Enforcement Under the Brussels Convention: Procedural Public Policy and the Influence of Article 6 ECHR
International Lis, pp. 16-20, 2003
10 Pages Posted: 25 May 2007 Last revised: 13 May 2008
This contribution analyzes a decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Maronier v. Larmer, 29 May 2002) in which the court refusal recognition and enforcement of a Dutch judgment because it violates procedural public policy within the meaning of Art. 27 sub 1 Brussels Convention (= Art. 34 sub 1 Brussels Regulation). The Court of Appeal rules that the Dutch judgment violates Art. 6 ECHR since the case was stayed for 12 years and then reactivated within notification to the defendant (that meanwhile moved to England); the defendant was only notified when the period for appeal had already expired. In this context attention is paid to the function of Art. 6 ECHR in examining the public policy ground of refusal, as well as the ECJ ruling Krombach v. Bamberski.
Keywords: Brussels Convention, Brussels Regulation, enforcement, procedural public policy, Art. 6 ECHR
JEL Classification: K19, K40, K41
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation