- Brussels I regulation: Failure to refer question of EU law to the Court of Justice not a bar to enforcement (CDR Creances SAS v Tapie)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Waksman J, in the Commercial Court, ruled that an application for registration for enforcement of a foreign judgment pursuant to Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I (now replaced by Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast)) will not be refused on public policy grounds if the court giving judgment failed to consider a point of EU competition law or to refer a question on interpretation to the Court of Justice. Such an omission would not be a manifest breach of the rule of law regarded as essential in the EU legal order if fault lies with the party that did not use all the legal remedies made available by the law of the Member State of origin, which includes bringing an action against the State for a failure to refer. Whereas, the role of the registering court is to determine if there is any public policy reason not to register the judgment. Written by Joseph Dalby SC, barrister at 36 Group Barristers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial