Already at the beginning of the 90s when the Czech Republic was acquitted of the west world’s isolation and has begun to notice the matters of modern Europe, especially the membership in European Communities, the Czech legislators have started to replace inconvenient legislation and made a new one. For many years the Czech republic is a member state of the Council of Europe and Hague Conference for international private law. Multilateral international treaties, having the fundamental importance for judicial cooperation, i. e. international private and procedural law as a whole, are negotiated on the ground of these international organizations. Some of these treaties were included into so -called hard substance (hard core) of the EU legislation and the Czech Republic has to be their contracting party before its entry to the EU. The Czech republic fulfilled this requirement and has been a contracting party to:

• the Convention Relating to Civil Procedure (No72/1966 Sb.)
• the Convention on the Service in the Member States of the European Union of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (No85/1982 Sb.)
• the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (No129/1976 Sb.)
• the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (No34/1998 Sb.)
• the Convention on the Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (No45/1999 Sb.)
• the Convention on International Access to Justice (No58/2001 Sb.m.s.)
• the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (No141/2001 Sb.m.s.)
• European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements in Matters of Child Education (No66/2000 Sb.m.s.)
• European Convention on Delivery of Letters Regatory (No110/2000 Sb.m.s)

The above mentioned treaties play an important role in the area of judicial cooperation because they simplify hearing of civil matters to the Czech courts and courts of other contracting parties. For example the courts may ask for service of process to a party to legal proceedings who lives or has its seat abroad, ask for questioning the party or to provide evidence. It forms assumptions for the possibility of the citizens of contracting parties that are in difficult economic situation to ask for provision of free legal services.
In accordance with Article 10 of the Czech Constitution, i.e. Article 2 of the Act on International private and procedural law as amended, the international treaty providing something different from intrastate legislation enjoys priority over this legislation.
The European Communities have created completely a new legal system that stands outside the intrastate legislation as well as outside the international legislation. The specification of the EU is especially in its sources of law:

• primary legislation – set-up and other fundamental treaties as amended
• secondary legislation – so-called European Community’s legislation (regulations and directives)
• decisions of the European Court of Justice – even though they do not have a character of precedent, they are considered as decisive and are generally respected in practice.

The EC member states do not confine only to economic cooperation, which was the basic reason for European integration, they try to cooperate in other areas as well[1]. In September 1968, the six founder states of the EC signed in Brussels the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Convention I) that has been joined by other states with the extension of the EC in the course of time. But as the Brussels Convention I is a closed treaty in fact (it does not admit its extension among non-member states of the EC), another treaty has been adopted and signed (the main initiators were the Swedish and the Swiss) in September 1988 in Lugano – the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, this means a parallel treaty to the Brussels Convention I. But its member base is formed by the EC member states (the EU member states), member states of EFTA and, as it is a half-opened treaty, under certain conditions it is opened to other countries as well. The Czech republic has been invited by Austria to accession in the second half of the 90s, in May 2000 the Parliament of the Czech republic express its assent to the accession and now it is just waiting for the expression of the assent to it of all 19 member states.
The area of family law has become another subject to interest of the EU member states. In 1998 there has been adopted the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements in Matrimonial Matters (The Brussels Convention II). This convention has never been ratified.

The essential changes in the field of international judicial cooperation has brought (Amsterdam Treaty 1997, it came into force in 1999) – the Council and the EU Commission have gained new powers that they have fully used for communitarisation of international private and procedural law [2]. It has become especially the possibility to replace international treaties containing these questions by statutes of secondary legislation (regulations or directives[3]). So the Brussels Convention I was transformed into the Council regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of December, 22, 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters that has been in force since March, 1, 2003 (Brussels I). The original Brussels Convention I remains in force for Denmark. The Brussels Convention II was transformed into the Council regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of May, 29, 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses (Brussels II). This second regulation is valid until August, 1, 2004, i.e. March, 1, 2005 when the regulation No 2201/2003, that will fully take the place of the Brussels II, will come in force. This new regulation is not going to be true of Sweden and Finland as far as the relationship between these two countries is concerned because for this case there is the Convention on matrimony, adoption and tutelage (including its protocol) of February, 6, 1931 entered by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
As it is mentioned above the regulation is directly binding. After the Czech republic’s entry into the EU there will not be any need for implementation into Czech legal order, the Czech courts will apply them directly. The regulation contains detailed treatment of international jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters that is bound especially by the domicil of a defendant in the contracting or member state of the EU. The citizenship of the defendant is not relevant. In certain cases the plaintiff has an option. Both – the regulation Brussels I and Lugano Convention contain the treatment of international jurisdiction that is to consumers’ advanage. The consumers have the option to bring an action against vendors either at the court appropriate to vendors’ seat or domicil or to his/hers (consumer’s) domicil. A person that has legitimate or other analogical claim for alimony, will be allowed to bring an alimony action in the place of his/her domicil. Brussels I as well as Lugano Convention offers wider possibility to legal entities and personal entities who are entrepreneurs to conclude the jurisdiction by written agreement – in contractual disputes where the contracts are with international element (prorogation contract). The ensuring of recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters in all EU and EFTA member states is not of less importance, which brings uniform treatment of judicial decisions of member or contractual states. In this context it is often spoken about «free movement of judicial decisions» that rest upon recognition and enforcement of judgements by the EU member states without any other special proceedings for recognition, i.e. writ of execution. This conception is obvious in draft Council regulation COM 2002/0090 (CNS) of April, 18, 2002 on adoption of European power for execution. On February, 6, 2004 Commission informed of Council’s adoption of common positions.
Another question of international procedural law has been answered by the adoption of the Convention on the service in the Member States of the European Union of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters (1998). This treaty removes difficulties with documents’ delivery from one country to another to a considerable degree. Text of the treaty was transformed into the Council Regulation (EC) No1348/2000 that has come in force on May, 31,2001. The European Convention on insolvency proceedings was transformed into the Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (in force since May, 31, 2002). The Council regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters has come into force on July, 1, 2001 but most of its Articles have had effect since January, 1, 2004.
A bit more complicated development is in the area of conflicting rules of law. The EC established unified treatment for conflicting law dealing with obligations ex contracto in 1980. In this year there has been adopted the Rome Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations[4] which has set down governing law for all contracts – not only commercial but labour as well (for most of the contractual states it has come in force in 1991)[5]. The Rome Convention is a closed treaty, that means it is binding only for the EC member states. On the other hand, its character is wider – it affects erga omnes, that means it has to be applied by the member states’ courts to all contractual obligations with the international element no matter who is the party to proceedings. So it guarantees that the courts will apply the same national law no matter where (at which EU court) the action was brought. These matters do not fall within the authority of Rome Convention:
• questions of civil status and capacity to enter into legal acts of personal entities;
• contractual obligations dealing with inheritance and testament;
• estate arising from matrimonial relations and family relations;
• obligations arising from bills, cheques, debentures and other tradable instruments;
• arbitration contract and prorogation contract;
• questions dealing with company law and law of legal entities and societies;
• questions of representation;
• trust foundation and the relations among the founders;
• probation;
• contract of insurance.

As to the transformation of the Rome Convention into the EC legal instrument (legal instrument of the EC secondary law) that was presented by the Commission in the Green Papers, there are different opinions. More of the arguments speak for the transformation – it will be decisive to choose the concrete instrument, either a regulation or a directive. The character of the Rome Convention is not suitable for the regulation. If it is transformed into the regulation, it would lose its character and it would affect only legal relationship between entities of member states. The directives have been used as a treatment of contracts of insurance and protection of consumers. If the conflicting rules of law of contract are treated like this, there would have to be laid down strict boundaries of such a directive so as the unification character is preserved.
The conflicting rules of law can be found in several directives dealing with contracts of insurance and protection of consumers: directive No85/374 dealing with product liability, directive No93/13 dealing with forbidden clause in consumer contracts, directive No87/102 dealing with consumer credits. Directive No85/577 on contracts concluded outside the business facilities, directive No90/314 on travelling contracts and directive No94/47 on time – sharing are of importance as well. These directives are prior to the Rome Convention.
At present it is working on unification of conflicting rules of law of obligations ex delicto. These conflicting rules should unify the regulation Rome II. It is also eligible, i. e. necessary to unify the treatment of matrimonial estate (these questions are not part of regulation No1347/2000), the treatment of forum shopping and law of succession. These questions – not only procedural but also conflicting rules – should be included in the regulation, Brussels III. The matrimonial estate question should be based on the contractual autonomy of both spouses, in the end link up to law of their first joint domicil. Another eligible thing should be the concentration of all proceedings dealing with matrimonial settlement at one court. In the area of law of succession – as to the questions of international jurisdiction and applicable law there should not be distinguished between personal estate and real property. There should be also included Articles dealing with the establishment of international register of testaments and formation of certificate of law of succession.
International private and procedural law is developing very quickly in Europe. As to our country and its accession to EU we can say that with small exceptions we are ready to it. But it could be eligible to implement all the regulations into our legal order because, nevertheless they are directly applicable, there is just little awareness about them in practice. So it could happen that they will not be used in accordance with law.
LITERATURE
1. Former Article 220 (today Article 293) of the Treaty on the Establishment of European Community says: Member states open in the case of need negotiations among themselves to provide for the benefit of their citizens

• protection of non-citizens, as well as enjoying and protection of their rights under the same conditions that are given to the state’s own citizens;
•  abolition of double taxation inside the Community;
•  reciprocal recognition of corporations in the sense of Article 48, paragraph 2, observance of their corporate personality in the case of transfer of the seat from one country to another and the possibility of pooling or merger of corporations that is ruled by the laws of different member states;
•  simplification of formalities that can be found in reciprocal recognition and execution of judicial decision and arbitraments;

2. B.Hess, Die Europäisierung des internationalen Zivilprozessrechts durch den Amsterodamer Vertrag – Chancen und Gefahren, NJW, 2000, Pg. 23.
3. N.Rozehnalová, V.Týč, M.Novotná: European international private law, Masaryk University Brno, 1998, Pg. 34. Regulations as statutes have general application. They can be addressed to any subject of law – to states as well as to persons. They are directly applicable except for rare cases when it is necessary to adopt intrastate implementary regulation. Directives as statutes addressed to member states contain more or less detailed specification of purposes that shall be achieved by member states; the way how to do that is upon the states themselves.
4. N.Rozehnalová, V.Týč: On development of international private and procedural law in EU member states, Yearbook of European law 1998, Masaryk University Brno, 2000, Pg. 165
5. N.Rozehnalová, V.Týč: European judicial area (in civil matters), Masaryk University Brno, 2003, Pg. 15
6. Z.Kučera – Mezinárodní právo soukromé, 5.vydání, Doplněk Brno 2001, Pg. 427
7. N.Rozehnalová, V.Týč, M.Novotná – Evropské mezinárodní právo soukromé, Masarykova universita Brno, 1998, Pg. 346