BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Dominique Blommaert, Jens Benoot, Fryderyk de Peslin Lachert and Lydie Van Muylem, Janson
• recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the member state addressed; • the judgment was rendered in default of appear - ance and the defendant was not served with the document that instituted the proceedings, or with an equivalent document, in sufficient time and in a way that enabled them to arrange for their defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceed - ings to challenge the judgment when it was pos - sible to do so; • the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in the member state addressed; • the judgment 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; • the judgment conflicts with Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Chapter II of the Brussels I Recast Regulation where the defendant was the policyholder insured or beneficiary of an insurance contract or the injured party, or a consumer or an employee; and • the judgment conflicts with the exclusive jurisdic - tion of another member state. Furthermore, in order to be enforceable, the judgment must be enforceable in the member state where it was rendered. Judgments Rendered Within the Framework of Conventions or Bilateral Treaties The relevant grounds for refusal will be set forth in their provisions. Judgments Rendered Outside of the EU Legal Framework and Bi- or Multilateral Treaties Article 25 of the CPIL lists the following grounds for refusal: • recognition would be incompatible with Belgian public policy; • the rights of defence were violated; • the judgment was obtained with the sole purpose of escaping the application of the law designated by the CPIL, in a matter in which the parties could not freely dispose of their rights;
• the judgment is not a final judgment; • the judgment is incompatible with a domestic or foreign judgment; • the foreign proceedings were commenced after Belgian proceedings were commenced, which remain pending between the same parties and with the same subject matter; • the Belgian courts had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the claim; • the jurisdiction of the foreign court was based solely on the presence of the defendant or property without a direct connection with the dispute in the state to which that court belongs; • specific procedural errors were made regarding IP rights that require registration; • the foreign judgment relates to the validity, work - ing, dissolution, or liquidation of company that had its main place of establishment in Belgium at the time the claim was made; and • the enforcement of a foreign judgment relating to insolvency proceedings would generate specific effects for third parties affected by the insolvency. Once again, in order to be enforceable, the judgment must be enforceable in the state where it was ren - dered. 3.4 Process of Enforcing Foreign Judgments A distinction must be made between judgments ren - dered in EU member states and judgments issued by courts outside the EU. EU Judgments Following Article 39 of the Brussels Recast Regula - tion, a judgment given in an EU member state which is enforceable in that member state, is enforceable in Belgium without any declaration of enforceability (“exequatur”) being required. Since Article 41 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation states that “the procedure for the enforcement of judgments given in another member state shall be governed by the law of the member state addressed”, the process for enforcing EU judgments in Belgium is identic to the one applicable for domestic judgments. Documents required to enforce the decision are the following:
41 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook