Limitation period of the enforcement of a UK judgment in Greece – Conflict of Laws

Limitation interval of the enforcement of a UK judgment in Greece

A judgment issued by the Division of Maritime Disputes of the Piraeus first occasion courtroom on the finish of final yr [nr. 3400/2024, unreported] was confronted with a difficulty which seldomly seems earlier than Greek courts.

The difficulty raised earlier than the Piraeus Courtroom of First Occasion, within the context of Regulation 44/01, was the next: Is it permissible to revoke the popularity of a overseas (English) judgment (order) that  was declared  enforceable in Greece, when allegedly it’s not enforceable within the State of origin?

The courtroom approached the case from three views:

Firstly, it clarified {that a} determination of the Supreme Courtroom issued 5 years in the past [Areios Pagos nr. 767/2019], permitting the revocation of the enforceability of a overseas judgment beneath comparable circumstances in response to Greek legislation, can’t be thought-about as related precedent, as a result of it involved a US judgment, and never a choice of an EU Member State courtroom of legislation.

It then examined and highlighted the related jurisprudence of the CJEU, which ratione materiae resembles to the dispute at subject, i.e., beneath the Brussels I regime. It careworn that revocation of enforceability beneath Reg. 44/01 is strictly allowed for specified grounds solely, with the case at hand, i.e., lack of enforceability within the state of origin, not being such a floor. The get together in opposition to whom enforcement is sought within the executing Member State, may elevate such a floor, solely within the context of enforcement proceedings within the executing state, the courtroom clarified.

Lastly, it went into an in depth evaluation and reference to the defences in opposition to enforcement beneath English legislation, specializing in the provisions of the UK Civil Process Guidelines and the Limitation Act, and figuring out related case legislation of the English courts. Relevantly, the Piraeus courtroom rejected in substance the arguments raised by the candidates, noting that beneath English legislation the judgment of the English courtroom at hand had not misplaced its enforceability in precept, however fairly that particular situations should be met for enforcement in UK to be authorised (i.e., existence of property there, not beforehand discovered). Juxtaposing English and Greek legislation, the Piraeus courtroom made the excellence of enforceability of judgments and the existence of further modalities, procedures or preconditions that should be fulfilled for enforcement proceedings to happen.

This is likely one of the uncommon choices printed by Greek courts, which demonstrates the potential complexity of the subject material beneath the Brussels I Regulation, which reappears sporadically, though it gave technique to Regulation 1215/2012 some ten years in the past.

The specificity of the case lies within the distinctive time of its prevalence: the bottom of refusal didn’t happen at one of many exequatur phases [application to declare enforceability, appeal, second appeal], however a lot later, when the treatments beneath Brussels I earlier than the courts of the state of execution have been unsuccessfully exhausted by the debtor.

The chance of comparable conditions occurring beneath the present regime of Regulation Brussels I bis is scarce. On this case, the judgment debtor is left with both the opposition (keep of execution) beneath Article 933 of the Greek Code of Civil Process, or the submitting of a damaging declaratory motion, in case the enforcement process has not been initiated by the judgment creditor.

Lastly, allow us to not overlook that the UK has left the European Union, and, in the interim, there isn’t any direct graduation of enforcement in Greek territory, such because the mannequin of Regulation nr. 1215/2012, not even the earlier system of exequatur beneath EU Regulation nr. 44/2001. A brand new hall is predicted to open later this yr, provided that the UK has ratified the Conference of two July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Overseas Judgments in Civil or Business Issues.

For additional studying on the problem, see Requejo-Isidro(-Chiapponi), Brussels I bis, A Commentary on Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (2022), Artwork. 41, nos. 41.22 et seq, Althammer, in: Simons/Hausmann, Brussels I Regulation – Kommentar zur VO (?G) 44/2001 und zum Übereinkommen von Lugano, Unalex Kommentar (2012), Artwork. 38, nos. 26 & 29); Geimer/Schütze, Europäisches Zivilverfahrensrecht (third ed., 2010), Artwork. 41, no. 44 et seq.