Although it must be held that it is contrary to the scheme of the recognition and enforcement provisions of the Brussels Convention for one Member State to review or “sec-ond guess” compliance with Article 6 ECHR by the courts of another Member State, we cannot accept that English Courts must apply an irrebuttable presumption that a judgment given in another Member State cannot have resulted from a violation of Article 6 in excep-tional circumstances. In the circumstances of the present case, where the procedure of the Rotterdam Court permitted the plaintiff to reactivate an action that had been stayed for 12 years without requiring fresh service of an appropriate process to be effected on the defen-dant, it would be contrary to the public policy of this country to enforce the Dutch judg-ment, since the defendant has manifestly not received the fair trial that Article 6 ECHR re-quired.

, ,
Int'l Lis
Private Law

Kramer, X. (2003). Enforcement under the Brussels Convention: Procedural public policy and the influence of Article 6 ECHR. Int'l Lis. Retrieved from