EU Trends and Developments Contributed by: Nathalie Colin, Florence Frühling and Niels Depaepe, Freshfields
Implications for future enforcement cases The ECJ ruling further delineates the circumstances in which enforcement may be refused under Brussels I Recast. The scrutiny of foreign judgments The Real Madrid v Le Monde ruling confirms that, although domestic courts may not reassess the substantive merits of foreign judgments, they must consider the impact of enforcement on fundamental rights (such as freedom of expression, fair trial, and privacy). This includes evaluating the proportionality of the damages awarded, the financial position of the defendant, and the potential chilling effect on journal - ism. Responsibility of domestic courts National judges must be equipped to apply the Charter rigorously and contextually. This may require compar - ative evaluations, including economic assessments. In Real Madrid v Le Monde , the ECJ has further clarified the scope of the public policy exception, emphasis - ing that domestic courts are not only permitted but required to carry out a structured and substantive assessment of the potential impact of enforcement on fundamental rights. The decision thus provides domestic courts with clearer guidance when funda - mental rights, particularly freedom of expression, are at stake. Cour de cassation’s decision On 28 May 2025, the French Cour de cassation annulled the Paris Court of Appeal’s refusal to recog - nise the Spanish judgments, citing improper applica - tion of the criteria set out by the ECJ in Real Madrid v Le Monde . According to the French Cour de cas- sation , the Paris Court of Appeal had reassessed the substance of the Spanish findings, which is contrary to the ECJ’s guidance that the courts of the member state where the enforcement is sought should focus solely on the impact of enforcement on fundamental rights. It also failed to consider key elements identified by the ECJ, such as the seriousness of the violation and the financial means of the defendants. The case has now been referred to a different court of appeal for a new assessment.
Conclusion The Real Madrid v Le Monde decision further refines the interpretation and application of the public policy exception within the EU’s judicial co-operation frame - work. While reaffirming mutual trust as the cornerstone of EU judicial co-operation, the ECJ acknowledges the necessity of protecting fundamental rights – spe - cifically freedom of expression – through proportional - ity analysis and partial enforcement of the judgment. This case provided the ECJ with a valuable opportu - nity to clarify the scope and limits of the public policy exception under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, particularly in relation to the Charter. In the future, there could potentially be more preliminary questions from domestic courts to the ECJ to seek its guidance when confronted with a request to enforce a judgment where fundamental rights embedded in the Charter are at play. Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments Under the Hague Judgments Convention: Implications of the UK Ratification The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Com - mercial Matters of 2 July 2019 (the “Hague Judgments Convention”), effective from 1 September 2023, establishes uniform rules for giving effect to civil and commercial judgments across borders. Under the Hague Judgments Convention, a domestic court may refuse enforcement only on the limited grounds listed in it. Much like the case under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the Hague Judgments Convention does not allow for a re-assessment of the merits either. The Hague Judgments Convention became opera - tional on 1 September 2023 after the EU (for all mem - ber states except Denmark) and Ukraine ratified it. Its entry into force in Uruguay followed on 1 October 2024. The UK ratified the Hague Judgments Convention on 12 July 2024. It has been binding since 1 July 2025.
182 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook