Enforcement of Judgement - Guide to Legal Remedies

The AO is the central support entity for the Judicial Branch. It provides a wide range of administrative, legal, financial, management, program, and information technology services to the federal courts. The AO provides support and staff counsel to the Judicial Conference of the United States and its committees, and implements and executes Judicial Conference policies, as well as applicable federal statutes and regulations. The AO facilitates communications within the Judiciary and with Congress, the Executive Branch, and the public on behalf of the Judiciary.

L/PIL is responsible for the negotiation and conclusion of international conventions, model laws and rules, legislative guides, and other instruments governing private transactions that cross international borders. This website is intended to provide a convenient location to find information regarding private international law in areas such as trade, finance and banking; judicial assistance; arbitration and judgments; matters involving families and children; and wills, trusts and estates.

The method of enforcing a judicial decision depends upon its nature. If it does nothing more than declare legal rights, as is true of a simple divorce decree (merely severing marital ties, not awarding alimony or the custody of children) or a declaratory judgment (e.g., interpreting a contract or a statute), no enforcement is needed. If a judgment orders a party to do or to refrain from doing a certain act, as happens when an injunction is issued, the court itself takes the first step in enforcing the judgment by holding in contempt anyone who refuses to obey its order and sentencing him to pay a fine or to go to jail. Thereafter, enforcement is in the hands of the executive branch of government, acting through its law-enforcement and correctional authorities.

There is no bilateral treaty or multilateral international convention in force between the United States and any other country on reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments. Although there are many reasons for the absence of such agreements, a principal stumbling block appears to be the perception of many foreign states that U.S. money judgments are excessive according to their notions of liability. Moreover, foreign countries have objected to the extraterritorial jurisdiction asserted by courts in the United States. In consequence, absent a treaty, whether the courts of a foreign country would enforce a judgment issued by a court in the United States depends upon the internal laws of the foreign country and international comity.

In the early twentieth century, executions typically took place within a year after the trial. Since few constitutional rights of defendants were recognized, few areas of relief were possible. In particular, the criminal-procedure guarantees of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States – guarantees such as the right to a defense attorney, the right to a public trial by an impartial jury, and the privilege against self-incrimination – were thought to apply only in federal criminal prosecutions, not in state prosecutions. Gradually, however, the Supreme Court of the United States held that many of the protections of the federal Constitution’s Bill of Rights applied to state criminal defendants as indispensable components of the “due process of law” which the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution explicitly required the States to grant to any person in the United States. Protecting these constitutional rights required a more thorough review of a defendant’s conviction and death sentence.

We are responsible for maintaining and developing the system for collecting and enforcing fines, confiscation orders, civil orders and judgments and the enforcement of breaches of community penalties. As part of our duties, we: * advise ministers and senior officials on performance, policy and operational aspects of civil and criminal enforcement * guide and advise courts and share good practice * procure and manage enforcement contracts * develop and implement civil and criminal blueprints for enforcement * implement new enforcement legislation.

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters contains rules on enforcement in another Member State. It entered into force on 1 March 2002 and simplifies the procedure for having a foreign judgment declared enforceable, and replaces the Brussels Convention of 1968. The Regulation is directly applicable, which means that anybody can rely on it before the courts. The application of Regulation was extended to Denmark following the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

The General Assembly, Bearing in mind the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[1] of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment[2] and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[3] Mindful, in particular, of article 9, paragraph 4, of the said Covenant, which stipulates that anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment.

Part of the FBI Mission is "to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners." That means many things, from fingerprint and DNA analysis to professional training to reports and statistics.

NLADA is the nation's leading advocate for front-line attorneys and other equal justice professionals - those who make a difference in the lives of low-income clients and their families and communities. Representing legal aid and defender programs, as well as individual advocates, NLADA is proud to be the oldest and largest national, nonprofit membership association devoting 100 percent of its resources to serving the broad equal justice community.

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) was established by the 1984 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) to oversee diverse programs that benefit victims of crime. OVC provides substantial funding to state victim assistance and compensation programs-the lifeline services that help victims to heal. The agency supports trainings designed to educate criminal justice and allied professionals regarding the rights and needs of crime victims

Articles written by attorneys and experts worldwide discussing legal aspects related to Civil Rights including: constitutional law, consumer law, discrimination, human rights, native populations, privacy law, public law and sexual harassment.

Articles written by attorneys and experts worldwide discussing legal aspects related to Government including: administrative law, case law, election and political law, federal law, government contracts, local, municipal and state law, military law, public law, regulatory law, US federal courts.

Articles written by attorneys and experts worldwide discussing legal aspects related to Litigation including: alternative dispute resolution, antitrust and trade regulation, appellate practice, arbitration, business litigation, civil litigation, class actions, commercial litigation, corporate litigation, financial litigation, mediation, pharmaceutical litigation, product liability litigation, unfair competition.