EU Law and Practice Contributed by: Nathalie Colin, Maria-Clara Van den Bossche, Kevin Xhebexhia and Florence Frühling, Freshfields LLP
• the judgment was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document that instituted the proceedings or with an equiva - lent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable them to arrange for their defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceed - ings to challenge the judgment when it was possi - ble for them to do so; • the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment between the same parties pronounced in the mem - ber state where enforcement is sought; • the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judg - ment given in a different state (including third states) involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that this earlier judgment is eligible for recognition; and • the judgment conflicts with the Brussels I Recast Regulation’s: (a) specific jurisdictional grounds relating to insur - ance matters, consumer contracts and employ - ment contracts where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employ - ee was the defendant; or (b) exclusive jurisdiction grounds. The Lugano Convention, the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Hague Judgments Convention provide similar refusal grounds, with some slight vari - ations. 4. Arbitral Awards 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Please refer to the national sections of this Global Practice Guide for a detailed outline of the issues that could arise when enforcing arbitral awards in the respective national jurisdictions. One of the key legislative instruments limiting issues regarding the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforce - ment of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Con - vention”). The New York Convention is adopted by numerous jurisdictions, including the member states of the EU. Enforcement can only be refused on a
limited number of grounds at the request of a party or by the competent authority where enforcement is sought (see 4.6 Challenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards ). The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Com - mercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”) con - stitutes a basis for the harmonisation and improve - ment of national legislation concerning international commercial arbitration. However, please refer to the national chapters of this Global Practice Guide on whether and to what extent national jurisdictions have implemented the UNCITRAL Model Law. 4.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Arbitral Awards A distinction must be made between “domestic” or “national” awards and “international” or “foreign” awards, respectively rendered in and outside the state where enforcement is sought. For purposes of enforcement, some countries may treat these awards as equal, whereas other countries may provide for a separate set of rules for each type. As for foreign arbitral awards, the New York Conven - tion greatly facilitates recognition and enforcement, owing to the large number of countries that have rati - fied it. 4.3 Categories of Arbitral Awards Not Enforced Another difference in enforcement for different types of arbitral awards concerns the enforcement of interim awards. Since the New York Convention only applies to final awards, this would not serve as a solution for the enforcement of interim awards. The UNCITRAL Model Law, however, provides for specific rules for the enforcement of interim awards. These rules do not dif - fer much from the rules regarding the enforcement of final arbitral awards, but several conditions have been added, such as that the interim award cannot have been overruled. Of course, this depends on whether national law has implemented the UNCITRAL Model Law, or otherwise provides specific rules relating to interim awards.
167 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook