EU Trends and Developments Contributed by: Nathalie Colin, Florence Frühling and Niels Depaepe, Freshfields
Territorial extension to Scotland and Northern Ireland Initially, the UK’s ratification in July 2024 was confined to England and Wales alone. However, a declaration on 22 February 2025extended the Hague Judgments Convention to Scotland and Northern Ireland from the same commencement date (1 July 2025). Whenever the Hague Judgments Convention applies, a single statutory regime will henceforth govern recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments throughout the UK’s legal systems. Consequently, by expanding its geographical reach, its practical value and relevance grow with each new contracting state. Practical implications After 1 July 2025, parties holding a qualifying judg - ment from a contracting state will be able to register and enforce it in any part of the UK without having to re-litigate the merits of the case, subject only to the limited defences provided in the Hague Judgments Convention (eg, the public policy exception or irrec - oncilable judgments). UK judgments will, in turn, circulate more freely in states that ratified the Hague Judgments Conven - tion – thereby reducing legal risk and enhancing the attractiveness of UK courts for cross-border disputes. The EC’s report and staff working document on the Brussels I Recast Regulation On 2 June 2025, the EC published its report on the application of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, in accordance with Article 79. Alongside this report, the EC also released its “staff working document”. The Brussels I Recast Regulation establishes uniform rules for resolving jurisdictional conflicts and promotes the free movement of judgments, authentic instru - ments and court settlements within the EU – aiming to improve access to justice in civil and commercial law (excluding family, succession, and insolvency law). It is widely regarded as a successful system that has enhanced judicial co-operation both in civil and com - mercial matters. This was in no small part thanks to the abolition of the exequatur that used to be required before enforcement could be pursued. It follows from the report that the ECJ’s guidelines generally provide
adequate guidance. However, some member states believe that certain aspects of the Brussels I Recast Regulation are too complex and require legislative clarification, whereby such clarifications should only respond to practical difficulties – particularly aimed at further simplification – and should not lead to a systemic rework of the current system. Recognition and enforcement Article 45 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation outlines the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement, including the breach of public policy in the member state where enforcement is sought. The ECJ has emphasised that this ground should be narrowly interpreted. The report confirms that the practice of domestic courts in this respect is in line with the ECJ’s case law, with a restrictive interpretation being observed in the member states. Following ECJ case law, the report goes on to high - light a specific area of unclarity in the context of enforcement – namely, the interrelation between the lis pendens rules in Articles 29 and 30 on the one hand and Article 45 (1), points (c) and (d) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation on the other hand. Article 45 (1), points (c) and (d) are grounds for refusal relating to irreconcilable judgments. Point (c) refers to irreconcilable judgments between the same par - ties within the member state addressed and point (d) refers to earlier judgments between the same parties and on the same cause of action, whether given in another member state or in a third state. The report points out that Articles 29 and 30 favour the first court that was seised, whereas Article 45 (1), point (d) favours the earlier judgment, even if the ear - lier judgment was the result of proceedings that were started after those that led to the judgment subject to recognition or enforcement. Article 45 (1), point (c) does not provide for any time requirement at all, with its scope of application being wider than the lis pendens rules. The report concluded in this respect that future review of the Brussels I Recast Regulation in this context could be interesting, as it may further expose the interrelation between these provisions.
183 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook