aperçu des réponses au questionnaire accompagnant la ... - HCCH

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Question Réponse / Reply État / State 14. Exequatur 14.1. Deny enforcement of foreign judgm. on grounds of publ. pol. re service proc.? No / Non No. Our country’s domestic law provides for a system whereby the applicant can file a request for an urgent service to be conducted in case his right is subject to a limitation period. The limitation period is interrupted following five days from the filling of the request if the service is not performed within such time. This system is not specific to the transmission abroad of acts but can be applied thereto as long as the applicant files such a request. This system allows for protection of the applicant’s interests. However, this does not mean that service produces its effects at different times with regard to the addressee of the document and with regard to the applicant. The date of service is to be the date on which the document is served in accordance with the law of the Member State addressed. Only then will the service of a document produce its legal effects. Non, si la procédure de notification est conforme à la Convention. Il convient de préciser que les différentes juridictions ne refusent que très rarement l’exécution d’un jugement étranger pour violation de l’ordre public. No. The courts are likely to be unsympathetic to such an application. The courts tend to favour lex fori, particularly so in furtherance of an international convention. Bulgarie, Chine (Macao), Espagne, Etats-Unis, Japon, Lituanie, Rép. Slovaque, Suisse, Ukraine Portugal Luxembourg Irlande The specified circumstances are not the basis for refusal in decision-making to performance. Bélarus No, unless Portugal declared its opposition to the service procedure applied (vd. Supra 11.1). The enforcement of a foreign judgement may also be denied for breach of public policy where the judge considers, based on his analysis of the proceedings, that the principle of equality and the principle of adversary treatment were not respected. The addressee’s State may not refuse enforcement of the foreign judgement on the grounds that the service has not been translated if no such requirement was made by the Central Authority, pursuant to art. 5(3) of the Convention, prior to the performance of the service. Since the Republic of Lithuania before ratifying this Convention has emphasized and noted which of the methods of the service of documents are applicable in our country, it would be not possible to deny the enforcement of the foreign judgement on grounds of breach of public policy on the service of procedure applied, even though that service has been performed by the methods provided for under the Convention. If the addressee’s State has not required that the documents would be translated into some particular language in this concrete situation, the addressee’s State cannot refuse enforcement of the foreign judgement on the grounds that the service has not been translated. La jurisprudence à cet égard est formaliste. Ainsi, lorsque la notification a été effectuée selon les formes prévues par la CLaH 65, la reconnaissance du jugement ne devrait pas être refusée. Nous n'avons toutefois pas connaissance de cas où la question s'est posée sous l'angle de l'ordre public procédural. Or, l'article 27 de la Loi fédérale sur le droit international privé (http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/2/291.fr.pdf) fait du respect de l'ordre public procédural suisse une condition de la reconnaissance de jugement. On ne peut ainsi pas exclure qu'un jugement ne soit pas reconnu pour ce motif dans des circonstances particulières. A priori, toutefois, cela ne devrait pas être le cas. Cela serait, à notre sens, contraire à l'esprit de la CLaH 65. En effet, chaque Etat ayant la possibilité de Portugal Lituanie Suisse Page 46 of 69
Question Réponse / Reply État / State faire des réserves lors de la signature de la Convention, il lui appartient de refuser les modes de transmission qu'il estime être contraire à son ordre public. Refuser de reconnaître un jugement alors même que les voies prévues – et admises par l'Etat où la reconnaissance sera requise – ont été suivies crée une situation juridique incertaine et oblige le requérant à suivre les voies les plus lourdes. In Germany, the acceptance and enforcement declaration of foreign judgments is based, in particular, on European Community law (Council Regulation (EC) Nos. 1347/2000 and 44/2001), the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of 1988 and, in the absence of Community or State treaty norms, on German autonomy law, cf. sections 328, 722 et. seq. Of the Code of Civil Procedure. In transnational default-judgments, for whichever channel is used, this generally hinges on the proper and punctual service of the writ of summons, either from or into a foreign country. Otherwise the enforcement thereof can be refused due to a breach of the specific conditions of public policy. In comparison to the Contracting States to the Hague Convention on the Service of Documents, which are not simultaneously Member States of the European Union, this international treaty can play a role in the assessment of propriety and punctuality. Nonetheless, only flagrant violations of the Hague Convention on the Service of Documents constitute a breach of a public policy condition. Since Germany has objected to the use of service channels pursuant to Art. 10 of the Council Regulation of the Convention, the situation described in the questionnaire for service from and to Germany could not occur in our view. I would be possible to deny enforcement of a foreign judgment on the grounds that the documents have been served with breach of Art. 5(1), or when there were no bilateral international Agreement between States. There is no such precedent in China so far. Theoretically speaking, even the service has been executed in the way as stated in the Convention, the contracting State can still deny to enforce the foreign judgment if this judgment runs against the public policy. In the MSAR legal system, for a foreign sentence to be effective, and therefore enforceable, it has to be revised and confirmed meeting determined requirements expressly stated in the MSAR Civil Procedure Code. Namely, there must be no doubt on the authenticity and intelligibility of the decision; the decision must have acquired res judicata force according to the law from which it was rendered; fraud to the law must not have been used for the determination of the competence of the court that rendered the decision; the decision has to have been rendered on matters not befalling on the exclusive competence of the MSAR courts; there must be no litispendens; the defendant must have been properly served according to the law of the court of origin; the principles of equality and due process of law must have been observed and the decision must not be against public policy. As one of the specific requirements for revision and confirmation of foreign decisions concerns service, it is hard to envisage a situation whereby a decision based on a service that has been performed by methods provided for under the Convention would be denied enforcement on grounds of breach of public policy based only on the lack of translation. We do not have such precedents, but still the Court makes an assessment for each particular case when exequatur of judgement is available, whether a real opportunity has been given to the [defendant] to take part in the respective legal proceedings under the case before rendering the judgment. [F] Québec : Suivant l'art. 3155, 3° C.C.Q., “Toute décision rendue hors du Québec est reconnue et, le cas échéant, déclarée exécutoire par l'autorité du Québec, sauf dans les cas suivants: [...] 3° La décision a été rendue en violation des principes essentiels de la procédure;[...]”. À souligner également l'art. 3156 C.C.Q. suivant lequel “Une décision rendue par défaut ne sera reconnue et déclarée exécutoire que si le demandeur prouve que l'acte introductif d'instance a été régulièrement signifié à la partie défaillante, selon la loi du lieu où elle a été rendue. Toutefois, l'autorité pourra refuser la reconnaissance ou l'exécution si la partie défaillante prouve que, compte tenu des circonstances, elle n'a pu prendre connaissance de l'acte introductif d'instance ou n'a pu disposer d'un délai suffisant pour présenter sa défense.” La jurisprudence ne s'est pas encore prononcée sur cette question Allemagne Ukraine Chine Chine (Macao) Bulgarie Canada Page 47 of 69
Page 1 and 2: Légalisation / Preuves / Notificat
Page 3 and 4: Aperçu des réponses au Questionna
Page 5 and 6: Question Réponse / Reply État / S
Page 45: Question Réponse / Reply État / S
Page 69: Question Réponse / Reply État / S

aperçu des réponses au questionnaire accompagnant la ... - HCCH

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?