AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Patrizia Netal, Katrin Hanschitz and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL
3.5 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Foreign Judgments An application for the recognition and declaration of enforceability alone does not trigger court fees, unless it is combined with an application for enforcement – in which case, the general rules apply. The enforcement of EU judgments (or judgments fall - ing within the scope of the Lugano Convention) is standard procedure in Austrian courts and generally takes place without delay, comparable to the enforce - ment of domestic judgments. The enforcement of other judgments, however, can be cumbersome and lengthy, depending on the origin of the judgment. The proceedings to obtain recognition and a declaration of enforceability may – with an appeal – last between two and six months. As in all court proceedings, the duration also depends on the conduct of the debtor, which may file appeals and request a stay of proceedings, etc. 3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Objections to the recognition and declaration of the enforceability of a judgment must be raised by the debtor, except for an ordre public objection. They are not reviewed ex officio. In general, Austrian courts will not undertake a sub - stantive review of a foreign judgment. However, in pro - ceedings regarding the recognition and declaration of enforceability, certain grounds may result in a partial substantive review, particularly if there is any indica - tion that the judgment contravenes Austrian public policy (ordre public). On balance, Austrian courts take a rather liberal approach and will only refuse recogni - tion and a declaration of enforceability if this would manifestly violate the fundamental principles of Aus - trian law. The debtor may also challenge enforcement based on procedural irregularities, including defects in service that made it impossible for the defendant to duly par - ticipate in the main proceedings. Brussels I Recast provides further bars to enforce - ment if the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier,
recognisable judgment involving the same cause of action and the same parties.
4. Arbitral Awards 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Austria is an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, so it is rare to encounter issues in proceedings to obtain the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award in Austria. The relevant provisions pertaining to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award are contained in the CCP (which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law), the EA and the relevant international treaties, so international arbitration practitioners will find a familiar legal environment in Austria. Notably, Austria has rati - fied the following: • the Geneva Convention on the Execution of For - eign Arbitral Awards (1927) (the “Geneva Conven - tion”); • the European Convention on International Com - mercial Arbitration (1961) (the “European Conven - tion”); • the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (the “New York Convention”); • the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the “ICSID Convention”); and • a number of bilateral investment treaties. At the time of writing, Austria has not yet signed the agreement for the termination of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs), which aims to implement the “Achmea decision” rendered by the ECJ. How - ever, Austria has responded with bilateral termination of some intra-EU BITs following Achmea . 4.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Regarding recognition and enforcement, Austrian law distinguishes between domestic arbitral awards (with the seat of arbitration in Austria) and foreign arbitral awards (with the seat of arbitration outside Austria).
22 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook