LUXEMBOURG Law and Practice Contributed by: Elisabeth Omes, Stephen De Ron and Lorenzo Cappelli, Elvinger Hoss Prussen
The 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention applies where the parties have concluded an exclusive choice of court agreement designating the courts of a con - tracting state. Subject to the conditions laid down in the Convention, judgments rendered by the chosen court must be recognised and enforced in the other contracting states. Subject to the conditions laid down in the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention, a judgment given by the chosen court must be recognised and enforced in the other contracting states. The requested court may not review the merits of the judgment and may refuse rec - ognition or enforcement only on the limited grounds set out in the Convention. Recognition or enforcement may be refused, in par - ticular, where the choice of court agreement was null and void under the law of the chosen court, where a party lacked capacity to conclude the agreement, where the defendant was not properly notified of the proceedings, where the judgment was obtained by fraud, where recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the requested state, or where the judgment is inconsist - ent with another judgment between the same parties. Recognition or enforcement may also be refused to the extent that the judgment awards damages, includ - ing exemplary or punitive damages, that do not com - pensate a party for actual loss or harm. The 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention therefore provides a predictable framework for the enforcement of judgments based on exclusive jurisdiction clauses, while preserving essential safeguards relating to due process, fraud, public policy, and inconsistent judg - ments. Judgments issued in countries without conventions with Luxembourg Pursuant to Article 678 of the NCPC, a judgment rendered in a country not bound by an international instrument governing the recognition of judicial deci - sions may be enforced in Luxembourg only after an exequatur order has been granted.
Accordingly, an application for exequatur must be filed before the District Court of the place where enforce - ment is sought. If the statutory conditions are met, the court will issue a judgment conferring enforce - ability on the foreign decision within the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. It should be noted, however, that exequatur is required only where enforcement is sought, that is, where measures are taken to seize property or compel a person to perform or refrain from performing a par - ticular act (“lorsqu’il s’agit de procéder à des actes d’execution materielle sur les biens, ou de coercition sur les personnes”). 3.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Some judgments are obtained under a specific regime and will thus be submitted to specific enforcement rules. This is the case for certain specialised European regulations provide additional enforcement mecha - nisms. These include the following. • European Enforcement Order (EEO): Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 allows uncontested claims certi - fied as European Enforcement Orders to circulate and be enforced throughout participating member states without exequatur. • European Order for Payment: Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 establishes a simplified procedure for recovering uncontested cross-border monetary claims. • European Small Claims Procedure: Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 provides a simplified procedure for low-value cross-border disputes and facilitates enforcement of resulting judgments. • Insolvency Proceedings: Cross/border insolvency judgments and decisions are governed principally by Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency pro - ceedings. 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced Enforcements of foreign judgments are not automat - ic. There can be grounds for Luxembourg courts to refuse the enforcement and even recognition of for - eign judgments in Luxembourg.
287 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook