Case Law 1968 Brussels Convention
Article 25 of the 1968 Brussels Convention
ECJ
2 April 2009 ‘Gambazzi v DaimlerChrysler’ (Case
C-394/07) 
Article 25 of the 1968 Brussels Convention refers, without distinction, to all judgments given by a court or tribunal of a Contracting State. For such decisions to fall within the scope of the Convention, it is sufficient if, before their recognition and enforcement are sought in a State other than the State of origin, they have been, or have been capable of being, the subject in that State of origin and under various procedures, of an inquiry in adversarial proceedings. Where the decisions of the national court took the form of a judgment and an order given in default of appearance in civil proceedings which, as a rule, adhere to the adversarial principle, the fact that the court entered judgment as if the defendant, who had entered appearance, was in default, cannot suffice to call into question the categorisation of those decisions as judgments (see paras 22-23, 25).
ECJ
14 October 2004 ‘Mærsk v De Haan en De Boer’ (Case
C-39/02, ECR 2004 p. I-09657)
A decision by a court of a Contracting State ordering the establishment of a liability limitation fund, as provided for under the International Convention of 10 October 1957 relating to the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Sea-Going Ships, is a judgment within the terms of Article 25 of the 1968 Brussels Convention. In the first place, under Article 25, a ‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Contracting State, whatever that judgment may be called. Second, that provision is not limited to decisions which terminate a dispute in whole or in part, but also applies to provisional or interlocutory decisions. The fact that such a decision is taken at the conclusion of proceedings in which the parties were not heard is immaterial in that regard as, even if it was taken at the conclusion of an initial phase of the proceedings in which both parties were not heard, it may be the subject of submissions by both parties before the issue of its recognition or its enforcement pursuant to the Convention of 27 September 1968 comes to be addressed. (see paras 44, 46, 50, 52 , operative part 2)
ECJ
27 April 1999 ‘Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek’ (Case
C-99/96, ECR 1999 p. I-02277)
A judgment cannot be the subject of an enforcement order under Title III of the 1968 Brussels Convention in a case where:
- it was delivered at the end of proceedings which were not, by their very nature, proceedings as to substance, but summary proceedings for the granting of interim measures;
- the defendant was not domiciled in the Contracting State of the court of origin and it does not appear from the judgment that, for other reasons, that court had jurisdiction under the Convention as to the substance of the matter;
- it does not contain any statement of reasons designed to establish the jurisdiction of the court of origin as to the substance of the matter
and
- it is limited to ordering the payment of a contractual consideration, without, on the one hand, repayment to the defendant of the sum awarded being guaranteed if the plaintiff is unsuccessful as regards the substance of his claim or, on the other, the measure sought relating only to specific assets of the defendant located or to be located within the confines of the territorial jurisdiction of the court to which application is made.
In such a case, the court to which application for enforcement is made must conclude that the measure ordered is not a provisional measure within the meaning of Article 24 of the 1968 Brussels Convention.
ECJ
2 June 1994 'Solo Kleinmotoren v Boch' (Case C-414/92,
ECR 1994 Page I-02237)
The definition of a "judgment" given in Article 25 of the 1968 Brussels Convention refers, for the purposes of the application of the various provisions of the Convention in which the term is used, solely to judicial decisions actually given by a court or tribunal of a Contracting State deciding on its own authority on the issues between the parties. That is not the case as far as a settlement is concerned, even if it was reached in a court of a Contracting State and brings legal proceedings to an end, because settlements in court are essentially contractual in that their terms depend first and foremost on the parties' intention.
ECJ 21 May 1980 ‘Denilauler v SNC’ (Case 125/79, ECR 1980 p. 01553)
1. All the provisions of the 1968 Brussels Convention, both those contained in Title II on jurisdiction and those contained in Title III on recognition and enforcement, express the intention to ensure that, within the scope of the objectives of the Convention, proceedings leading to the delivery of judicial decisions take place in such a way that the rights of the defence are observed. It is because of the guarantees given to the defendant in the original proceedings that the Convention, in Title III, is very liberal in regard to recognition and enforcement. In the light of these considerations it is clear that the Convention is fundamentally concerned with judicial decisions which, before the recognition and enforcement of them are sought in a State other than the State of origin, have been, or have been capable of being, the subject in that State of origin and under various procedures, of an inquiry in adversary proceedings.
2. The conditions imposed by Title III of the 1968 Brussels Convention on the recognition and the enforcement of judicial decisions are not fulfilled in the case of provisional or protective measures which are ordered or authorized by a court without the party against whom they are directed having been summoned to appear and which are intended to be enforced without prior service on that party. It follows that this type of judicial decision is not covered by the system of recognition and enforcement provided for by Title III of the 1968 Brussels Convention.
Case Law 1968 Brussels Convention
Article 26 of the 1968 Brussels Convention
ECJ
4 February 1988 'Hoffmann v Krieg' (Case 145/86, ECR
1988 p. 00645)
A foreign judgment which has been recognized by virtue of Article 26 of the 1968 Brussels Convention must in principle have the same effects in the State in which enforcement is sought as it does in the State in which judgment was given.