Enforcement under European Law - Chapter 5.2 - Transnational Litigation and Commercial Arbitration - 3rd Edition
Joseph Lookofsky is Professor of Private and Commercial Law at the University of Copenhagen. He received his B.A. in Economics from Lehigh University, his J.D. from the New York University School of Law, and was admitted to the New York State Bar in 1971. He received his Danish law degrees (cand.jur. and dr.jur.) from the University of Copenhagen and joined the Law Faculty there in 1982. Professor Lookofsky has lectured on the CISG and other international commercial law topics for the Danish Bar Association (Advokatsamfund), the Duke University Law School in North Carolina, the University of Bologna (Facoltá di Giurisprudenza), the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (Institut für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht), and the Cornell-Paris I (Sorbonne) Summer Institute of International & Comparative Law. He is also Secretary General of the Danish Committee for Comparative Law (Association Internationale des Sciences Juridiques.
Ketilbjorn Hertz is Senior Consultant with the Danish Ministry of Justice, which he joined in 1997, and in that capacity he has participated in the drafting of important legislation, including the Bill, which led to the adoption of the Danish Arbitration Act 2005 He received degrees from the University of Copenhagen, B.A. in law in 1991, cand.jur. in 1993, B.A. in French in 1998, and Ph.D. in law in 1998.
5.2. ENFORCEMENT UNDER EUROPEAN LAW
5.2.1. Enforcement under National Law
Outside the important context of the Brussels I Regulation, which regulates recognition and enforcement as between EU Member States, there is no uniformity of practice among European States in regard to the recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by non-EU Member States.1
At one extreme end of the spectrum, several Nordic Countries (Denmark, Sweden and Finland) generally do not enforce any foreign judgment in the absence of a treaty obligation to do so. Plaintiffs successful in a (non-EU or non-Lugano Convention) foreign forum are thus obliged to start afresh in the Nordic State where enforcement is sought. It is said that an earlier foreign judgment on the merits is afforded a certain evidentiary weight,2 but the real value of this remains an open question.3
Judgments from a foreign court having jurisdiction by virtue of a forum agreement, however, are less prone to review on the merits than other foreign judgments when new proceedings are brought in a Nordic State, although the degree of recognition depends on the State concerned. In Sweden, for example, the no-review rule (in cases where the parties had agreed to the jurisdiction of the judgment rendering court) was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1973 and is now firmly established.4 In Denmark, on the other hand, the noreview rule is so far supported by only one convincing application – a decision of the Eastern High Court.
CHAPTER 5 RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS5.2 Enforcement under European Law 5.2.1 Enforcement under National Law Adams & Others v Cape Industry (1989) Notes, Questions & Commentary 5.2.2 Recognition & Enforcement under the Brussels Regulation Debaecker & Plouvier v Bouwman (1985) Notes, Questions & Commentary 5.2.3 Enforcement under Other EU Regulations