EU Law and Practice Contributed by: Nathalie Colin, Florence Frühling and Niels Depaepe, Freshfields
3.4 Process of Enforcing Foreign Judgments The actual enforcement of foreign judgments will be governed by the law of the member state involved, so domestic law applies in this regard. As for the recognition and enforceability that precede actual enforcement, the main element to verify is whether a party seeking enforcement is required to initiate specific proceedings to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. This differs depending on the European or international instru - ment, as follows: • under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, a foreign judgment is automatically recognised and consid - ered enforceable; • under the Lugano Convention, even though recog - nition is automatic, a party will still have to obtain a prior declaration of enforceability to be able to proceed to actual enforcement; and • under the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Hague Judgments Convention, there is no automatic recognition or enforcement. If there is no applicable regulation or convention, the domestic laws of each country where enforcement is sought will govern the question of recognition and enforceability. They will typically provide for a require - ment to initiate specific proceedings to obtain recog - nition and/or enforceability. 3.5 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Foreign Judgments Similar to domestic judgments (see 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments ), the costs and time required for the enforcement of foreign judgments will depend significantly on the national jurisdiction in which the judgment is being enforced – primarily depending on the specific legal procedures and the court system in general. Please refer to the national enforcement options and procedures set out in the other chapters of this Global Practice Guide. Where recognition and/or enforceability is granted automatically under a European regulation or inter - national instrument, this naturally reduces the costs and time required. In addition, instruments such as the European Payment Order Regulation (Regulation (EC)
No 1896/2006) and the EAPO Regulation aid further in reducing the burden of enforcement. 3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Where European and international instruments such as the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the Lugano Con - vention, the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Hague Judgments Convention facilitate enforce - ment, they each provide a limited list of grounds on which the jurisdiction where enforcement is sought may refuse recognition and enforcement. Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, recognition may be denied if: • such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the member state where enforcement is sought; • 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 conventions provide similar refusal grounds, with some slight variations.
177 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook