How to understand and deal with the principle of mutual trust, its emanations, interpretations, and imperatives has in recent years become one of the central and most critical issues in the development of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ). Civil justice may be the dark horse with respect to mutual trust among the policy areas of the AFSJ in the sense that it may show useful but hitherto hidden possibilities and have an un-tipped winning strategy. In particular, the balancing safeguards in legislation, the importance of which have been confirmed in case law, are important to ensure the fundamental right to a fair trial. However, that does not mean that mutual trust does not pose challenges in the context of civil justice. Hence, it remains important to focus on how—normatively, and by which regulatory means—to support mutual trust as well as how to balance, and perhaps limit, its implementation in order to enhance its legitimacy. In addition, the recent pressures towards harmonisation need to be carefully analysed.

The Moçambique rule provides that an English court may not adjudicate on title to foreign immovable property. This article considers the primary exception to that rule: where the court assumes jurisdiction in personam to enforce a contractual or equitable claim concerning foreign immovable property against a defendant subject to the court's personal jurisdiction. It addresses two questions: how should the English court decide whether to assume jurisdiction in relation to foreign land, and if the positions are reversed, should an English court recognize or enforce the order of a foreign court affecting English land? As to the first question, this article argues that the orthodox English approach is anachronistic. English law applies the lex fori exclusively to determine whether an obligation exists which the court has jurisdiction to enforce. Instead, modern conflict of laws principles demand that the court should apply the proper law of the substantive claim in determining whether a sufficient equitable or contractual obligation exists. As to the second question, this article argues that despite the prevailing view that foreign non-money judgments are not enforceable in England, foreign orders in relation to English land are in principle entitled to recognition in a subsequent action in England by the successful claimant.

The Brussels I Regulation No 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (hereinafter referred to as the Brussels I Regulation) establishes a judicial area in Europe with uniform rules on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments. The Brussels I Regulation is now in force in all EU Member States, including Denmark. On 1 July 2007 a separate Agreement between the European Union and Denmark came into force, in which the Brussels I Regulation is declared applicable in the relationship between Denmark and the other Member States. Bulgaria and Rumania joined the European Union on 1 January 2007 and became bound by the Brussels I Regulation as part of the acquis communautaire.

This article analyses the draft Hague Judgments Convention against the backdrop of arbitral jurisprudence. It points to certain problems that might arise in the Convention's functions. Although the draft Convention represents a significant improvement over the status quo in relation to international commercial litigation, it remains subject to a number of potential problems, in as much as it does not adequately deal with the issues of parallel jurisdiction, inconsistent verdicts, consent, or interim relief, which cause significant problems in commercial parties. In the worst case, these problems could lead to the convention not commending itself for adoption, which could have adverse consequences for commercial dispute resolution as a whole.