Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: The Obligation to Recognize and Enforce Foreign Judgments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Private International Law

  • 1489 Accesses

Abstract

The discussion of the impact of the ECHR on the issue of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments has been divided into two parts. This chapter focuses on the obligation to recognize and enforce foreign judgments which can be derived from the ECHR. The ECHR may not only obligate Contracting Parties to recognize and enforce foreign judgments, but might also be invoked against the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. This aspect is discussed in the following chapter. The scope of the obligation to recognize and enforce foreign judgments following from the ECHR is examined in this chapter. It is demonstrated that Article 6(1) ECHR, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR, and Article 8 ECHR may entail an obligation for the authorities of the Contracting Parties to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. However, this obligation is clearly not absolute.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also infra Chap. 2.

  2. 2.

    See, e.g., Schlosser 2000, p. 31; van Hoek 2003, pp. 337–338.

  3. 3.

    See, e.g., the Hague Convention of 15 April 1958 concerning the recognition and enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations towards children; the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 concerning the Power of Authorities and the Law Applicable in respect of the Protection of Infants, UNTS 1969, p. 145ff; the Hague Convention of 1 July 1985 on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition. The texts of these instruments can be found at www.hcch.net.

  4. 4.

    See, e.g., Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of successions and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession, OJ 2012, L 201/107; Council Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, OJ 2009, L 7/1; Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, OJ 2003, L 338/1 “Brussels II bis” (repealing Regulation (EC) 1347/2000); Council Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings, OJ 2000, L 160/1.

  5. 5.

    This ‘regime’ consists of the so-called Brussels I Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001 L12/1 (a number of amendments and corrections have since been added to this text) and the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2007 L339/3, which is practically identical to the Brussels I Regulation. The Lugano Convention has been adopted by Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland.

  6. 6.

    See for a comparative study on the enforcement of foreign judgments Kerameus 1997, pp. 179–410.

  7. 7.

    See, e.g., the discussion of the requirements used in England, The Netherlands, and Switzerland infra Sect. 7.2.2.

  8. 8.

    Id.

  9. 9.

    See, e.g., Article 34(3) and (5) of the Brussels I Regulation (supra n. 5).

  10. 10.

    See, e.g., Article 23(2-a) of the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. See also infra Sect. 7.2.2. See generally on the requirements for recognition and enforcement and particularly the jurisdictional requirement, e.g., von Mehren 1980, pp. 9–112.

  11. 11.

    See, e.g., Article 34(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (supra n. 5).

  12. 12.

    But see infra n. 23. See also, e.g., infra n. 77.

  13. 13.

    But see infra n. 113.

  14. 14.

    See further infra 8.2.4.

  15. 15.

    See supra n. 5.

  16. 16.

    See, particularly, Articles 34 and 35 of the Brussels I Regulation (supra n. 5). An even more liberal approach is proposed by the Commission. See further infra Sect. 8.2.4.

  17. 17.

    Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II.

  18. 18.

    Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, para 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II (references omitted).

  19. 19.

    See, e.g., Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III and Jasiūnienė v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, 6 March 2003.

  20. 20.

    See, e.g., Guinchard 2005, pp. 214–215; Marchadier 2007, p. 369ff; Matscher 1998, p. 222. Cf. Kinsch 2007, pp. 94–96.

  21. 21.

    Sylvester v. Austria (dec.), no. 54640/00, 9 October 2003.

  22. 22.

    In its subsequent judgment the Court found a violation of Article 6(1) in this respect. See Sylvester v. Austria (no. 2), no. 54640/00, 3 February 2005. See with regard to the admissibility of claims generally supra Sect. 3.2.

  23. 23.

    McDonald v. France (dec.), no. 18648/04, 29 April 2008.

  24. 24.

    See, e.g., Freimanis and Lidums v. Latvia (dec.), no. 73443/01, 30 January 2003 and Hussin v. Belgium (dec.), no. 70807/01, 6 May 2004. See with regard to Hussin further infra Sect. 7.4.

  25. 25.

    The Court held the following in McDonald v. France: ‘La Cour reconnaît que le refus d’accorder l’exequatur des jugements du tribunal américain a représenté une ingérence dans le droit au procès équitable du requérant. La Cour reconnaît que le refus d’accorder l’exequatur des jugements du tribunal américain a représenté une ingérence dans le droit au procès équitable du requérant’.

  26. 26.

    See McDonald v. France, Rev.crit dr.int.priv. 2008, p. 830ff (note Kinsch) and McDonald v. France, Journal du droit international (Clunet) 2008, p. 193ff (note Marchadier); see also Kinsch 2010, p. 267; Spielmann 2011, p. 774ff.

  27. 27.

    See note Kinsch 2008, p. 839 (supra n. 26).

  28. 28.

    See note Marchadier 2008, p. 196 (supra n. 26).

  29. 29.

    See also Kinsch 2010, p. 267ff.

  30. 30.

    Jovanovski v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 31731/03, 7 January 2010.

  31. 31.

    Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, 1 April 2010.

  32. 32.

    Article 41 ECHR reads as follows. ‘If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.’

  33. 33.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.1.

  34. 34.

    Id.

  35. 35.

    Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, para 63, 1 April 2010.

  36. 36.

    See, e.g., Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, para 50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV.

  37. 37.

    See for the Court’s findings in this regard infra Sect. 5.3.

  38. 38.

    Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18. See further supra Sect. 5.4.

  39. 39.

    See paras 9–15 of the concurring opinion of Judge Malinverni and para 2ff of the concurring opinion of Judge Spielmann in Vrbica (supra n. 31).

  40. 40.

    Romańczyk v. France, no. 7618/05, 18 November 2010.

  41. 41.

    Romańczyk v. France, no. 7618/05, para 53, 18 November 2010.

  42. 42.

    Convention of New York of 20 June 1956 on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, UNTS vol. 268, p. 3.

  43. 43.

    The Court also noted in this regard that it essentially followed its previous case law concerning the enforcement of judgments under the New York Convention. The Court cited Huc v. Romania and Germany (dec.), no. 7269/05, 1 December 2009; Dinu v. Romania and France, no 6152/02, 4 November 2008; K. v. Italy, no 38805/97, ECHR 2004-VIII; Zabawska v. Germany (dec.), no. 49935/99, 3 March 2006 and W.K. v. Italy (dec.), no. 38805/97, 25 June 2002.

  44. 44.

    Matrakas and Others v. Poland and Greece, no. 47268/06, 7 November 2013.

  45. 45.

    The Court referred in this regard to Fouklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, 7 June 2005.

  46. 46.

    There is one more case, in which the Court found that the refusal to recognize a foreign judgment resulted in a violation of the right to access to a court ex Article 6(1) ECHR. In Ateş Mimarlik Mühendislik A.Ş v. Turkey, no. 33275/05, 25 September 2012 the Court held that the refusal by the Turkish courts to recognize a German judgment resulted in the very essence of the applicant’s right to access to a court being impaired. The Court, incidentally, also found a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR on account of the excessive length of the proceedings. However, this concerns a fairly odd case, which appeared to hinge more on the interpretation of Turkish law, while it is at least arguable on the basis of the facts of the case that the Turkish courts should not have asserted jurisdiction in the first place. See in this regard also the partly dissenting opinion of Judges Popović, Karakaş and Pinto de Albuquerque.

  47. 47.

    Négrépontis-Giannisis v. Greece, no. 56759/08, 3 May 2011.

  48. 48.

    See with regard to the public policy exception infra Sects. 2.5 and 6.3.3.3.

  49. 49.

    Négrépontis-Giannisis v. Greece, no. 56759/08, paras 90–91, 3 May 2011. See for a more detailed discussion of this case infra Sect. 7.4.

  50. 50.

    Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, ECHR 2004-V (extracts).

  51. 51.

    The Court cited in this regard, inter alia, Maire v. Portugal, no. 48206/99, ECHR 2003-VII.

  52. 52.

    Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, para 187, ECHR 2004-V (extracts).

  53. 53.

    See infra Sect. 7.4 for a more detailed discussion of this case and the complaint under Article 8 ECHR.

  54. 54.

    Cf. Spielmann 2011, p. 770ff. See in this regard also Kinsch 2007, who before the Court’s judgments in Saccoccia (infra n. 55) and Ern Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş (infra n. 59) already noted—citing the Court’s admissibility decision in Ern Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş v. Turkey (dec.), no. 70830/01, 4 October 2005—that Article 6(1) ECHR (and Article 13 ECHR) could be applicable to such proceedings.

  55. 55.

    Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, 18 December 2008.

  56. 56.

    Saccoccia v. Austria (dec.), no. 69917/01, 5 July 2007.

  57. 57.

    Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, paras 61–65, 18 December 2008.

  58. 58.

    Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, paras 70–80, see particularly paras 78–80, 18 December 2008.

  59. 59.

    Ern Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş v. Turkey, no. 70830/01, 3 May 2007.

  60. 60.

    K. v. Italy, no. 38805/97, ECHR 2004-VIII and an older case of the Commission, Kirchner v. Austria (dec.), 12883/87, 14 October 1991.

  61. 61.

    Zabawska v. Germany (dec.), no. 49935/99, 2 March 2006. See also supra n. 43.

  62. 62.

    See with regard to the issue of whether Article 6(1) ECHR generally applies to issues of private international law supra Sect. 5.4.1.1.

  63. 63.

    See Hornsby and McDonald supra Sect. 7.2.

  64. 64.

    See Jovanoski and Vrbica supra Sects. 7.2–7.3.

  65. 65.

    See Romańczyk supra Sect. 7.2.

  66. 66.

    See generally on the system of restrictions supra Sect. 3.5.1. See with regard to the right to access to a court supra Sect. 5.4.1.

  67. 67.

    Even though the Court did not do so in Pini (see supra n. 50).

  68. 68.

    See for an overview supra Sect. 7.1.

  69. 69.

    See infra Sects. 8.2–8.3.

  70. 70.

    The proper service of documents certainly contributes to a fair trial under Article 6(1) ECHR, while the ground of refusal of irreconcilable judgments could be said to be vested in the general notion of the rule of law.

  71. 71.

    See with regard to the choice of these legal orders supra Sect. 1.2.

  72. 72.

    [2010] EWCA Civ 810.

  73. 73.

    The so-called Hemain injunction is an interim injunction in international proceedings, which is sought for a limited time in order to preserve the status quo, while an application for a stay is made. The injunction thus precludes both parties from litigating on the substantive issues in either court involved. In Hemain v. Hemain [1988] 2 FLR 388, such an injunction was granted in respect of French proceedings (prior to the Brussels II Regulation).

  74. 74.

    As discussed above, the Court’s case law in this regard suggests that the origin of the judgment is irrelevant. See supra Sect. 7.2.1.

  75. 75.

    See supra Sect. 7.2.

  76. 76.

    See, e.g., no. 6 of the preamble of the Brussels I Regulation (supra n. 5).

  77. 77.

    See generally with regard to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in England, e.g., Briggs and Rees 2009, p. 665ff; Cheshire et al. 2010, p. 513ff; Dicey et al. 2012, p. 663ff.

  78. 78.

    See Strikwerda 2012, p. 273ff.

  79. 79.

    See also Kinsch 2007, pp. 105–106.

  80. 80.

    Strikwerda 2012, pp. 279–280. Cf. Rosner 2004, p. 31ff. Some authors have argued that a fourth condition—finality of the judgment—should be added. See Rosner, p. 51ff and the Dutch authors cited there. Occasionally, the requirement that the foreign judgment should have a proper, understandable reasoning has been mentioned. See, e.g., Rb. Rotterdam 29 September 1989, NIPR 1992, 277. However, one could also argue that such a requirement would fall under the requirement of a fair trial, whereby it should be mentioned that a lack of reasons in a judgment will not always violate Article 6(1) ECHR. See, e.g., HR 18 March 2011, RvdW 2011, 392, which will be discussed infra Sect. 8.2.2.2.

  81. 81.

    See generally with regard to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Switzerland, e.g., Dutoit 2005, p. 94ff; Siehr 2002, p. 672ff.

  82. 82.

    See further infra Sect. 7.4. See also Bucher 2010a, p. 309, who foresees a similar development.

  83. 83.

    But see further Hussin v. Belgium with regard to the jurisdiction requirement (with regard to Article 8 ECHR) infra n. 100.

  84. 84.

    See generally with regard to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR, e.g., Grgic 2007, pp. 12–15; Schutte 2004.

  85. 85.

    Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III.

  86. 86.

    Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, para 34, ECHR 2002-III.

  87. 87.

    Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, para 40, ECHR 2002-III.

  88. 88.

    Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B.

  89. 89.

    Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, para 55, 1 April 2010.

  90. 90.

    See also supra Sect. 7.2.

  91. 91.

    See generally supra Sect. 3.5.1.2.

  92. 92.

    Kin Kin-Stib and Majkić v. Serbia, no. 12312/05, 20 April 2010.

  93. 93.

    Kin Kin-Stib and Majkić v. Serbia, paras 84–85, no. 12312/05, 20 April 2010. With regard to the alleged violation of Article 6(1) in this case, the Court considered it to be unnecessary to examine separately the same issue under Article 6(1) ECHR. The applicants had under Article 6(1) also complained about the failure to respect the res judicata effects of the arbitration awards. However, this complaint was incompatible ratione temporis, as Serbia had at the time of (the end of) the annulment proceedings not yet ratified the ECHR.

  94. 94.

    Négrépontis-Giannisis v. Greece, no. 56759/08, paras 93–105, 3 May 2011. See also supra Sect. 7.2 and more extensively infra Sect. 7.4.

  95. 95.

    But see Spielmann 2011, p. 774ff, particularly at p. 783.

  96. 96.

    See supra Sect. 7.2.1.

  97. 97.

    Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR is not absolute. See supra Sect. 3.5.1.2.

  98. 98.

    See supra n. 32.

  99. 99.

    However, this difference may also have depended on the particular circumstances of the cases. In Vrbica the case was re-opened, but this should, in principle, of course lead to enforcement after all.

  100. 100.

    Hussin v. Belgium (dec.), no. 70807/01, 6 May 2004.

  101. 101.

    It is worth mentioning that long before the Court would be called upon to examine whether the non-recognition of a foreign judgment could violate Article 8 ECHR, the Commission had already decided a case, X. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 172/56, Documents and Decisions 1955–1957, pp. 211–219, in which this was one of the issues. In this case the Commission had to decide whether the non-recognition in Sweden of a Polish judgment awarding the applicant a divorce and giving him custody of the child, followed by a Swedish decision granting the applicant’s wife a divorce and giving her custody over the couple’s child, violated Article 8 ECHR. The Commission ultimately decided that the application was inadmissible. However, it should be noted that the Commission in so deciding neither really discussed the private international law issue in this case, nor the complaint under Article 8 ECHR for that matter.

  102. 102.

    The 1968 Brussels Convention on the Jurisdiction and Enforcement in Civil and Commercial Matters, OJ 1972 L 299/32, is the predecessor of the Brussels I Regulation, which has been discussed supra n. 5. Matters of status are excluded from the scope of the Brussels Convention, but this matter was also concerned with an issue of maintenance, which does fall within its scope.

  103. 103.

    See with regard to this notion supra Sect. 3.2.

  104. 104.

    See also supra n. 24.

  105. 105.

    But see Bucher 2000, particularly pp. 96–115. See also Matscher 1998, p. 221—noting the early decision of the Commission in X. v. Sweden (supra n. 101).

  106. 106.

    Cf. Kinsch 2010, p. 262.

  107. 107.

    Cf. generally Bucher 2011, p. 319; Franzina 2011, pp. 609–616.

  108. 108.

    In Chap. 4 it has been discussed that the act of (not) recognizing a foreign judgment constitutes a situation within the jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties ex Article 1 ECHR. It consequently follows that this act may give rise to responsibility following a violation of one of the rights guaranteed in the ECHR.

  109. 109.

    X and Y v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 7229/75, 15 December 1977.

  110. 110.

    Kinsch 2010, p. 263.

  111. 111.

    One could particularly wonder in this regard whether this takes the ‘social reality of the situation’ sufficiently into account. See, e.g., infra n. 118.

  112. 112.

    See further infra the Court’s findings in Wagner.

  113. 113.

    Wagner and J.W.M.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts).

  114. 114.

    It should be noted that the Court in this case (also) found a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR, essentially because the Luxembourg courts had not given any reasons for the dismissal of the applicant’s complaints based on Article 8 ECHR. However, as the complaint under Article 6(1) ECHR had otherwise little to do with private international law, it will not be further considered here.

  115. 115.

    See supra n. 100.

  116. 116.

    See with regard to the system of restrictions under Article 8 ECHR further supra Sect. 3.5.1.2.

  117. 117.

    Wagner and J.W.M.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, paras 126, 129, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts).

  118. 118.

    Wagner and J.W.M.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, para 132, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts).

  119. 119.

    Wagner and J.W.M.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, para 133, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts).

  120. 120.

    The Wagner judgment has been often discussed, primarily in the French literature. See for annotations, e.g., Dalloz 2007, p. 2700ff (note Marchadier) and Rev.crit dr.int.priv. 2007, p. 807ff (note Kinsch).

  121. 121.

    See D’Avout 2010, p. 170ff.

  122. 122.

    These requirements differ from country to country. See supra Sect. 5.1 for a brief presentation of the various requirements regarding foreign judgments.

  123. 123.

    See Muir Watt 2008, pp. 1983–1998. The author invoked, in addition to fundamental rights, ‘European citizenship’ as a building block of this new methodology in the EU. See more generally Lagarde 2004, pp. 225–243.

  124. 124.

    Cf. Franzina 2011.

  125. 125.

    Cf. Kinsch 2010, p. 266. See also Rev.crit dr.int.priv. 2007, pp. 815–818 (note Kinsch; see supra n. 120).

  126. 126.

    See Kinsch 2010, p. 266, who notes that the legitimate expectation in this case may have been unique in the sense that, according to this author, the civil registry in Luxembourg did not apply the law as it stood correctly.

  127. 127.

    Wagner and J.W.M.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, para 130, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts).

  128. 128.

    The Wagner judgment has in this regard also been hailed as ‘an affirmation of the importance of the recognition of pre-existing family links, taking into consideration the best interest of the child, which should always predominate’ by Judge Berro-Lefevre in a contribution to the Joint Council of Europe and European Commission Conference Challenges in adoption procedures in Europe: Ensuring the best interests of the child. This conference was held in Strasbourg from 30 November 2009 until 1 December 2009. The report of the Conference may be found at the website of the Council of Europe: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/family/Adoption%20conference/Brochure%20conf%C3%A9rence%20Adoption_LR.pdf. Accessed March 2014.

  129. 129.

    See infra the discussion on the distinction between the recognition of a foreign family judgment and a status acquired abroad in a non-judicial manner directly following the examination of Green and Farhat.

  130. 130.

    Mary Green and Ajad Farhat v. Malta (dec.), no. 38797/07, 6 July 2010.

  131. 131.

    See supra Sect.  3.5.1.2

  132. 132.

    See also Kinsch 2011a, pp. 42–44.

  133. 133.

    This also explains why a few Dutch cases concerning the registration of a name will be discussed in this chapter, even though these case are strictly speaking not concerned with the recognition of a foreign family law judgment. See infra Sect. 7.4.2.

  134. 134.

    Lagarde has an important role in this debate: see Lagarde 2004, 2008. See further on this debate, e.g., Bollée 2007; Coester-Waltjen 2006; Mansel 2006; Mayer 2005; Melcher 2013; Muir Watt 2008, 2013; Pamboukis 2008.

  135. 135.

    See, e.g., Muir Watt 2013, p. 416. See also supra n. 123.

  136. 136.

    See further on the system of restrictions regarding Article 8 ECHR supra Sect. 3.5.1.2.

  137. 137.

    See supra Sect. 3.5.1.2.

  138. 138.

    See, particularly, Pla and Puncernau v. Andorra, no. 69498/01, para 61, ECHR 2004-VIII.

  139. 139.

    See Négrépontis-Giannisis v. Greece, no. 56759/08, paras 77–84, particularly paras 82–84, 3 May 2011.

  140. 140.

    Négrépontis-Giannisis v. Greece, no. 56759/08, paras 85–92, 3 May 2011. See also supra Sect. 7.2.

  141. 141.

    Négrépontis-Giannisis v. Greece, no. 56759/08, paras 93–105, 3 May 2011. See also supra Sect. 7.3.

  142. 142.

    Kinsch 2011b, pp. 818–819. See with regard to this case also Daelman 2011, pp. 70–73; Kinsch 2011a, pp. 44–45.

  143. 143.

    Négrépontis-Giannisis v. Greece, no. 56759/08, paras 56 and 74, 3 May 2011 (citing Wagner and J.W.M.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, paras 132–233, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts)).

  144. 144.

    See also supra n. 48.

  145. 145.

    Harroudj v. France, no. 43631/09, 4 October 2012. See with regard to this case also EHRC 2013/10 (note Voorhoeve); Rev.crit dr.int.priv. 2013, pp. 161–172 (note Corneloup).

  146. 146.

    See Harroudj v. France, no. 43631/09, para 47, 4 October 2012. The Court, incidentally, noted earlier in its judgment that the principles regarding issues concerning a positive obligation under Article 8(1) ECHR and a negative obligation under the same Article and the extent to which possible interferences are allowed under Article 8(2) ECHR are similar. See Harroudj v. France, no. 43631/09, para 43, 4 October 2012. The fact that the Court uses a similar approach to these two issues also follows from its findings in Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, 28 June 2007 (see supra n. 113).

  147. 147.

    See Harroudj v. France, no. 43631/09, para 22, 4 October 2012.

  148. 148.

    Harroudj will presumably not be the last case, in which the Court will have to examine the consequences of the refusal by the authorities to recognize kafala. See, e.g., the Statement of Facts in Chbihi Loudoudi and Others v. Belgium, no. 52265/10, introduced 25 August 2010 (available only in French).

  149. 149.

    See, e.g., Ammdjadi v. Germany, discussed supra Sect. 6.3.1.

  150. 150.

    The rights of others may also play a role with regard to the obligation to recognize and enforce under, respectively, Article 6(1) ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR, but this issue will be more prevalent with regard to Article 8 ECHR.

  151. 151.

    See supra n. 130.

  152. 152.

    Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, ECHR 2004-V (extracts).

  153. 153.

    See supra Sect. 7.2.1.

  154. 154.

    See Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, paras 149–151 with references to the Court’s established case law in this respect.

  155. 155.

    Cf. the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Thomassen joined by Judge Jungwiert in Pini (supra n. 50), who concludes that this is impossible. Incidentally, Judge Thomassen was of the opinion that in this case no family life existed between the applicants and the Romanian children.

  156. 156.

    See infra n. 171.

  157. 157.

    Singh v. Entry Clearance Officer (New Delhi) [2004] EWCA Civ 1075, [2005] QB 608.

  158. 158.

    It is, incidentally, interesting to compare this case to the aforementioned case of the Commission, X and Y v. the United Kingdom, no. 7229/75, 15 December 1977. The facts in both cases are remarkably similar, yet the outcome is not. It demonstrates the development of the interpretation of Article 8 ECHR.

  159. 159.

    See particularly [57] per Munby J.

  160. 160.

    Re N (Recognition of Foreign Adoption Order [2009] EWHC 29 (Fam.), [2010] 1 FLR 1102.

  161. 161.

    The Adoption and Children Act 2002.

  162. 162.

    Hof Amsterdam 6 March 2003, NIPR 2005, 305. See also Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage, 22 April 2004, NIPR 2005, 224, in which a Dutch court in a somewhat similar case found, regarding the registration of a wedding certificate of a marriage between a Dutch man and his Afghan wife, that the decision not to register such a document did not interfere with his rights under Article 8 ECHR.

  163. 163.

    Rb. Haarlem 1 February 2005, NIPR 2005, 124.

  164. 164.

    See also Rb. Alkmaar 16 January 2002, NIPR 2002, 170. Cf. HR 3 December 2004, NIPR 2005, 3 where Article 8 ECHR did not play a role and Rb. Utrecht 5 November 2003, NIPR 2004, 236, concerning a Russian adoption, which could not be recognized in the Netherlands.

  165. 165.

    ATF 134 III 467, 470–475.

  166. 166.

    Article 78(1) of the Swiss Private International Law Act reads as follows: Adoptions made abroad shall be recognized in Switzerland provided that they were pronounced in the State of domicile or the State of nationality of the adopted person or adopting spouses (translation provided by the author).

  167. 167.

    Michel v. Switzerland, no. 3235/09. The case was introduced on 22 December 2008. See the Statement of Facts of 20 September 2010.

  168. 168.

    ATF 134 III 467, 470–475.

  169. 169.

    Bucher 2010b, p. 203.

  170. 170.

    But see Siehr 2004, pp. 778–779. This opinion was cited and followed by the Tribunal fédéral.

  171. 171.

    Bundesverfassungsgericht 30 November 1982, IPrax 1984, p. 88ff.

  172. 172.

    Baratta 2010, p. 392. Cf. Wagner and Négrépontis-Giannisis v. Greece (cited above). See in the context of the protection of minority rights, Muñoz Diaz v. Spain, no. 49151/07, 8 December 2009, in which the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR taken in conjunction with Article 14 ECHR in a case with some remarkable similarities. This case also concerned a pension claim for surviving spouses. In this case the Spanish authorities refused to pay, because of an invalid marriage. The marriage had been concluded in Spain in accordance with Roma rites, but was never registered there. Nevertheless, the Court found a violation in this case.

  173. 173.

    See in this regard, e.g., Struycken 2010. See also Re: X & Y (Foreign Surrogacy) [2008] EWHC 3030 (Fam). Cf. Baratta 2010, p. 393ff.

  174. 174.

    See in this regard, e.g., Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, 24 June 2010. See also the Statement of Facts in Orlandi and Others v. Italy (and other applications), no. 26431/12.

References

  • Baratta R (2010) La reconnaissance internationale des situations juridiques personnelles et familiales. Recueil des Cours 348:253–499

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollée S (2007) L’extension du domaine de la méthode de reconnaissance unilatérale. Rev. crit. dr. int. priv. 96:307–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs A, Rees P (2009) Civil jurisdiction and judgments. Informa, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucher A (2000) La famille en droit international privé. Recueil des Cours 283:9–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucher A (2010a) La dimension sociale du droit international privé: cours général. Recueil des Cours 341. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucher A (2010b) Jurisprudence suisse en matière de droit international privé de la famille et des successions. RSDIE 20:189–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucher A (ed) (2011) Loi sur le droit international prive convention de Lugano. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheshire GC, et al (2010) Private international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Coester-Waltjen D (2006) Anerkennung im internationalen Personen-, Familien- und Erbrecht und das Europaeische Kollisionsrecht. IPRax 26:392–400

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Avout L (2010) Droits fondamentaux et coordination des ordres juridiques en droit privé. In: Dubout E, Touzé S (eds) Les droits fondamentaux: charnieres entre ordres et systems juridiques. Pedone, Paris, pp 165–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Daelman C (2011) The interaction between human rights and private international law. Tijdschrift@ipr.be 2011:70–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicey AV, Morris JHC, Collins LA (2012) The conflict of laws. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutoit B (2005) Droit international privé Suiss. Helbing & Lichtenhahn Verlag, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzina P (2011) Some remarks on the relevance of article 8 of the ECHR to the recognition of family status judicially created abroad. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 5:609–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Grgic A (ed) (2007) The right to property under the European convention on human rights. Human rights handbooks no 10. Council of Europe, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinchard E (2005) Procès équitable (article 6 CESDH) et droit international privé. In: Nuyts A, Watté N (eds) International civil litigation in Europe and relations with third states. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 199–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerameus KD (1997) Enforcement in the international context. Recueil des Cours 264:179–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsch P (2007) Droits de l’homme, droits fondamentaux et droit international privé. Recueil des Cours 318:9–332. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsch P (2010) Recognition in the forum of a status aquired abroad—private international law rules and European human rights law. In: Boele-Woelki K et al (eds), Convergence and divergence in private international law—liber amicorum Kurt Siehr. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, pp 232–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsch P (2011a) Private international law topics before the European Court of Human Rights. Selected judgments and decision (2010–2011). Yearb Private Int Law 13:39–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsch P (2011b) La non-conformité du jugement étranger à l’ordre public international mise au diaspon de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Rev. crit. dr. int. priv. 100:818–819

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagarde P (2004) Développements futures du droit international privé dans une Europe en voie d’unification: quelques conjectures. RabelsZ 68:225–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagarde P (2008) La reconnaissance mode d’emploi. In: Ancel J-P et al (eds) Vers de nouveaux équilibres entre ordres juridiques: liber amicorum Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon. Dalloz, Paris, pp 481–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansel H-P (2006) Anerkennung als Grundprinzip des Europaeischen Rechtsraums. RabelsZ 70:651–731

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchadier F (2007) Les objectifs generaux du droit international prive à l’épreuve de la convention europeenne des droits de l’homme. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Matscher F (1998) Le droit international privé face à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, Travaux du Comité français de droit international privé (1995–1998), pp 211–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer P (2005) Les méthodes de la reconnaissance en droit international privé. In: Jobard-Bachellier M-N, Mayer P (eds) Le droit international privé: esprit et méthodes. Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde. Dalloz, Paris, pp 547–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Melcher M (2013) (Mutual) Recognition of registered relationships via EU private international law. J Private Int Law 9:149–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir Watt H (2008) European federalism and the “New Unilateralism”. Tulane Law Rev 82:1983–1998

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir Watt H (2013) Fundamental rights and recognition in private international law. Eur J Hum Rights 1:411–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Pamboukis C (2008). La renaissance-métamorphose de la méthode de reconnaissance. Rev. crit. dr. int. priv. 97:513–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosner N (2004) Cross-border recognition and enforcement of foreign money judgments in civil and commercial matters, Doctoral series, dissertation Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser P (2000) Jurisdiction and international judicial and administrative co-operation. Recueil des Cours 284:9–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutte CB (2004) The European fundamental right of property: article 1 of protocol no. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights: its origins, its workings and its impact on national legal orders. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehr K (2002) Das Internationale Privatrecht der Schweiz [The private international law of Switzerland]. Schulthess, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehr K (2004) Art. 78. In: Girsberger D et al (eds) Zürcher Kommentar zum IPRG: Kommentar zum Bundesgesetz über dat Internationale Privatrecht (IPRG) vom 18. Dezember 1987, Schulthess, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielmann D (2011) La reconnaissance et l’exécution des decisions judiciaries étrangères et les exigencies de la convention des droits de l’homme. Un essai de synthèse. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 22:761–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Strikwerda L (2012) Inleiding tot het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht [Introduction to Dutch private international law]. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Struycken AVM (2010) The Netherlands surrogacy, a new way to become mother? In: Boele-Woelki K et al (eds) Convergence and divergence in private international law—liber amicorum Kurt Siehr. Schulthess, Zürich, pp 359ff

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hoek AAH (2003) Erkenning van vonnissen in het privaatrecht: een studie naar de grenzen van wederzijdse erkenning [Recognition of judgments in private law: a study on the limits of mutual recognition]. NIPR 21:337–350

    Google Scholar 

  • von Mehren AT (1980) Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments—general theory and the role of jurisdictional requirements. Recueil des Cours 167:9–112

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Louwrens Rienk Kiestra

Authors
  1. Louwrens Rienk Kiestra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louwrens Rienk Kiestra .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kiestra, L.R. (2014). The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: The Obligation to Recognize and Enforce Foreign Judgments. In: The Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Private International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-032-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation