Keywords
Summary

Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Recognition and enforcement – Grounds for refusal – Defendant in default of appearance not duly served with the document instituting proceedings in sufficient time – Meaning of duly served – Determined according to the provisions of an international convention applicable between the State in which the judgment was given and the State in which recognition is sought

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 27(2), and Article IV of the Protocol)

Summary

Article 27(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Accession Conventions of 1978, 1982, 1989 and 1996, and the first paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol annexed to that convention, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a relevant international convention, such as the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, is applicable between the State in which the judgment is given and the State in which recognition is sought, the question whether the document instituting the proceedings was duly served on a defendant in default of appearance must be determined in the light of the provisions of that convention, without prejudice to the use of direct transmission between public officers, where the State in which recognition is sought has not officially objected, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol. The two methods of transmitting documents provided for by Article IV of the Protocol annexed to the Convention are exhaustive, in the sense that it is solely where neither of those two options is usable that transmission may be effected in accordance with the law applicable in the court in the State in which the judgment was given.

(see paras 22, 28, 30, operative part)