The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was asked to give a preliminary ruling in a dispute concerning the recognition in Lithuania of the judgment of a Dutch court which had declared itself to have jurisdiction despite a contractual provision conferring jusridiction to the Courts of another Member State. The CJEU replied that the existence of such a provision is not a ground for refusing recognition of the judgment within the EU.
To reach this conclusion, the CJEU rejected two arguments:
On the one hand, Article 45(1)(e)(ii) of the Brussels I Bis Regulation allows a court to refuse to recognize a judgment from another Member State if it infringes Section 6 of Chapter II of the Regulation concerning exclusive jurisdiction. However, this article does not refer to the provisions of article 25 of the Regulation concerning choice of court provisions. Infringement of this article is therefore not a ground for refusing recognition.
On the other hand, Article 45(1)(a) of the Brussels I Bis Regulation also allows recognition of a foreign judgment to be refused if it manifestly contravenes public policy in the relevant State. The CJEU clarifies that manifest infringement of public policy cannot be taken to include jurisdictional rules, unless express reference is made to the latter. Consequently, contractual provisions conferring jurisdiction cannot in itself be a valid ground for refusing recognition of a judgment rendered in another Member State.
The CJEU adds that the public policy exception must be interpreted strictly, requiring proof of “a manifest breach of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of the Member State addressed or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order”. However, “the mere fact that an action is not heard by the court designated in an agreement conferring jurisdiction and that, as a result, it is not ruled upon under the law of the Member State to which that court belongs cannot be regarded as a sufficiently serious breach of the right to a fair trial to render recognition of the judgment in that action manifestly at odds with the public policy of the Member State addressed”.
The courts of the State addressed are therefore precluded from refusing recognition of a judgment given by a court of another Member State on the sole ground that the latter has declared itself to hav ejurisdiction in disregard of a clause conferring jurisdiction. This solution confirms the principle that, save in exceptional circumstances, a court cannot review the jurisdiction of a court in another Member State.
