Normally a court within the European community could not refuse to enforce a judgment of another members state. It could do so however where the judgment had been obtained by virtue of a procedure which denied the right of a defendant to appear other than in person, and where the judgment had, accordingly been entered in the absence of contribution from the defendant. Here the French court had declined to hear from the Defendant’s legal representative in his absence.
ECFI ‘recourse to the public policy clause in article 27(1) of the Convention can be envisaged only where recognition or enforcement of the judgment delivered in another contracting state would be at variance to an unacceptable degree with the legal order of the state in which enforcement is sought in as much as it infringes a fundamental principle. In order for the prohibition of any review of the foreign judgment as to its substance to be observed, the infringement would have to constitute a manifest breach of the rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of the state in which enforcement is sought or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order.’
Citations:
Times 30-Mar-2000, Case C-7/98, [2000] EUECJ C-7/98, [2000] ECR I-1935
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
European
Cited by:
Cited – Golubovich v Golubovich CA 21-May-2010
The court was asked to rule as to the recognition of a foreign (Moscow) decree of divorce obtained in breach of an Hemain injunction. The Russian proceedings had got to a stage requiring H positively to apply to prevent the decree.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Natural Justice
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.82848
