Brief overview: Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments ("Hague Convention")

LEGAL+ NEWS

Brief overview: Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (“Hague Convention”) came into force throughout the EU on September 1, 2023.

Overview HAZÜ

Ukraine ratified the Convention in August 2022. As a result of this ratification and the previous accession of the European Union, the required number of member states was reached and the convention was able to enter into force one year later.

In the EU area (with the exception of Denmark), the Hague Convention will in future supplement the EU Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.

In addition to the EU and Ukraine, five other countries (Costa Rica, Israel, Russia, the USA and Uruguay) have signed the Hague Convention but have not yet ratified it. Its practical significance is therefore still limited to the relationship with Ukraine, as the EU GDPR in particular has priority among the EU member states.

The Hague Convention provides that judgments of a contracting state that are valid and enforceable there are to be recognized and enforced in the other contracting states. The prerequisite is that the foreign court bases its international jurisdiction on a ground specified in Art. 5 Hague Convention.

Art. 7 para. 1 Hague Convention defines six situations in which recognition and enforcement can be refused. These are the following cases, which are also included in the EU GDPR:

Poor delivery
Fraudulently obtaining the judgment title
Violation of the odre public
Breach of jurisdiction agreement
Conflicting judgment in the requested State
Conflicting earlier decision

Conclusion on the HAZÜ

For the time being, the Hague Convention has no significance within Europe due to the primacy of the EU GDPR. Beyond the borders of the EU, the RAPTA is primarily aimed at the USA, which is an extremely important economic partner but has not yet ratified the RAPTA. Accordingly, the Hague Convention is of very limited significance for the time being. Please also read my detailed article on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Germany.

Do you have any questions?

LATEST ARTICLES

Compliance

Guide to GmbH law: The duties and liability risks of the managing director of a GmbH

In the external relationship, only the GmbH is liable, which can indemnify its managing directors. However, this does not mean that external liability of the managing directors is excluded.

In addition to personal liability in the area of tax and social security law, the managing director may also be liable on the basis of his own contractual obligations, on the basis of an induced legal appearance, on the basis of (personal) culpability when concluding the contract and in tort.

For the aforementioned reasons, every managing director of a GmbH is urgently recommended to be familiar with the requirements for proper managing director activities.

Estimation of fictitious defect rectification costs

For some time now, a landmark decision by the Federal Court of Justice has clarified that the contractual claim for damages in lieu of performance pursuant to Sections 437 No. 3, 280, 281 BGB can be assessed on the basis of the “fictitious” defect rectification costs that are likely to be necessary but have not yet been incurred, see BGH ruling of 12.03.2021, Ref. V ZR 33/19. In practice, it is of particular relevance how the court called upon to decide in an individual case is to determine the amount of such fictitious damage costs.

EUGH ruling “LKW Walter”

The possibility of being able to enforce one’s own rights as easily and quickly as possible in cross-border EU business transactions, which is very welcome in principle, has some pitfalls. The author’s experience shows that traders are often overwhelmed when they receive legally relevant mail from abroad. This is not least due to the fact that court documents received from abroad often do not meet the requirements of European law.