harmonisation of civil law and the law of civil procedure. Even the competence to take far- reaching measures on civil procedure based on Article 95 of the Community Treaty was disputed Then, on the l st of May 1999 the Treaty of amsterdam entered into force and thereby judicial cooperation in civil matters received an effective legal basis in the new Article 65 of the Community Treaty. Judicial cooperation was no longer a third-pillar matter of intergovernmental cooperation, but became a Community matter with important tasks for the Commission and the right of codecision for the European Parliament. The prospects for attaining harmonisation in issues of civil procedure like a harmonised debt-collecting rocedure based on Article 65 EC Treaty have therefore also increased Independent of the institutional developments in matters of European legislation concerning civil law including civil procedure, an academic project was started in 1990. The report of this project was called after its chairman the Storme Report, and emphasised the need for European harmonisation and mapped the most important subjects. Although during the first years of its existence this Report received relatively little attention, it seems not to be superfluous. Especially since the Amsterdam Treaty, it is regularly referred to. 3 Treaty of 7 February 1992, which entered into force 1 November 1993. Judicial cooperation took place in the third pillar based on Art. K I paras. 6 and 7 of the Treaty establishing the European Union. See als Freudenthaland Van der Velden, op cit note 5, p. 8 Convention on the service in the Member States of the European Union of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters of26 May 1997 and the Convention on the accession of the republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 29 November 1996. The Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement ofjudgments in matrimonial matters of 28 May 1998 was, however, ratified Directive 2000/35/EC, OJ L168 of 3 June 1998, p. 13. The Directive is based on Art. 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community M. Storme(ed ) Approximation of udiciary Law in the European Union, Dordrecht: Ni]hoff 1994
3 The Treaty of Maastricht of 1992 opened the door for European cooperation and legislation in matters of civil procedure. In Title VI, the Treaty brought judicial cooperation in civil matters within the then created third pillar of the Community, the intergovernmental tasks of the European Union.10 Under the third pillar three conventions were realised, namely a convention on the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the Brussels I convention 1968, a convention on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in family matters and a convention on the service of documents. Of these three, only the accession convention has entered into force.11 Despite the positive wording of Title VI of the Treaty of Maastricht of 1992, Member States still showed a clear disinclination to harmonise civil procedure. This can be illustrated by the way in which the directive on the combating of late payments in commercial transactions came into existence. Originally the proposal for this directive included a special debt-collection procedure,12 like the German Mahnverfahren, which was simple, inexpensive and expeditious. However, such far-reaching procedural harmonisation was declared unacceptable as a result of the general resistance within the Council against the harmonisation of civil law and the law of civil procedure. Even the competence to take farreaching measures on civil procedure based on Article 95 of the Community Treaty was disputed. Then, on the 1st of May 1999 the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force and thereby judicial cooperation in civil matters received an effective legal basis in the new Article 65 of the Community Treaty. Judicial cooperation was no longer a third-pillar matter of intergovernmental cooperation, but became a Community matter with important tasks for the Commission and the right of codecision for the European Parliament. The prospects for attaining harmonisation in issues of civil procedure like a harmonised debt-collecting procedure based on Article 65 EC Treaty have therefore also increased. Independent of the institutional developments in matters of European legislation concerning civil law including civil procedure, an academic project was started in 1990. The report of this project was called after its chairman the Storme Report, and emphasised the need for European harmonisation and mapped the most important subjects. Although during the first years of its existence this Report received relatively little attention, it seems not to be superfluous. Especially since the Amsterdam Treaty, it is regularly referred to. 13 10 Treaty of 7 February 1992, which entered into force 1 November 1993. Judicial cooperation took place in the third pillar based on Art. K 1 paras. 6 and 7 of the Treaty establishing the European Union. See also: Freudenthal and Van der Velden, op. cit. note 5, p. 85. 11 Convention on the service in the Member States of the European Union of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters of 26 May 1997 and the Convention on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 29 November 1996. The Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters of 28 May 1998 was, however, ratified. 12 Directive 2000/35/EC, OJ L168 of 3 June 1998, p. 13. The Directive is based on Art. 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. 13 M. Storme (ed.), Approximation of Judiciary Law in the European Union, Dordrecht: Nijhoff 1994
3. The Treaty of Amsterdam4 3.1 Introduction Accord ing to the amsterdam Treaty, the implementation of a European Jud icial Area is an independent aim of the Community. 5 The legal basis to achieve that aim is article 65. This Article indicates the legal measures that may be used in the area of cooperation in civil and commercial matters with cross-border effects, including civil procedure, as far as is required for the well-functioning of the internal market. These measures include the improvement and simplification of the cross-border service of documents, cooperation in the collection of means of evidence and the recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions in civil and commercial matters. Article 65 also includes a general provision of civil procedure, which provides a legal basis for taking measures to eliminate obstacles to the well-functioning of civil proceedings, if necessary by promoting the compatibility of the rules on civil procedure applicable in the Member States Especially Article 65 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which declares the harmonisation of civil procedure to be an explicit task of the Union, is new. Some insight into the meaning of this article is provided by the vienna Action Plan, which was accepted by the Council and the Commission in January 1999. aMongst the general measures to be taken are legal certainty and equal access to the courts, both to be guaranteed by certainty over the competent court and over the applicable law, and by speedy and honest proceedings followed by an effective enforcement of the decision. 7 To achieve these aims, the Community may take legal measures which are consistent with the principles of subsid arity and proportionality. 8 This means that the measures may not stretch beyond what is necessary Subsequently, in its Conclusion of Tampere the European Council gave a more explicit interpretation of these general legal measures and thus it started the actual developments involved in harmonising the legislation of European civil procedure. 9The Tampere Conclusions indicate some specific items of civil procedure, to be based on Article 65, which have to be realised in an exped itious, some even in a speedy way. Among these are simplified and accelerated procedures for small and uncontested claims, the simplified enforcement of court decisions through the abolition of the exequatur and the introduction of a European enforcement order. In addition, an easily accessible system of legal information should be installed through a network of competent national authorities 4 OJ1997C 340 Entered into force 1 May 1999 Arts. 61 and 69 of the EC Treaty. See B. Hess, The Integrating Effect of European Civil Procedural aw,EJLR,2002,pp.3-17 16 Council and Commission Action Plan of 3 December 1998 on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice, text adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 3 December 1998 (known as the Vienna Action Plan), OJC19/01 of23 January 1999 Action Plan(see note 16, paras. 15 and 16) Article 5 of the Treaty esta blishing the European Community Tampere Council, 15/16 October 1999, EU Bull. 10-1999, pp 7-15 4
4 3. The Treaty of Amsterdam14 3.1 Introduction According to the Amsterdam Treaty, the implementation of a European Judicial Area is an independent aim of the Community.15 The legal basis to achieve that aim is Article 65. This Article indicates the legal measures that may be used in the area of cooperation in civil and commercial matters with cross-border effects, including civil procedure, as far as is required for the well-functioning of the internal market. These measures include the improvement and simplification of the cross-border service of documents, cooperation in the collection of means of evidence and the recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions in civil and commercial matters. Article 65 also includes a general provision of civil procedure, which provides a legal basis for taking measures to eliminate obstacles to the well-functioning of civil proceedings, if necessary by promoting the compatibility of the rules on civil procedure applicable in the Member States. Especially Article 65 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which declares the harmonisation of civil procedure to be an explicit task of the Union, is new. Some insight into the meaning of this Article is provided by the Vienna Action Plan, which was accepted by the Council and the Commission in January 1999.16Amongst the general measures to be taken are legal certainty and equal access to the courts, both to be guaranteed by certainty over the competent court and over the applicable law, and by speedy and honest proceedings followed by an effective enforcement of the decision.17 To achieve these aims, the Community may take legal measures which are consistent with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.18 This means that the measures may not stretch beyond what is necessary. Subsequently, in its Conclusion of Tampere the European Council gave a more explicit interpretation of these general legal measures and thus it started the actual developments involved in harmonising the legislation of European civil procedure.19 The Tampere Conclusions indicate some specific items of civil procedure, to be based on Article 65, which have to be realised in an expeditious, some even in a speedy way. Among these are simplified and accelerated procedures for small and uncontested claims, the simplified enforcement of court decisions through the abolition of the exequatur and the introduction of a European enforcement order. In addition, an easily accessible system of legal information should be installed through a network of competent national authorities. 14 OJ 1997 C 340. Entered into force 1 May 1999. 15 Arts. 61 and 69 of the EC Treaty. See B. Hess, The Integrating Effect of European Civil Procedural Law, EJLR, 2002, pp. 3-17. 16 Council and Commission Action Plan of 3 December 1998 on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice; text adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 3 December 1998 (known as the Vienna Action Plan); OJ C 19/01 of 23 January 1999. 17 Action Plan (see note 16, paras. 15 and 16). 18 Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. 19 Tampere Council, 15/16 October 1999, EU Bull. 10-1999, pp. 7-15
Today, one may conclude that a number of the items mentioned have been realised or are subject to legislative activity. In add ition, other items, not mentioned in the Tampere Conclusions, have been taken up, like cross-border legal aid and the simplification of cross- order attachments 20 The drive with which the Commission initiated and elaborated the various subjects deserves respect and engenders satisfaction, although scepticism is sometimes justified as to the quality of the legislative work and concerning the desirability of some activities- like that of the European Enforcement Order a clear disadvantage of the harmonisation on the basis of Article 65 is the fact that Denmark, by a general reservation to the amsterdam Treaty, does not cooperate in the lega harmonisation based on article 65. The United Kingdom and ireland are free to choose whether or not to participate in this legislative work; up to now, their decision has been positive. The participation of the UK and Ireland is important not only from a political andpoint, but also from a legal one, since these two Member States belong to the common law system, which often differs from the civil law systems of the European continent. By their participation in the realisation of European legal instruments, they contribute in a very special way to the success of European civil legislation 3.2 Legal instruments realised As stated above, only one of the three conventions was realised under the Treaty of Maastricht. The two others the convention on the service of documents and the convention on Jurisdiction and the enforcement of jud gements in family matters-the Brussels Il regulation-did not enter into force. The same holds true for the European Convention on Insolvency, which was never formally accepted. 2 After the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Commission decided to reframe these three existing intergovernmental conventions in three Community instruments, and within a short period of time the first three regulations on civil law were born. Compared to the difficulties which surround the realisation and entry into force of international conventions, as well as the often restricted accession by negotiating and other States, legal instruments of the European Union appear to require less time-consuming negotiations, enter into force speedily and become applicable in all EU Member States at the same time 22 During the Treaty of Maastricht period, negotiations took place on the revision of the Brussels I Convention 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. After the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Commission transposed the results of these deliberations into a proposal for a Brussels I Regulation, which was soon accepted and entered into force in March 2002.23 Council Regulation(EC)no. 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajud icial documents in civil or commercial matters, which entered into force on 31 May 2001, is the beginning of European This rea lisation is entirely in keeping with the decisions which were adopted in the Vienna Action Plan see note 16 See note g R Barents, Het Verdrag van Amsterdam in werking, Kluwer, 1999, p. 130 OJL 12/1, 16 January 2001, Regulation no 44/2001 of 22 Decem ber 2000
5 Today, one may conclude that a number of the items mentioned have been realised or are subject to legislative activity. In addition, other items, not mentioned in the Tampere Conclusions, have been taken up, like cross-border legal aid and the simplification of crossborder attachments.20 The drive with which the Commission initiated and elaborated the various subjects deserves respect and engenders satisfaction, although scepticism is sometimes justified as to the quality of the legislative work and concerning the desirability of some activities - like that of the European Enforcement Order. A clear disadvantage of the harmonisation on the basis of Article 65 is the fact that Denmark, by a general reservation to the Amsterdam Treaty, does not cooperate in the legal harmonisation based on Article 65. The United Kingdom and Ireland are free to choose whether or not to participate in this legislative work; up to now, their decision has been positive. The participation of the UK and Ireland is important not only from a political standpoint, but also from a legal one, since these two Member States belong to the common law system, which often differs from the civil law systems of the European continent. By their participation in the realisation of European legal instruments, they contribute in a very special way to the success of European civil legislation. 3.2 Legal instruments realised As stated above, only one of the three conventions was realised under the Treaty of Maastricht. The two others, the Convention on the service of documents and the Convention on Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgements in family matters - the Brussels II regulation - did not enter into force. The same holds true for the European Convention on Insolvency, which was never formally accepted.21 After the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Commission decided to reframe these three existing intergovernmental conventions in three Community instruments, and within a short period of time the first three regulations on civil law were born. Compared to the difficulties which surround the realisation and entry into force of international conventions, as well as the often restricted accession by negotiating and other States, legal instruments of the European Union appear to require less time-consuming negotiations, enter into force speedily and become applicable in all EU Member States at the same time.22 During the Treaty of Maastricht period, negotiations took place on the revision of the Brussels I Convention 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. After the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Commission transposed the results of these deliberations into a proposal for a Brussels I Regulation, which was soon accepted and entered into force in March 2002.23 Council Regulation (EC) no. 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, which entered into force on 31 May 2001, is the beginning of European 20 This realisation is entirely in keeping with the decisions which were adopted in the Vienna Action Plan; see note 16. 21 See note 9. 22 R. Barents, Het Verdrag van Amsterdam in werking, Kluwer, 1999, p. 130. 23 OJ L 12/1, 16 January 2001, Regulation no. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000