Articles

Dutch Supreme Court: Dutch courts may refuse to recognize foreign judgments and the enforceability thereof due to the absence of formal enforceability

Dutch Supreme Court: Dutch courts may refuse to recognize foreign judgments and the enforceability thereof due to the absence of formal enforceability

Dutch Supreme Court: Dutch courts may refuse to recognize foreign judgments and the enforceability thereof due to the absence of formal enforceability

30.04.2015 NL law

 

In a judgment dated 26 September 2014, the Dutch Supreme Court held that in addition to the already existing requirements for recognition of a foreign civil judgment, in the absence of a treaty between the Netherlands and a foreign jurisdiction with respect to the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments, Dutch courts should also take into account whether the foreign judgment is 'formally' enforceable in the jurisdiction from which it originated.

Dutch Supreme Court 26 September 2014 (ECLI:NL:HR:2014:2838)

According to Dutch private international law, a judgment from a court in a foreign jurisdiction is not enforceable in the Netherlands unless such enforceability is allowed under Dutch law or a treaty exists between the Netherlands and the relevant jurisdiction permitting enforcement of civil judgments from that jurisdiction. If no such law or treaty applies, a foreign judgment will not be enforceable in the Netherlands without re-litigation before a Dutch court.

However, until recently, Dutch courts could be expected to enforce a judgment from a court in a foreign jurisdiction (without full re-litigation on the merits of the case), provided that such judgment (i) was a final judgment following valid submissions and was rendered by a court which had established its jurisdiction; (ii) was not rendered in violation of elementary principles of fair trial; and (iii) was not contrary to the public policy of the Netherlands. In its ruling the Dutch Supreme Court added as a fourth requirement that the foreign judgment is not incompatible with either a prior judgment rendered by a Dutch court in a dispute between the same parties, or a prior judgment rendered by a foreign court in a dispute between the same parties, concerning the same subject matter and based on the same cause of action, provided that such prior judgment was also capable of being recognised in the Netherlands. Although not confirmed by the Dutch Supreme Court it seems that this fourth requirement is derived directly from the Brussels I regulation on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial cases.

More importantly, the ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court provides for another requirement for recognition by the Dutch courts, i.e. that the foreign judgment is 'formally' enforceable in the jurisdiction from which it originated. The Dutch Supreme Court, in line with the rules set out in the European Court of Justice case Coursier/Fortis Bank (ECJ, C-267/97), ruled that a foreign judgment is not 'formally' enforceable if the judgment, for instance:

(a) has been suspended as a result of an appeal having been filed in the relevant foreign jurisdiction;

(b) has been annulled by a higher court in the relevant foreign jurisdiction; or

(c) provides a finite term during which it must be enforced and such term has not yet commenced or has already expired.

Maturity of claim, absence of authority to request enforcement or repayment and set-off, however, are not considered restrictions on 'formal' enforceability.

Clients should be aware that a favourable judgment obtained in a jurisdiction which does not have a treaty for the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments with the Netherlands, such as, in the case at hand, the Russian Federation, is likely to be subject to full re-litigation in the Netherlands if one or more of the requirements set out above are not met.

Related news

05.02.2019 NL law
UK investment firms will be temporarily exempt from the Dutch licensing requirement as of 30 March 2019

Short Reads - On 4 February, the Dutch Minister of Finance published an amendment to the Exemption Regulation under the Financial Supervision Act (Vrijstellingsregeling Wft). The amendment provides for a temporary exemption from the licencing requirement for investment firms that provide investment services on a cross border basis from the United Kingdom in the Netherlands to professional parties or trade for their own account.

Read more

05.02.2019 NL law
Britse beleggingsondernemingen worden na 30 maart 2019 tijdelijk vrijgesteld van de vergunningplicht in Nederland

Short Reads - De minister van Financiën heeft op 4 februari jl. een wijziging van de Vrijstellingsregeling Wft gepubliceerd. Ondernemingen die vanuit het Verenigd Koninkrijk in Nederland door middel van grensoverschrijdende dienstverrichting beleggingsdiensten verlenen aan professionele partijen of voor eigen rekening handelen, worden tijdelijk vrijgesteld van de vergunningplicht.

Read more

28.01.2019 LU law
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg implements the Register of Beneficial Owners Law

Articles - The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has fulfilled its European obligations in the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism by transposing Directive 2015/849 of 20 May 2015 (also known as the 4th EU AML Directive) into national law with the brand new Law of 13 January 2019 (the RBE Law). Below is an overview of the important disclosure obligations that will soon apply to a wide range of Luxembourg entities.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring