Bibliografía (Artículo doctrinal) - Convenio de Ginebra de 1999 sobre embargo preventivo de buques y los Reglamentos Bruselas I y Bruselas I bis

¿La desarmonización de la armonización europea? A propósito del Convenio de Ginebra de 12 de marzo de 1999 sobre embargo preventivo de buques y su relación con los Reglamentos Bruselas I y Bruselas I bis

ROSARIO ESPINOSA CALABUIG, Profesora Titular en la Universitat de València

Rivista di Diritto Internazionale Privato e Processuale, N. 3-2013, pp. 645-676

Sumario: I. ¿Nuevos tiempos para el embargo preventivo de buques tras la entrada en vigor del Convenio de Ginebra de 12 de marzo 1999? – 1. El embargo preventivo de buques como medida cautelar en el derecho procesal marítimo internacional. – 2. Escenario normativo del embargo preventivo de buques en España tras la «extraña» entrada en vigor del Convenio de 1999 y el RDL 12/2011 de 26 de agosto. – 3. Ámbito espacial de aplicación del Convenio de 1999: irrelevancia – por fin – de la nacionalidad del buque embargado. – II. Jurisdicción internacional y embargo preventivo de buques en el proceso de armonización europea. – 1. Influencia recíproca del derecho uniforme internacional y el derecho de la UE: alcance y límites del art. 71 del reglamento Bruselas I. – 2. Jurisdicción para decretar el embargo. – 3. Jurisdicción sobre el fondo del litigio. – 3.1. Autonomía de la voluntad y renuncia de la competencia. – 3.2. Consecuencias sobre la eficacia extraterritorial de decisiones y la eliminación del exequátur por el reglamento Bruselas I bis. – III. Conclusiones.

Abstract: The International Convention on Arrest of Ships of 1999 came into force on September 14, 2011, and so far it has been ratified by only four EU Member States, including Spain. As the precedent Convention of 1952 – which is still in force in most of the EU Member States – the 1999 Convention prescribes rules on both international jurisdiction, and recognition and enforcement of decisions. Accordingly, the European Union seems to be the one entity having standing to ratify the 1999 Convention, at least with regard to those rules. To this effect, doubts arise about the legality of the aforementioned accession of EU Member States to the Convention but, in particular, about the EU interest in the ratification of the Convention of 1999. Such ratification ought to be encouraged by other Member States, but this is not granted at all. Still, the EU might authorize Member States to ratify the 1999 Convention as previously occurred with reference to other maritime Conventions, such as the 2001 Bunkers or the 1996 HNS. Meanwhile, the 1999 Convention is already operating in countries like Spain. Hence, conflicts arising from the non-coordination between its provisions and those of the Brussels I Regulation ought to be addressed. Among such conflicts are, for example, those arising from a provisional measure being adopted inaudita parte by different courts within the European area of justice. Furthermore, the Brussels I Regulation was recast by Regulation No 1215/2012 which will be in force as of 2015, and among other innovations abolishes exequatur. This paper aims at unfolding those conflicts which might be solved by resorting to the ECJ case-law, in particular Tatry and TNT Express.