Jurisdiction, Recognition and
Enforcement of Judgments under
EC Law
Brussels I-Regulation
Prof Dr Thomas Rauscher
TR 2007
Study Materials (partly in German only)



EU-materials
ECJ-decisions
Text and collected materials
EC-reg about civil procedural
law
 -Brussels I-reg
 -EnforcementOrder-reg




www.europe.eu
www.curia.eu

www.euzpr.eu

Synopsis Brussels Conv //
Reg
ECJ-decisions on Brussels
Conv/Reg



Study book


Commentary

EU-documents
(procedure, civil law,
commercial law)
Brussels I-synopsis
ECJ decisions
Rauscher, IPR3, 2009,
C.F.Müller, Heidelberg
Rauscher, EuZPR/EuIPR, 2011,
Sellier ELP, München
TR 2007
Interpretation of EC-Reg on Civil Proc by ECJ
Jurisdiction


Preliminary rulings
under Art 267 lit b
TFEU as EC/EU-Reg are
EU law
TFEU= Treaty on the
Functioning of the EU
Art 68 restrictions of
former ECT (EC-Reg on
CP based on Arts 61 lit c
& 67 V) abolished
Sources & methods of
interpretation


ECJ‘s decision on former
Brussels I convention to
be considered
ECJ=Eur Court ofJustice
Autonomous („european“)
interpretation applies
with few exceptions
by ECJ: Art 5 (1) lit a & c
(place of performance)
 by regulation: Art 59
(domicile)

TR 2007
Reg Nr 44/2001 of 12/22/2000:
„Brussels I-Reg“





Aspects covered:
Jurisdiction (intl)
Lis pendens between
Member States
Recognition of Member
State Judgments
Enforcement of
Member State
Judgments



Member State defined:
Art 1 (3): all EU members
without Denmark (Art 69
ECT)
Convention on the
application of Brussels IReg for Denmark, in force
since July 1, 2007
TR 2007
Members: Brussels I C & R / Lugano
1968 Brussels
Convention
1978 1st Access
Convention
1982 2nd Access
Convention
1988 Lugano
Convention
1989 3rd Access
Convention
1996 4th Access
Convention
1990 Lugano
Extension now
Lugano 2007
Brussel I-reg
2002
2004
2007
TR 2007
Temporal scope of application (Art 66)
General Rule:

Art 66 (1):
Proceeding
instituted after
March 1, 2002
(vv after joining the
EU)
„instituted“ = „court
seised“ (Art 30)
Extended Recognition:

Art 66 (2):
Judgments given after
March 1, 2002, if
- action (before 03/01/2002)
under Brussels or Lugano
Conventions or
- rules of jurisdiction in
accordance with Brussels I
TR 2007
Case: fictitious
(temporal scope of application)



A German resident
caused a traffic
accident with a
Hungarian resident in
Budapest in June 2003
The Hungarian brought
an action for damages
to the Budapest court in
November 2003
… receiving a judgment
in 2006. He wants to
enforce it in Germany

P: temporal scope:

Art 66 (1):



proceeding instituted
after 03/01/2002 (+)
But: Hungary joined EU
01/01/2004 
proceeding instituted
after 01/01/2004 (-)
Art 66 (2):


Judgment after
01/01/2004 (+)
Rules of jurisdiction in
accordance with Brussels
I-Reg
(Art 5 (3)) (+)
TR 2007
Brussels I Reg and Conventions

Regulation supersedes
Brussels Convention
(except for territories
excluded from the
scope of application of
EUT) – Art 68

Regulation supersedes
conventions between
Member States as
mentioned in Art 69


Only within the temporal,
material, personal scope of
application
Regulation does not
supersede conventions
with third parties
TR 2007
Material Scope of Application (Art 1)

Art 1 (1):
Civil and Commercial
Matters




Art 1 (2):
particular exceptions




Autonomous interpretation
Nature of court irrelevant
(civil action in penal court)
Not, if administrative body
acting by subordination
Not: Revenue and Customs
Civil Status (for Divorce see
Brussels IIa) , Succession,
Matrimonial Property
Bankruptcy proceedings
Social Security
Arbitration
TR 2007
Case: Sonntag v Waidmann Rs C-172/91
(autonomous interpretation of civil matters)



Action against a public
school teacher who
during a school
excursion caused a
fatality of a student by
negligent and unlawful
breach of his duties of
supervision
Coverage provided under
a social insurance
scheme governed by
public law
Action pending in a
criminal court

P: criminal court:


Art 1: „whatever the
nature of the court”
P: civil matter:



Action for compensation
resulting from negligence
is civil in nature even if
brought in a criminal
court (Art 5 (4))
Teacher in a public school
performs same functions
as teacher in a private
school
No exercise of public
powers by teacher in
charge of pupils during a
school excursion
TR 2007
Case: de Cavel v de Cavel (2) Rs 120/79
(civil matter – maintenance)



Divorce proceeding
between spouses
deCavel
In this proceeding the
French court awarded
maintenance to one
party payable in monthly
installments
Enforcement sought in
Germany

P: civil matter:
Art 1 (1)
maintenance is civil matter 
special jurisdiction Art 5 No 2
Art 1 (2)




personal status excluded 
maint. Judgment given in
divorce proceeding
However: maintenance not
excluded Art 5 (2)
Similar situation as under
Art 5 (4) (ancillary civil
matter in criminal
proceeding)
 ancillary maintenance
proceeding not excluded
MAINTENANCE:
Jur isdiction & Recognition from June 18,2011 under Regulation no 4/2009
TR 2007
Personal Scope of Application
(Jurisdiction Rules)



Art 3
Art 4 (1)
Art 4 (2)


Art 5, 22, 23


Defendant: domiciled in any Member
State (Art 1 (3))
Plaintiff‘s domicile irrelevant
Otherwise: lex fori including equal
treatment of EU-domiciliaries (for
the purpose of annex 1 jurisdictions
aka „exorbitant“ jurisdictions)
Particular prerequisites
Domicile defined:

Art 59


Art 60

Natural person: Definition according to
the law of the state of domicile
Companies/legal person: Statutory seat,
administration, branch
TR 2007
Case: ficticious
(determination of the domicile)




Plaintiff residing in
Hungary
Rented a holiday flat
situated in Switzerland
to a resident of Russia,
who has a secondary
residence in Germany
Plaintiff brings an
action for payment in a
Hungarian court
Alt: The action is
brought in a Swiss court

P: personal scope:






Art 3 (1) defendant domiciled in
a Member state
Art 59 (1)  Hungarian Law 
no connection to Hungary  no
domicile in H
Art 59 (2)  German Law  §
7 GCC domicile in D
Brussels I-Reg applicable, but no
jurisdiction in H (Art 22 no 1 s 1
alt 2)
“GCC”=German Civil Code
P: territorial/personal scope:


Switzerland is not a Member
state  Brussels I-Reg (-)
Lugano Conv 2007 (+)


Art 3 (+)
Art 22 no 1 s 1 alt 2 (+)
TR 2007
Jurisdictional System (J=Jurisdiction)





General J
(Art 2)
Particular J
(Art 5-7)
Exclusive J
(Art 22)
J Agreement
(Art 23, 24)
Protective Js



Art 8-14
Art 15-17
Art 18-21





Domicile of defendant for all
purposes (except exclusive Js)
no „forum non conveniens“-exception
Certain causes of action, choice of
plaintiff (except exclusive Js)
Certain causes of action, no choice;
takes preference over other Js
Agreement or Appearance (except
exclusive Js)
Closed systems apply to



Insurance cases
Consumer contracts
Individual contracts of employment
TR 2007
Special Jurisdiction (Art 5)



General
Prerequisite
Art 5 s 1
Why special
Jurisdictions?
Are special
Jurisdictions
mandatory?



Defendant domiciled in one,
proceeding in other Member State
Best administration of justice
requires closeliness to proof, local
rules etc
No, plaintiff may choose between
Art 5 and Art 2
TR 2007
Contract: Place of Performance (Art 5 No 1)

Contract cases
Art 5 No 1




Art 5 No 1 lit a




Contract: Claim arising out of contractual
relationship (even if validity in dispute)
No annex J for tort claims
Not applicable if indefinite places of perf.
Relevant Obligation: Primary obligation in
question
Place of Performance: According to the law
as applicable under the conflict rules of the
forum
Except: Agreement as to place of
performance
Art 5 No 1 lit b  Except: Sale of goods: place of delivery


Except: Services: place of provision of serv.
One place of perf. as defined for the entire
contract
TR 2007
Case: De Bloos v Bouyer Rs 14/76
(place of performance)


Parties
 P: Jurisdiction of B courts:
 Brussels I Conv:Art 5 (1) (a):
 Plaintiff: Grantee of an
 Obligation in question 
exclusive distributorship
contractual obligation of the
right (registered office
defendant which corresponds to
in B)
the contractual right relied upon
by the plaintiff
 Defendant: Grantor
 Relevant place: where the
(established in F)
obligation of the grantor must
Subject:
be performed
(applicable law as decided under
 Unilateral breach of
conflict rules of the court)
contract without
 Brussels I Reg: Art 5 (1) (b):
preliminary notice done
 Exclusive distributorship
by the grantor
contract = provision of services
 Grantee seeking
 Relevant place: where the
dissolution of the
services (obligation of the
plaintiff) have been provided
contract and damages
(autonomous interpretation)
TR 2007
Tort (Art 5 No 3)

Tort defined




Jurisdiction at




Tort (delict, quasi-del): Responsibility for
damages without contract
No annex J for contract claims
Pre-contractual obligation under good faith
are Art 5 No 3 rather than Art 5 No 1!
Place where the tort occurred
Torts comitted over distance:
Creditor may choose between places of
tortious action and tortious success
Torts with multiple pl. of success (press
related, environmental!):
Choice, however damages restricted to
those arising in the country of the court
Preventive claims („may occur“) Where tort
threatens to occur; including preventive
action brought by consumer protection
agency against general conditions
TR 2007
Case: Shevill v Presse Alliance Rs C-68/93
(place, where the damage occurred)




Fiona Shevill, a UK national &
resident, brought an action for
damages for harm caused by
the publication of a
defamatory newspaper article
against Presse Alliance SA, a
French company, publisher of
newspaper called France-Soir
France-Soir had published an
article on an operation carried
out by the French police’s drug
squad officers at a “bureaux
de change”, where plaintiff
was employed
France-Soir mainly distributed
in France (237.000 copies),
few copies sold in the UK
(230), 15.500 in the rest of
Europe)
Plaintiff seeks compensation

P: Jurisdiction in the UK



Art 5 No 3 "place where the
harmful event occurred“
„place, where the damage
occurred“
 places where the publication
is distributed, if the victim is
known in those places
 jurisdiction to rule solely in
respect of the harm caused in
the State of the court seised
„place where the harmful event
originated”
 from which the libel was
issued and put into circulation
 place where the publisher of
the defamatory publication is
established; those courts
having jurisdiction to award
damages for all damages
caused by the defamation
TR 2007
Other Special Jurisdictions (Art 5 No 2, 4-7)

Maintenance
(Art 5 No 2)


Adhesion
(Art 5 No 4)


Agency
(Art 5 No 5)



Trust
(Art 5 No 6)
Salvage of cargo
(Art 5 No 7)


Maintenance in family relation: Forum
actoris at plaintiff‘s domicile/ habitual
residence
Not applicable if public entity sues for
compensation under cessio legis
Civil damages in Criminal Court if
competent;
Exception: Art 61: Rights of defense
Permanent Branch, own management,
under supervision;
only for claims arising out of the branch‘s
operation
Action as settlor, trustee, beneficiary of
a trust: Domicile of the trust
Jurisdiction at the place where cargo has
been/could have been arrested
TR 2007
Case: Bayern v Blijdenstein Rs C-433/01
(maintanance)


The daughter of
Blijdenstein, a resident
of the Netherlands,
received an education
grant from the Free
State of Bavaria.
Bavaria was seeking
reimbursement of the
grant at a Munich court.

P: Jurisdiction






Art 5 (2): matters relating
to maintanance
 doesn’t contain any
indication as to which party
may be the applicant
Art 5 (2) offers the
maintenance applicant (being
the “weaker party”) an
alternative jurisdiction
This specific objective
prevailed over the objective
of Art 2 (defendant as
generally weaker party)
However: public body is not
in an inferior position
Public body can’t make use
of Art 5 (2) in an action for
recovery
Art 5(2) abolished: see now Art 3 Reg no 4/2009
TR 2007
Several Parties (Art 6)

General
prerequisite:




Several
Defendants
(Art 6 No 1)

Intervention
Warranty
(Art 6 No 2)


Counterclaim
(Art 6 No 3)


Rights in rem
(additional) defendant domiciled in a
Member State
First defendant domiciled in court state;
Close connection between claims
(as under Art 28 (3))
Concerning warranty, guarantee, other
third part proceeding;
Not if sole intention to remove from other
jurisdiction;
Not applicable in A, D & H (Art 65)
Same contract or cause of action
Compensation: Means of defense, no J
necessary
Personal action combined with real property
action
TR 2007
Case: Reisch AG v Kiesel GmbH Rs C-103/05
(several defendants)




R, a Liechtenstein
company, brought an
action for payment to
the District Court of
Bezau (A) against G,
domiciled in Austria, and
K, a German company
K provided a security
for G
action against G was
dismissed, because
bankruptcy proceedings
had been instituted
before R’s action
K objected jurisdiction

P: Jurisdiction:




Art 6 I: a defendant may
be sued, if he is one of a
number of defendants, in
the courts for the place
where any one of them is
domiciled
provisions of the regulation
must be interpreted
independently, by reference
to its scheme and purpose
cannot be interpreted with
regard to the effects of
domestic rules
Art 6 (1) may be relied on
even if the action is
regarded inadmissible in
relation to the first
defendant from the very
moment it is brought
TR 2007
Exclusive Jurisdiction (Art 22)

Scope of
application



Why exclusive
Jurisdiction?



„regardless of domicile“ – even if
defendant not domiciled in any
Member State
Applies only to criteria situated in
Member States
Usually public interest involved
No valid prorogation against exc J
No entering an appearance against
exclusive Jurisdiction.
TR 2007
Real property (Art 22 No 1)

Real rights, rent
defined




Holiday Flats
exception



Immovable property rights:
against everybody; no personal
claims
Tenancies: right of use against
payment (autonomous def.)
Immovables defined by lex fori
Private tenancies, not to exceed 6
months
Both parties domiciled in same
Member State
additional J of courts of domicile
TR 2007
Case: Gaillar v Chekili Rs C-518/99
(exclusive Jurisdiction)



Gaillard sold immovable
property in France to Chekili
The contract was agreed on
to be closed under notarial
deed within four months,
what never happened
G brought proceedings
against C for rescission of
the contract and for
damages

P: jurisdiction:





Art 22 (1): autonomous
definition of “proceedings
which have as their object
rights in rem in immovable
property”
only actions to determine
the extent, content,
ownership or possession of
immovable property
Even if an action for
rescission of a sales
contract may have
immediate impact on the
title to property, it is based
on a right in personam.
as it may only be raised inter
partes, not erga omnes
 not within the scope of
Art 22(1)
TR 2007
J Agreements (Art 23) / Scope of Application

Material
Scope





Territorial
Scope




Applicability
(temporal)


Admissibility, parties, form, gen.cond
Particular relationship
A court or courts of a Member State
Material validity?
Domicile of one party in Member
State
Courts of a Member State
No mere national case (unwritten)
Art 66: Applies also to agreements
entered into before March 1, 2002
Exception: No invalidity if agreement
was valid before
TR 2007
J Agreements (Art 23) / form

In Writing
Art 23 (1) lit
a/1






Evidenced in
Writing
Art 23 (1) lit
a/2
Practices
Art 23 (1) lit b
Usage in
intl Trade
Art 23 (1) lit c







Written consent of both parties gives
proof of agreement
Incl letters, e-mail (Art 23 (2))
Gen. Cond.: Prior knowledge necessary
Agreement neccessary
one-sided confirmation evidence of
prior agreement
Arising out of earlier relationship
Example: Gen. Cond. in transport paper
International Trade
Widely known/regularly observed in this
type of trade
Both parties aware/ought to be aware
TR 2007
Case: Castelletti v Trumpy Rs C-159/97
(choice of Jurisdiction)





Trumpy delivered goods to
Casteletti on board a
vessel; both Italian
companies
Accident while unloading
 Castelletti sued Trumpy
in an Italian court for
damages
Bill of lading, general cond.
on reverse side: disputes
should be decided by HCJ
London
Front side containing
reference to the clauses
on the reverse side
signature of the shipper
below the reference


Art 22 (1) lit a (-)
 Signature below reference
consent, expressed by signature
does not include terms on back side
Art 22 (1) lit c
 The aim of the provision is to ensure
that there was real consent
 consent can be presumed where
commercial usage exist and the
parties are or ought to have been
aware of it
 The existence of a usage must be
determined in relation to the branch
in which the parties operate.
 Such usage is established where a
particular course of conduct is
generally and regularly followed by
parties operating in that branch
when concluding contracts of a
particular type.
 It need not necessarily be
established in specific countries or
(in all) Member States.
 No specific form of publicity
TR 2007
Consumer Contracts (Art 15-17) / Scope


Meaning of
Consumer Cont
Art 15 (1)
Material scope
of application
Art 15 (1)








lit a
lit b
lit c
Territorial
scope of
application
Preference over all other Js
Consumer v. Business?
Type of contract





Exception: Art 5 (5) applies; only if other
party domiciled in a Member State with
branch in other M.S.
Sale of goods on installments
Any contract to finance sale of goods
Pursuing commercial or professional
activity in Member State of consumer‘s
domicile (Including fake sweepstake
winning notifications)
Art 4 applies, Art 15 ss only if other
party domiciled in Member State
Exception: Art 15 (2): agency in Member
State sufficient
TR 2007
Consumer Contracts (Art 15-17) / Jurisdiction



Consumer as
plaintiff
Art 16 Î
Consumer as
Defendant
Art 16 II
Agreements on
Jurisdiction
Art 17





Courts in the state of consumer‘s or
other party‘s domicile
If agency: Art 5 No 5: Courts in the
state of agency‘s domicile
Only courts of M.S. of consumer‘s
domicile
Counterclaim remains possible
Art 17 takes preference over Art 23
 Agreement after dispute arises
 In favor of the customer
 Conferring J to the courts of the
M.S. where both parties habitual
resident when entering into the
agreement
TR 2007
Case: Rudolf Gabriel Rs C-96/00
(price combined with order for goods)

Gabriel (domiciled in A)
received personalized
letter from a German
company



P: Art 15 (1) lit c:



at his private address
in a sealed envelope

he won ATS 49.700
he would receive it simply
on demand
if he would order goods
for ATS 200
Wants to bring an action
in Austria
Contract

made him believe, that







consumer entered into
contract particularly
with regard to promise
of financial benefit
his interest in such
benefit is significantly
greater than in the
goods ordered
Consumer met all
conditions by entirely
accepting the proposal
price considered as
part of the contract
All other conditions (+)
Art 15 special rule over
Art 5
TR 2007
Matters related to Insurance (Art 8–14)

Insurance
matters
defined




Jurisdiction

Action between insurer and insured
(policyholder)
Not applicable to re-insurer/reinsurer-cases
Applies also to claims of victim against
insurer under direct action (accident)
Similar concept as in consumer cases:

Art 9, 10, 11

Art 12, 11 III


Art 13


Against insurer
 also at plaintiff‘s domicile; additional
rules for liability and real property
insurance
Action against insured
 only in Member State of domicile,
counterclaim or joint parties in liability
cases
Restriction of Jurisdiction Agreement
TR 2007
Individual Contracts of Employment (Art 18-21)


Employment
contract
defined



Dependent employment in a broad meaning
Not including self-employed
Not including collective labor law
Jurisdiction

Art 19



Art 20


Art 21

Action against employer at
 His domicile (Art 19 No 1)
 Habitual place of work (Art 19 No 2 lit a), if
none place of business which engaged the
employee (Art 19 No 2 lit b)
Employer with branch in Member State
presumed to be domiciled there (Art 18 (2)
Action against employee
 Only in Member State of domicile or
counterclaim
Jurisdiction agreements only if
 entered into after dispute started, or
 in favor of employee
TR 2007
Examination as to Jurisdiction (Art 25, 26)

Exclusive J of
other court



Court declares on its own motion that
it has no J (Art 25)
Exception: Priority prevails if both
courts have exclusive J (Art 29)
Own Jurisdiction  No examination if defendant enters an
appearance (Art 26 (1) due to Art 24)
 If defendant does not enter an app:
Examination ex officio:
 Stay of the proceeding until proof of
service (Art 26 (2)-(4))
 Art 19 EC Reg on service (Art 26 (3)
 Art 15 Hague Conv on service (Art
26 (4)
TR 2007
Provisional & protective measures (Art 31)

Provisional
measures
defined




Jurisdiction

Art 31


Only if within the reg‘s
material scope of application
Including measures for
preliminary performance, if
restitution secured
Not including measures for
discovery as to the merits
Either under the rules of
Brussels I-Reg
Or under the rules of the lex
fori even if the courts of
another Member State have
jurisdiction as to the
substance
TR 2007
Lis pendens (Art 27)

Same cause of
action
(Art 27)




Consequences
Art 27 (1)
Art 27 (2)
When court
seised (Art 30)



Identity as to the central problem of
the action
 Even if not same cause of action in
lex fori
 Only action, not the defenses
relevant
Same parties
Stay of proc. in court 2nd seised
Declines J if J of court 1st seised
has been established
Writ of action lodged with the court
if plaintiff takes all subsequent
steps
TR 2007
Case: Gubisch v Palumbo Rs 144/86
(same cause of action)




Gubisch Maschinenfabrik KG
(registered office in D) and
Palumbo (a resident of I) are
disputing the validity of a
contract
Gubisch brought an action
for specific performance in
the Landgericht Flensburg
Later Palumbo brought an
action to declare the
contract void in the
Tribunale di Roma
Jurisdiction of TdRoma?

Art 27 (1)


Same cause of action
 Autonomous interpret.
 positive action for
performance of a
contractual obligation
= negative action for
rescission or discharge of
the same contract
Moment the court is seised


ECJ referred to litispendency
in national lex fori (under Br I
Convention)
Brussel I-reg:
 Art 30
Autonomous European
definition of litispendency
TR 2007
Related proceedings (Art 28)


Related Actions
(Art 28)
Consequences
 Art 28 (1)
 Art 28 (2)



If decision in different court could
lead to a Art 34 (3)-type situation
 Same cause of action not
necessary
 Same parties not necessary
Court 2nd seised may stay proceedg
May also decline jurisdiction
No concept other than lis pendens and related proceedings
to solve concurring jurisdiction
no injunction under national law of civ.proc.
TR 2007
Recognition of Judgments




Judgment
Art 32
Recognition
Art 33 (2), (3)
Recognition
as Rule
Art 33 (1)







Decision as to the merits
Not: procedural decisions
No particular proceeding (incidenter)
Application for formal decision
admissible
No révision au fond (Art 36)
No examination of conflict law (Art 36)
No examination of jurisdcn (Art 35 (3)
Impediments to  Art 34 (next slide)
Recognition
 Conflict with certain J rules Art 35 (1)
 Consumer, Insurance, Exclusive
 Not contract for employment
TR 2007
Impediments against recognition (Art 34)


Public policy
 No 1
Service of
Action
 No 2







Irreconcilability


No 3
Nr 4



Material or procedural
Only if manifestly contrary to p.p.
Service not timely (for defense)
Formal mistakes relevant only if
related to preparation of defense
No appearance
Exception: Challenge of judgment in
Member State of origin
Conflicting issues between same
parties
Judgment from M.S. of recognition
prevails
J from other M.S. or third state
prevails only if earlier
TR 2007
Case: Lancray v Peters C-305/88
(service duly effected)





Lancray SA (French
company) bringing an
action against Peters
und Sickert KG (German
company) in France
Summons were served
timely but only in
French language
Peters did not appear at
the hearing
Court granted Lancray a
default judgment
Lancray seeks
enforcement in Germany


Art 34
27 No
No 22 BI-reg:
BI-Conv:
Art
 two prerequisites
 two prerequisites









Service duly in time
Service duly in time
Service duly effected
In a way, which enables to
Both
necessary
arrange
for defense




 recognition to be
not
all formalities
refused
if service of
hasservice
not
have
to
be
met
been done in due form
autonomous
minimum
BI-Conv does
not govern
standard
service  service is part
ofservice
the proceeding
if
not duly before
effected,
the
court
giving
the
it must be determined
judgment  service must
whether
defendant
be according
to thatcould
law,
arrange
for
his
defense
including International
Convention
(Hague)
cure
of defective
service no
longer
Cure ofrelevant
defective service
only according
to that
law
Defendant
obliged
to appeal
against the judgment 
otherwise loosing objection
against recognition
TR 2007
Enforcement (System only)

Subject




„Exequatur“



Prerequisites



Appeal



Judgment (Art 38)
Authentic instruments (Art 57)
Only from Member States
No „automatic“ enforcement
Declaration of enforceability,
application necessary (Art 38 (1)
Enforceability in State of origin
Only formal documentation in 1st
instance (Art 53-56)
Recognition not to be examined
May be brought: Art 43/Annex 3
May be based on grounds for nonrecognition only (Art 45 (1))
TR 2011