The aims of the Brussels I (recast) are to provide unified rules on conflicts of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and to ensure the rapid recognition and
enforcement of judgments given in member states (recital 4).
No security, bond or deposit, however described, shall be required of a party who in one Member State applies for
enforcement of a judgment given in another Member State on the following grounds:
The recognition and
enforcement of judgments given in a Member State should be based on the principle of mutual trust and the grounds for non-recognition should be kept to the minimum required.
as concerns the recognition and
enforcement of a judgment given in a court of a Member State on the territory of another Member State, even if the child concerned has his or her habitual residence on the territory of a third State which is a contracting Party to the said Convention.
(2) Where recognition or
enforcement of a judgment given in a Contracting State that has made such a declaration is sought in another Contracting State that has made such a declaration, the judgment shall be recognised and enforced under this Convention, if -
(4) This Convention shall not affect the application by a Contracting State of a treaty, whether concluded before or after this Convention, for the purposes of obtaining recognition or
enforcement of a judgment given by a court of a Contracting State that is also a Party to that treaty.
Not exact matches
SERAP letter reads in part «
Given the relative newness
of the Buhari government, the effective
enforcement and implementation
of the
judgment will invariably involve setting up a mechanism by the government to invite the leadership and high - ranking officials
of the governments
of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, former President Umaru Musa Yar» Adua, and former President Goodluck Jonathan to explain, clarify and provide evidence on the amounts
of stolen funds recovered by their respective governments (from abroad and within Nigeria), and the projects (including their locations) on which the funds were spent.»
Lawyers from our dispute resolution and litigation practice have drafted these Q&A s, which
give a structured overview
of key practical issues concerning
enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards in our four jurisdictions.
The senator representing Ogun East senatorial district, Mr. Buruji Kashamu, has filed appealed against the
judgment of the Court
of Appeal, Lagos, which
gave the National Drug Law
Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) the nod to begin extraction process against him to the United State
of America (USA), to face drug related charges offences.
It is anticipated that the new law will provide a properly structured procedural framework for domestic and international arbitrations seated in the UAE, with clear rules on when an award may be challenged, as well as easing the route to
enforcement of awards by
giving arbitration awards the status
of court
judgment which can be ratified in the UAE Courts (thereby avoiding lengthy
enforcement proceedings).
«In light
of the economically significant relationship between Chevron and Chevron Canada, and
given that Chevron Canada maintains a non-transitory place
of business in Ontario, an Ontario court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a recognition and
enforcement action against Chevron Canada's indirect corporate parent that also names Chevron Canada as a defendant and seeks the seizure
of the shares and assets
of Chevron Canada to satisfy a
judgment against the corporate parent.»
If the judge decides in favor
of the landlord, the landlord must then
give the
judgment paperwork to local law
enforcement and pay a fee for an eviction escort.
«This
judgment has not only established that NNPC is free to advance its case that the award had been procured by fraud, but it also
gives legal clarity and precedent regarding the attaching
of conditions to the raising
of a defence to the
enforcement of an international arbitration award.
Note, however, the issues highlighted below at question 2.7 d) in relation to the
enforcement of foreign
judgments given in default and against defendants that have not expressly submitted to the jurisdiction
of the foreign court, which may affect the amenability
of the
enforcement action to summary
judgment.
EU Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Regulation) applicable to
judgments given in legal proceedings instituted before 10 January 2015.
Where a
judgment has been
given in respect
of several matters and
enforcement can not be authorised for all
of them, the court shall authorise
enforcement for one or more
of them.
A court
of a Member State in which recognition is sought
of a
judgment given in Ireland or the United Kingdom may stay the proceedings if
enforcement is suspended in the Member State
of origin by reason
of an appeal.
d) the
judgment was obtained by fraud in connection with a matter
of procedure; e) recognition or
enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy
of the requested State, including situations where the specific proceedings leading to the
judgment were incompatible with fundamental principles
of procedural fairness
of that State; f) the
judgment is inconsistent with a
judgment given in the requested State in a dispute between the same parties; or g) the
judgment is inconsistent with an earlier
judgment given in another State between the same parties on the same cause
of action, provided that the earlier
judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the requested State.
In an important
judgment given on Wednesday 25 October 2017, the Supreme Court has laid down important principles for the
enforcement of international arbitral awards and specifically for the interception
of funds payable under letters
of credit
Specifically, the agreement provides that the Recast Brussels Regulation (1215/2012 EC) relating to jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments will apply to the
enforcement and recognition
of judgments given in legal proceedings which commence before the transition period ends.
While the case did not relate, actually, to
enforcement of a
judgment — but rather related to the issue
of the compellability
of a witness to
give evidence against his own interests in a contempt hearing — the Court, in obiter, did make the following comment:
Lord Hope
gave the leading
judgment for a five - judge panel, but Lord Carnwath's «brief comment on the course
of the proceedings, having regard also to the new framework established under the Tribunals Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007» (at [27]-RRB- attracted the accord
of three other judges.