SPAIN Law and Practice Contributed by: Alfonso López-Ibor, Pablo Henríquez de Luna, Virginia Jover and Carmen Serrano, López-Ibor Abogados
EU Judgments Grounds for refusal of recognition
jurisdiction or, in respect of other matters, if the juris - diction of the court of origin is not based on a reason - able connection. 3.4 Process of Enforcing Foreign Judgments Process When Enforcing an EU Judgment The steps that need to be taken can be summarised as follows. • Providing the addressed court with the following documents: (a) an original of the foreign judgment, preferably legalised and apostilled; (b) the certificate using the form set out in Annex I of the Recast Brussels Regulation, issued by the court of origin (per Article 53 of the Recast Brussels Regulation); and (c) an official translation, if required. • Filing the recognition and enforceable lawsuit in the Court of First Instance where the defendant is domiciled, or in the place where the judgment is to be enforced (where there are assets to freeze, for example). Where the subject matter of the judg - ment is related to commercial issues, the com - mercial courts will have jurisdiction to enforce the foreign judgment, in application of the CPR Act. Process When Enforcing a Third-Country Judgment According to Articles 44 to 55 of the Legal Co-oper - ation Act, the requirements are very similar to the Recast Brussels Regulation; however, there are extra requirements, such as a certificate issued by the court of origin declaring the following: • that the judgment is a final judgment – appeals have been exhausted; and • that service to the defendant was properly effect - ed, with sufficient time to prepare their defence, where default judgments have been rendered (ex parte or in audita parte) – procedural strategy consisting in avoiding being served is no longer acceptable. These steps are common in both proceedings. Once the defendant is served, they have 30 days in which to file their opposition to enforcement. The defendant
Despite the automatic recognition of any EU judg - ments, the following judgments will be refused enforcement, according to Article 45 of the Recast Brussels Regulation. • Any judgment that is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the member state addressed. • Any judgment given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document that institutes the proceedings in sufficient time. • Any judgment that is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in the member state addressed. • Any judgment that is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another member state, or in a third state, involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the member state addressed. • Any judgment conflicting with: (a) Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Chapter II of the Recast Brussels Regulation 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) Section 6 of Chapter II of the Recast Brussels Regulation. Grounds for refusal of enforcement According to Article 46 of the Recast Brussels Regu - lation, enforcement of a judgment shall be refused where one of the grounds for refusal listed in Article 45 is found to exist. Third-Country Judgments If no bilateral treaty is applicable, grounds for not enforcing third-country judgments are subject to the provisions of the Legal Co-operation Act. The grounds for refusal of enforcement according to Article 46 of the Legal Co-operation Act are very similar to the grounds in Article 45 of the Recast Brus - sels Regulation. The Legal Co-operation Act includes the following as an additional ground for refusal of enforcement: where Spanish courts have exclusive
422 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook