EU Law and Practice Contributed by: Nathalie Colin, Florence Frühling and Niels Depaepe, Freshfields
• Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European Order for Payment Pro - cedure; • Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Par - liament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 estab - lishing a European Small Claims Procedure; • Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Par - liament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 estab - lishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters; and • Regulation (EU) No 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on Insolvency Proceedings (Recast). Post-Brexit Considerations Since Brexit, the legal framework for the recognition and enforcement of judgments between the UK and the EU has changed (see 3.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Foreign Judgments ). Recognition and Enforceability of Judgments in General Depending on the specific regulation or treaty appli - cable, foreign judgments may be recognised and con - sidered enforceable automatically, meaning that there is immediate access to national means of enforce - ment in the jurisdiction where enforcement is sought. In other instances, recognition may not be automatic, and specific proceedings may need to be followed in order to obtain access to national means of enforce - ment. Such proceedings are typically referred to as exequatur proceedings – ie, proceedings geared at obtaining a declaration of enforceability by the com - petent court. Even under mutual recognition regimes, there are grounds upon which a member state can refuse to enforce a foreign judgment (see 3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments ). 3.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Enforcement of judgments varies depending on the type of judgment and the legal instruments governing its recognition and enforcement.
Generally, final judgments (decisions on the merits of the case) benefit from broader recognition and enforcement under international conventions and reg - ulations (the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the Lugano Convention, the Hague Choice of Court Convention, and the Hague Judgments Convention). The situation is more complex for judicial decisions ordering provisional measures. • Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Lugano Convention, except in certain instances, provisional measures may also benefit from recog - nition and enforceability. • The Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Hague Judgments Convention do not govern interim measures of protection. 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced Judgments may of course only qualify for recognition and enforcement under the European and international enforcement regimes if they fall within the substantive scope of application. The instruments applicable in civil and commercial matters (which typically exclude, for instance, tax matters or administrative matters) are discussed herein. In addition, the European and inter - national instruments include grounds allowing mem - ber states to refuse recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment (see 3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments). Furthermore, some types of foreign judgments do not qualify for recognition and enforceability under the European and international regimes. Notably, under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the regime for interim measures is stricter than for final judgments, as the regime for the recognition of interim measures requires that the court issuing interim relief also has jurisdiction for the main proceedings on the merits. Moreover, interim measures will not benefit from the Brussels I Recast Regulation’s recognition regime if they were ordered without the defendant being sum - moned to appear, unless the judgment containing the order is served on the defendant prior to enforcement.
176 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook