Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments under EC Law

1
Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of
Judgments under EC Law

• Brussels I-Regulationand
• Enforcement Order-Regulation

• Prof Dr Thomas Rauscher

TR 2007
2
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
• Synopsis Brussels Conv // Reg
• ECJ-decisions on Brussels Conv/Reg
• Study book
• Commentary

• www.europe.eu
• www.curia.eu
• www.euzpr.eu
• EU-documents
• (procedure, civil law, commercial law)
• Brussels I-synopsis
• ECJ decisions
• Rauscher, IPR2, 2002, C.F.Müller, Heidelberg
• Rauscher, EuZPR2, 2006,Sellier ELP, München

TR 2007
3
Interpretation of EC-Reg on Civil Proc by ECJ

• Sources methods of interpretation
• ECJs decision on Brussels I convention to be
  considered
• Autonomous (european) interpretation applies
  with few exceptions
• by ECJ Art 5 I lit a c
• (place of performance)
• by regulation Art 59
• (domicile)

• Jurisdiction
• Preliminary rulings under Art 234 lit b ECT as
  EC-Reg are EC law
• with Art 68 restrictions as EC-Reg on CP based on
  Arts 61 lit c 67 V
• Request may only be brought by a court against
  whose decision there is no judicial remedy

TR 2007
4
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 III all EU members without Denmark (Art 69
  ECT)
• Brussels I Convention applies until
• Convention on the application of Brussels I-Reg
  for Denmark in force

TR 2007
5
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
Brussel I-reg 2002
2004
2007
TR 2007
6
Temporal scope of application (Art 66)

• General Rule
• Art 66 I
• Proceeding instituted after 03/01/2002 (vv
  after joining the EU)
• instituted court seised (Art 30)

• Extended Recognition
• Art 66 II
• Judgments given after 03/01/2002, if
• - action (before 03/01/2002) under Brussels or
  Lugano Conventions or
• - rules of jurisdiction in accordance with
  Brussels I

TR 2007
7
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 I
• proceeding instituted after 03/01/2002 ()
• But Hungary joined EU 01/01/2004 ? proceeding
  instituted after 01/01/2004 (-)
• Art 66 II
• Judgment after 01/01/2004 ()
• Rules of jurisdiction in accordance with Brussels
  I-Reg (Art 5 sec 3) ()

TR 2007
8
Brussels I Reg and Conventions

• Regulation supersedes Brussels Convention (except
  for territories excluded under Art 299 ECT) Art
  68

• Regulation supersedes conventions between Member
  States as mentioned in Art 69
• Only within temporal, material, personal scope of
  application
• Regulation does not supersede conventions with
  third parties

TR 2007
9
Material Scope of Application (Art 1)

• Autonomous interpretation
• Nature of court irrelevant (civil action in penal
  court)
• Not, if administrative body acting by
  subordination
• Not Revenue and Customs
• Civil Status, Succession, Matrimonial Property
• Bankruptcy proceedings
• Social Security
• Arbitration

• Art 1 I
• Civil and Commercial Matters
• Art 1 II
• particular exceptions

TR 2007
10
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 pupil
  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
11
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 I
• maintenance is civil matter ? special
  jurisdiction Art 5 No 2
• Art 1 II
• 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

TR 2007
12
Personal Scope of Application (Jurisdiction
Rules)

• Art 3
• Art 4 IArt 4 II
• Art 5, 22, 23
• Domicile defined
• Art 59
• Art 60

• Defendant domiciled in any Member State (Art 1
  III)Plaintiffs domicile irrelevant
• Otherwise lex fori including equal treatment of
  EU-domiciliaries (for the purpose of annex 1
  jurisdictions)
• Particular prerequisites
• Natural person Definition according to the law
  of the state of domicile
• Companies/legal person Statutory seat,
  administration, branch

TR 2007
13
Case ficticious(determination of the domicile)

• Plaintiff has residence in Hungary
• He rents a holiday flat situated in Switzerland
  to a resident of Russia, who has a secondary
  residence in Germany
• He brings his payment action in a Hungarian court
• The action is brought in a Swiss court

• P personal scope
• Art 3 I defendant domiciled in a Member state
• Art 59 I ? Hungarian Law ? no connection to
  Hungary ? no domicile in H
• Art 59 II ? German Law ? 7 BGB ?domicile in D
• Brussels I-Reg applicable, but no jurisdiction in
  H (Art 22 Nr 1 sent 1 alt 2)
• P territorial/personal scope
• Switzerland is not a Member state ? Brussels
  I-Reg (-)
• Lugano Conv ()
• Art 3 ()
• Art 16 Nr 1 sent 1 alt 2 ()

TR 2007
14
Jurisdictional System (JJurisdiction)

• 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
15
Special Jurisdiction (Art 5)

• General PrerequisiteArt 5 S 1
• Why special Jurisdictions?
• Are special Jurisdictions mandatory?

• Defendants domicile 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
16
Contract Place of Performance (Art 5 No 1)

• 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
• Except Sale of goods place of delivery
• Except Services place of provision of serv.
• One place of perf. as defined for the entire
  contract

• Contract casesArt 5 No 1
• Art 5 No 1 lit a
• Art 5 No 1 lit b

TR 2007
17
Case De Bloos v Bouyer Rs 14/76(place of
performance)

• Parties
• Plaintiff Grantee of an exclusive
  distributorship right (registered office in B)
• Defendant Grantor (established in F)
• Subject
• Unilateral breach of contract without preliminary
  notice done by the grantor
• Grantee seeking dissolution of the contract and
  damages

• P Jurisdiction of B courts
• Brussels I ConvArt 5 (1) (a)
• Obligation in question ? contractual obligation
  of the defendant which corresponds to the
  contractual right relied upon by the plaintiff
• Relevant place where the obligation of the
  grantor must be performed (applicable law as
  decided under conflict rules of the court)
• Brussels I Reg Art 5 (1) (b)
• Exclusive distributorship contract provision of
  services
• Relevant place where the services (obligation of
  the plaintiff) have been provided (autonomous
  interpretation)

TR 2007
18
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
• Distance tortsCreditor may choose between
  places of tortious action and tort. success
• Torts with multiple pl. of success (press,
  environment!)Choice damages restricted to
  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
19
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 polices 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
20
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
  plaintiffs 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
  supervisiononly for claims arising out of the
  branchs operation
• Action as settlor, trustee, beneficiary of a
  trust Domicile of the trust
• J at the place where cargo has been/could have
  been arrested

TR 2007
21
Case Bayern v Blijdenstein Rs C-433/01(maintanan
ce)

• 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
• ? doesnt 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 cant make use of Art 5 (2) in an
  action for recovery

TR 2007
22
Several Parties (Art 6)

• Prerequisite
• Several Defendants(Art 6 No 1)
• InterventionWarranty(Art 6 No 2)
• Counterclaim(Art 6 No 3)
• Rights in rem(Art 6 No 4)

• (additional) defendant domiciled in a Member
  State
• 1st Defendant domicile in court stateClose
  connection between claims (as under Art 28 III)
• Concerning warranty, guarantee, other third part
  proceedingNot if sole intention to remove from
  other jurisdictionNot applicable in A, D H
  (Art 65)
• Same contract or cause of actionCompensation
  Means of defense, no J necessary
• Personal action combined with real property
  action

TR 2007
23
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 Bezau (A) against
  G, domiciled in Austria, and K, a German company
• K served as security for G
• action against G was dismissed, because
  bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted before
  Rs 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 I 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
24
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
• No entering an appearance against exclusive
  Jurisdiction.

TR 2007
25
Real property (Art 22 No 1)

• Real rights, rentdefined
• 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
26
Case Gaillar v Chekili Rs C-518/99(exclusive
Jurisdiction)

• Gaillard sold immovable properties in France to
  Chekili
• The contract was agreed on to be officially
  attested within four months, but it 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 action for rescission of a sales contract
  may have immediate impact on the title to the
  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
27
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 made before
  03/01/2002
• Exception Protection of trust, if agreement was
  valid!

TR 2007
28
J Agreements (Art 23) / form

• In WritingArt 23 I lit a/1
• Evidenced inWritingArt 23 I lit a/2
• PracticesArt 23 I lit b
• Usage inintl TradeArt 23 I lit c

• Written consent of both parties givesproof of
  agreement
• Incl letters, e-mail (Art 23 II)
• Gen. Cond. Prior knowledge necessary
• Agreement necessary
• 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
29
Case Castelletti v Trumpy Rs C-159/97(choice of
Jurisdiction)

• Trumpy delivered goods to Casteletti on board a
  vessel both are Italian companies
• problems during unloading ? Castelletti sueing
  Trumpy in an Italian court for damages
• Bill of lading, general cond. on reverse side
  disputes shall be determined by HCJ London
• Front side reference to the clauses on the back
  side
• Below the reference signature of the shipper

• Art 22 I lit a (-)
• Signature below reference ?consent, expressed by
  signature does not include terms on back side
• Art 22 I lit c
• the provision's aim is still to ensure that there
  was real consent
• consent can be presumed where commercial usages
  exist and the parties are or ought to have been
  aware of them
• The existence of a usage must be determined in
  relation to the branch in which the parties
  operate.
• It is established where a particular course of
  conduct is generally and regularly followed by
  operators in that branch when concluding
  contracts of a particular type.
• It is not necessarily to be established in
  specific countries or (in all) Member States.
• No specific form of publicity

TR 2007
30
Consumer Contracts (Art 15-17) / Scope

• Meaning
• Art 15 I
• Material scope of applicationArt 15 I
• lit a
• lit b
• lit c
• Territorial scope of application

• Preference over all other Js
• Exception Art 5 V applies only if other party
  domiciled in a Member State with branch in other
  M.S.
• Consumer v. Entrepreneur?
• Type of contract
• Sale of goods on installments
• Any contract to finance sale of goods
• Pursuing commercial or professional activity in
  Member State of consumers 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
31
Consumer Contracts (Art 15-17) / Jurisdiction

• Consumer as plaintiff Art 16 Î
• Consumer as DefendantArt 16 II
• Agreements on JurisdictionArt 17

• Courts in the state of consumers or other
  partys domicile
• If agency Art 5 No 5 Courts in the state of
  agencys domicile
• Only courts of M.S. of consumers 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
32
Case Rudolf Gabriel Rs C-96/00(price combined
with order for goods)

• Mr Gabriel (A domiciled) received personalized
  letter from a German company
• at his private address
• in a sealed envelope
• made him believe, that
• he won ATS 49.700
• he would receive it simply on demand
• if he would order goods for ATS 200
• He wants to bring an action in Austria

• P Art 15 I lit c
• Contract
• 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 lex specialis Art 5

TR 2007
33
Matters related to Insurance (Art 814)

• Insurance matters defined
• Jurisdiction
• Art 9, 10, 11
• Art 12, 11 III
• Art 13

• Action between insurer and insured (policyholder)
  
• Not applicable to re-insurer/re-insurer-cases
• Similar concept as in consumer cases
• Against insurer
• also at plaintiffs 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
34
Individual Contracts of Employment (Art 18-21)

• Employment contract defined
• Jurisdiction
• Art 19
• Art 20
• Art 21

• Dependent employment in a broad meaning
• Not including self-employed
• Not including collective labor law
• 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 II)
• 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
35
Examination as to Jurisdiction (Art 25, 26)

• Exclusive J of other court
• Own Jurisdiction

• Court declares on its own motion that it has no J
  (Art 25)
• Exception Priority prevails if both courts have
  exclusive J (Art 29)
• No examination if defendant enters an appearance
  (Art 26 I due to Art 24)
• If defendant does not enter an appExamination
  ex officio
• Stay of the proceeding until proof of service
  (Art 26 II-IV)
• Art 19 EC Reg on service (Art 26 III)
• Art 15 Hague Conv on service (Art 26 IV)

TR 2007
36
Provisional protective measures (Art 31)

• Provisional measuresdefined
• Jurisdiction
• Art 31

• Only if within the regs 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
37
Lis pendens (Art 27)

• Same cause of action (Art 27)
• ConsequencesArt 27 IArt 27 II
• 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 courtif plaintiff
  takes all subsequent steps

TR 2007
38
Case Gubisch v Palumbo Rs 144/86(same cause of
action)

• Gubisch Maschinenfabrik KG (registered office in
  D) and Mr Palumbo (I resident) are disputing the
  validity of a contract
• Gubisch brought an action for specific
  performance in the Landgericht Flensburg
• Later Mr Palumbo brought an action to declare the
  contract void in the Tribunale di Roma
• Jurisdiction of TdRoma?

• Art 27 I
• 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
39
Related proceedings (Art 28)

• Related Actions(Art 28)
• Consequences
• Art 28 I
• Art 28 II

• If decision in different court could lead to a
  Art 34 III situation
• Same cause of action not necessary
• Same parties not necessary
• Court 2nd seised may stay proceedg
• May also decline jurisdiction

No other concept than lis pendens and related
proceedings to solve concurring jurisdiction
no injunction under national law of civ.proc.
TR 2007
40
Recognition of Judgments

• JudgmentArt 32
• RecognitionArt 33 II, III
• Recognition as Rule Art 33 I
• Impediments to Recognition

• 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 p.i.l. (Art 36)
• No examination of J (Art 35 III)
• Art 34 (next slide)
• Conflict with certain J rules (Art 35 I)
• Consumer, Insurance, Exclusive
• Not contract for employment

TR 2007
41
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
• J from M.S. of recognition prevails
• J from other M.S. or third state prevails only if
  earlier

TR 2007
42
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 27 No 2 BI-Conv
• two prerequisites
• Service duly in time
• Service duly effected
• Both necessary
• ? recognition to be refused if service has not
  been done in due form
• BI-Conv does not govern service ? service is part
  of the proceeding before the court giving the
  judgment ? service must be according to that law,
  including International Convention (Hague)
• Cure of defective service only according to that
  law

• Art 34 No 2 BI-reg
• two prerequisites
• Service duly in time
• In a way, which enables to arrange for defense
• not all formalities of service have to be met
• autonomous minimum standard
• if service not duly effected, it must be
  determined whether defendant could arrange for
  his defense
• cure of defective service no longer relevant
• Defendant obliged to appeal against the judgment
  ? otherwise loosing objection against recognition

TR 2007
43
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 I)
• 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 non-recognition only
  (Art 45 I)

TR 2007