Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments Archives - international litigation blog
111
archive,category,category-recognition-and-enforcement-of-foreign-judgments,category-111,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,select-theme-ver-3.4,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-4.12.1,vc_responsive
 

Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

August 2, 2022 In Jurisdictional issues, Parallel litigation & Lis pendens, Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, Uncategorized By Various authors

CJEU Rules that Judgments on Awards Circumventing Brussels Regulation Cannot Form Basis for Non-recognition of Irreconcilable Judgments

This article has been co-authored by Nicholas Lawn (Partner at Van Bael & Bellis) and Helin Laufer (Associate at Van Bael & Bellis)

In a recent judgment in the case of London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited v. Kingdom of Spain (Case C‑700/20, Judgment of 20 June 2022) (the Judgment), the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) issued a preliminary ruling holding that arbitration proceedings initiated in the United Kingdom and the resulting award could not block the recognition of a Spanish judgment requiring an insurer to compensate Spain for the environmental damage caused by the Prestige oil tanker (Prestige) off the coast of Spain.

The CJEU held that the proper interpretation of EU Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels Regulation) entails that, although a judgment entered by a court of a Member State in the terms of an arbitral award may, in principle, form the basis for the refusal to recognise a subsequent irreconcilable judgment of the courts of another Member State, a judgment should not be recognised where it would result in an outcome that the court of a Member State could not have reached without infringing the provisions and fundamental objectives of the Brussels Regulation. In short, the English courts were required to recognise the Spanish court’s judgment and the insurer was liable to Spain for EUR 1 billion.READ MORE

0
August 1, 2019 In Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments By Quentin Decleve

Adoption of The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters

On 2 July 2019, The Hague Conference on Private International Law which includes the European Union, adopted the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the Convention).

The Convention’s objective is to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of court judgments across jurisdictions by creating a single global framework to that end. This should, in turn, enhance legal certainty and predictability, help to reduce transactional and litigation costs in cross-border civil and commercial matters and, ultimately, make multilateral trade and investment easier.

The complexity associated with the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments has always been a significant obstacle to cross-border litigation and has therefore prompted businesses to opt for arbitration. In order to tackle this issue, the Convention is expected to simplify the foreign judgment enforcement process and to allow a more effective access to justice.READ MORE

0
May 28, 2018 In Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments By Quentin Decleve

U.S.’s Withdrawal from Iran Nuclear Deal: Consequences on Transnational Litigation

President Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal (also called JCPOA) is likely to have repercussions on U.S.-EU cross-border litigation. In this short article, I wanted to highlight the EU’s most likely response towards the re-instatement of U.S. sanctions: the expansion of the EU’s blocking statute.READ MORE

2
November 30, 2017 In Jurisdictional issues, Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments By Quentin Decleve

China Signs The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements

On 12 September 2017, the People’s Republic of China (China) signed The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (the Convention).

This Convention aims at encouraging international judicial cooperation by requiring courts of member States (i) to respect exclusive forum clauses agreed upon by parties in their commercial agreements (Chapter II of the Convention); and (ii) to recognise and enforce judgments and court decisions rendered by a court of a contracting state designated in a choice of court agreement (Chapter III of the Convention).READ MORE

0
July 20, 2017 In International comity, Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments By Quentin Decleve

International Litigation on Steroids: Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Fiorilla

Although the case below does not shed light on any new legal development, it is nevertheless an interesting story which offers a prime example of a plaintiff willing to use each and every possible trick in the context of international litigation and arbitration to (unsuccessfully) achieve his goal.READ MORE

0
May 19, 2017 In International comity, Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, State immunity By Quentin Decleve

Belgian Constitutional Court Rules on State Immunity From Execution

In a judgment dated 27 April 2017, the Belgian Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court) largely confirmed the validity of the Belgian legal provision on State immunity from execution (Article 1412quinquies of the Belgian Judicial Code).

As a general rule, Article 1412quinquies of the Belgian Judicial Code provides that assets located in Belgium that belong to a foreign State are immune from execution and cannot be subject to enforcement proceedings by creditors. As mentioned before, France recently adopted a similar provision which largely mirrors Article 1412quinquies of the Belgian Judicial Code.

Exceptions to that rule are, however, possible if very strict conditions are met: a party wishing to seize the assets belonging to a State needs to obtain a prior authorisation from a judge (juge des saisies). This judge will only authorise the seizure if (i) the foreign State has “expressively” and “specifically” consented to the seizure of the assets; (ii) the foreign State has specifically allocated those assets to the enforcement of the claim which gives rise to the seizure; and (iii) the assets are located in Belgium and are allocated to an economic or commercial activity.

Given the difficulty of meeting those requirements, two entities (NML Capital Limited (NML), an American hedge fund which holds debts securities against Argentina, and Yukos Universal Limited (YUL), an entity that had been granted a multi-billion arbitral award against Russia) initiated legal proceedings before the Constitutional Court seeking the annulment of Article 1412quinquies of the Belgian Judicial Code.READ MORE

0
April 27, 2017 In Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments By Quentin Decleve

Belgian Court Rules on Recognition of U.S. Class Action Settlements

On 23 March 2017, the Ghent Court of Appeal in Belgium (the Court of Appeal) handed down a lengthy decision on the civil merits in the very well-known Lernout & Hauspie (L&H) case. Although the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal is very long and covers various legal issues, it contains a specific section on the recognition, in Belgium, of two American opt-out class action settlements.

As most of you know, class action suits are legal devices that allow an individual or a small group of individuals to proceed in court on behalf of a much larger and unnamed group of individuals who have suffered a similar injury and who share common claims.

While class actions form an integral part of the legal framework in the United States, European jurisdictions (with the notable exception of the Netherlands (see my previous post)) tend to be very cautious with respect to this instrument. It is only in June 2013 that the European Union published a recommendation setting out a series of common, non-binding principles that EU Member States should adopt in order to put collective redress mechanisms in place. Based on this recommendation, some EU Members that previously did not allow for collective redress mechanisms have since introduced them into their legal systems.

In sharp contrast with the American class action system – where any individual who fulfils the conditions to be part of a class action will automatically be considered as part of the class bringing the action, unless that member expressively indicates his desire to be excluded from of the proceedings (i.e. “opt-out” system) – most European systems have adhered to an “opt-in” system where plaintiff classes are formed through the expressed consent of their members.

The case at hand therefore concerns an interesting scenario in which the Belgian court, belonging to a jurisdiction where only opt-in class action are allowed, is asked to recognise a U.S. opt-out class action settlement.READ MORE

1