European Business Law, the fourth volume in our series, shows how the European authorities simultaneously abolish all restrictions on access to and exercise of economic activities and support the growth of domestic markets, through the harmonization the internal legislation or the enactment of genuinely unified regulations.

European Business Law

The judgment of the court of origin is automatically recognized in all the other Member States of the Union, without any special procedure being required (Regulation No 1215/2012, Article 36(1)), unless the recognition is contested (Article 36(2)). In case of contestation, the decision of the court of origin shall be supervised by the court in which enforcement is sought either at the stage of an  …

Prohibition of review of foreign judgment as to its substance

The judgment of the court of origin is automatically recognized in all the other Member States of the Union, without any special procedure being required (Regulation No 1215/2012, Article 36(1)), unless the recognition is contested (Article 36(2)). In case of contestation, the decision of the court of origin shall be supervised by the court in which enforcement is sought either at the stage of an action against the decision given as part of proceedings which relate as a principal matter to the recognition or enforcement, or as an incidental matter, in the course of proceedings the principal subject-matter of which is an issue other than recognition or enforcement. 

Article 45 of the regulation which lists the grounds for non-recognition and non-enforcement authorizes the court in which recognition is sought to check the lawfulness of the decision of origin. However, review of the lawfulness of the foreign decision, regardless of the stage at which it occurs, is exercised within the limit of the principle of prohibition from reviewing the foreign decision as to its substance laid down in Article 52. By disallowing any review of a foreign decision as to its substance, Regulation No 1215/2012 prohibits the court of the State in which enforcement is sought from refusing, under the public policy clause, to recognize or enforce that judgment solely on the ground that there is a discrepancy between the legal rule applied by the court of the State of origin and that which would have been applied by the court of the State in which enforcement is sought had it been seized of the dispute . 

The prohibition from reviewing a foreign decision as to its substance also prevents the court in which enforcement is sought from reviewing the accuracy of the findings of law or fact made by the court of the State of origin . The court of the State in which enforcement is sought cannot refuse recognition of a decision emanating from another Member State solely on the ground that it considers that national or European law was misapplied, whereas the system of legal remedies in each Member State, together with the preliminary ruling procedure, affords a sufficient guarantee to individuals . However, the court in which enforcement is sought recovers its full review authority in case of manifest breach of a rule of law recognized as essential within the legal order of that State or a right recognized as fundamental within the same legal order. In this case, the court in which recognition or enforcement is sought is authorized to check the accuracy of the legal or factual assessments by the court of origin .

The prohibition from reviewing a foreign judgment as to its substance also prevents a plaintiff who has obtained a judgment in his favor in a Member State which may be a judgment for which an order for enforcement may be issued in another Member State, from making an application to a court of that State for new proceedings as to the substance, since the court second seized, in that case, could be led to conflict with the previous foreign judgment .

Lastly, the prohibition from reviewing a foreign judgment as to its substance requires the court seized of an application for the refusal of enforcement of that judgment to take into consideration only such submissions as the appellant was unable to make before the court of the State of origin, and not those of which the foreign court was not aware at the time of its judgment because the appellant had failed to put them before it. Furthermore, it must not assess the chances of success of an ordinary appeal lodged or to be lodged in the State of origin .

Case C-7/98 Krombach [2000] ECR I-1935, LawLex200700001584JBJ.

Case C-38/98 Renault [2000] ECR I-2973, LawLex200700001591JBJ.

Case C-7/98 Krombach [2000] ECR I-1935, LawLex200700001584JBJ; Case C-38/98 Renault [2000] ECR I-2973, LawLex200700001591JBJ.

Case 42/76 De Wolf v Cox [1976] ECR 1759, LawLex200900001986JBJ.

Case C-183/90 Van Dalfsen and others v Van Loon and others [1991] ECR I-4743, LawLex200900000755JBJ.

European Business Law

370. Prohibition of review of foreign judgment as to its substance

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

370. Prohibition of review of foreign judgment as to its substance

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise