THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
of Article 81(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and
Social Committee (
the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recog
nition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters (
). The report concluded that, in
but that it is desirable to improve the application of
certain of its provisions, to further facilitate the free
circulation of judgments and to further enhance access
to justice. Since a number of amendments are to be
made to that Regulation it should, in the interests of
clarity, be recast.
the European Council adopted a new multiannual
open and secure Europe serving and protecting
). In the Stockholm Programme the European
intermediate measures (the exequatur) should be
continued during the period covered by that Programme.
At the same time the abolition of the exequatur should
also be accompanied by a series of safeguards.
alia, by facilitating access to justice, in particular through
the principle of mutual recognition of judicial and extra-
judicial decisions in civil matters. For the gradual estab
lishment of such an area, the Union is to adopt measures
relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters having
cross-border implications, particularly when necessary
for the proper functioning of the internal market.
sound operation of the internal market. Provisions to
unify the rules of conflict of jurisdiction in civil and
commercial matters, and to ensure rapid and simple
recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a
Member State, are essential.
cooperation in civil matters within the meaning of
Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU).
published in the Official Journal) and decision of the Council of
6 December 2012.
judgments in civil and commercial matters, it is
diction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments be governed by a legal instrument of the
Union which is binding and directly applicable.
indent, of the Treaty establishing the European Economic
Community, concluded the Brussels Convention on Juris
diction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters, subsequently amended by
conventions on the accession to that Convention of
new Member States (
) (‘the 1968 Brussels Convention’).
European Communities and certain EFTA States
concluded the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and
the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
) (‘the 1988 Lugano Convention’), which is a
The 1988 Lugano Convention became applicable to
Poland on 1 February 2000.
(EC) No 44/2001, which replaces the 1968 Brussels
Convention with regard to the territories of the
Member States covered by the TFEU, as between the
Member States except Denmark. By Council Decision
), the Community concluded an
the provisions of Regulation (EC) No
Denmark. The 1988 Lugano Convention was revised
by the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition
and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
), signed at Lugano on 30 October 2007 by the
(‘the 2007 Lugano Convention’).
The 1968 Brussels Convention continues to apply to the
territories of the Member States which fall within the
territorial scope of that Convention and which are
excluded from this Regulation pursuant to Article 355
of the TFEU.
defined matters, in particular maintenance obligations,
which should be excluded from the scope of this Regu
lation following the adoption of Council Regulation (EC)
No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction,
applicable law, recognition and enforcement of
decisions and cooperation in matters relating to main
tenance obligations (
common to several Member States, such as the Benelux
Court of Justice when it exercises jurisdiction on matters
falling within the scope of this Regulation. Therefore,
judgments given by such courts should be recognised
and enforced in accordance with this Regulation.
State, when seised of an action in a matter in respect of
which the parties have entered into an arbitration
agreement, from referring the parties to arbitration,
from staying or dismissing the proceedings, or from
examining whether the arbitration agreement is null
and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed,
in accordance with their national law.
A ruling given by a court of a Member State as to
whether or not an arbitration agreement is null and
void, inoperative or incapable of being performed
should not be subject to the rules of recognition and
enforcement laid down in this Regulation, regardless of
whether the court decided on this as a principal issue or
as an incidental question.
On the other hand, where a court of a Member State,
exercising jurisdiction under this Regulation or under
national law, has determined that an arbitration
agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of
being performed, this should not preclude that court’s
judgment on the substance of the matter from being
recognised or, as the case may be, enforced in accordance
with this Regulation. This should be without prejudice to
the competence of the courts of the Member States to
decide on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral
awards in accordance with the Convention on the Recog
nition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done
at New York on 10 June 1958 (‘the 1958 New York
Convention’), which takes precedence over this Regu
ancillary proceedings relating to, in particular, the estab
lishment of an arbitral tribunal, the powers of arbitrators,
the conduct of an arbitration procedure or any other
aspects of such a procedure, nor to any action or
judgment concerning the annulment, review, appeal,
recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award.
Official Journal of the European Union
) OJ L 299, 31.12.1972, p. 32, OJ L 304, 30.10.1978, p. 1, OJ
L 388, 31.12.1982, p. 1, OJ L 285, 3.10.1989, p. 1, OJ C 15,
15.1.1997, p. 1. For a consolidated text, see OJ C 27, 26.1.1998,
which this Regulation applies and the territory of the
diction should, in principle, apply when the defendant
is domiciled in a Member State.
general be subject to the national rules of jurisdiction
applicable in the territory of the Member State of the
However, in order to ensure the protection of consumers
and employees, to safeguard the jurisdiction of the courts
of the Member States in situations where they have
exclusive jurisdiction and to respect the autonomy of
the parties, certain rules of jurisdiction in this Regulation
should apply regardless of the defendant’s domicile.
founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally
always be available on this ground save in a few well-
defined situations in which the subject-matter of the
dispute or the autonomy of the parties warrants a
different connecting factor. The domicile of a legal
person must be defined autonomously so as to make
the common rules more transparent and avoid conflicts
alternative grounds of jurisdiction based on a close
connection between the court and the action or in
order to facilitate the sound administration of justice.
The existence of a close connection should ensure legal
certainty and avoid the possibility of the defendant being
sued in a court of a Member State which he could not
reasonably have foreseen. This is important, particularly
in disputes concerning non-contractual obligations
arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating
to personality, including defamation.
return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the
territory of a Member State (
) should be able under this
for the recovery, based on ownership, of such a cultural
object in the courts for the place where the cultural
object is situated at the time the court is seised. Such
proceedings should be without prejudice to proceedings
initiated under Directive 93/7/EEC.
contracts, the weaker party should be protected by
rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests
than the general rules.
insurance, consumer or employment contract, where
only limited autonomy to determine the courts having
jurisdiction is allowed, should be respected subject to the
exclusive grounds of jurisdiction laid down in this Regu
agreement in favour of a court or the courts of a
Member State is null and void as to its substantive
validity, that question should be decided in accordance
with the law of the Member State of the court or courts
designated in the agreement, including the conflict-of-
laws rules of that Member State.
justice it is necessary to minimise the possibility of
concurrent proceedings and to ensure that irreconcilable
judgments will not be given in different Member States.
There should be a clear and effective mechanism for
resolving cases of lis pendens and related actions, and
for obviating problems flowing from national differences
as to the determination of the time when a case is
regarded as pending. For the purposes of this Regulation,
that time should be defined autonomously.
exclusive choice-of-court agreements and to avoid
abusive litigation tactics, it is necessary to provide for
an exception to the general lis pendens rule in order to
deal satisfactorily with a particular situation in which
concurrent proceedings may arise. This is the situation
where a court not designated in an exclusive choice-of-
court agreement has been seised of proceedings and the
designated court is seised subsequently of proceedings
involving the same cause of action and between the
same parties. In such a case, the court first seised
should be required to stay its proceedings as soon as
the designated court has been seised and until such
time as the latter court declares that it has no jurisdiction
under the exclusive choice-of-court agreement. This is to
ensure that, in such a situation, the designated court has
priority to decide on the validity of the agreement and
on the extent to which the agreement applies to the
dispute pending before it. The designated court should
be able to proceed irrespective of whether the non-
designated court has already decided on the stay of
parties have entered into conflicting exclusive choice-of-
court agreements or where a court designated in an
exclusive choice-of-court agreement has been seised
first. In such cases, the general lis pendens rule of this
Regulation should apply.
allowing the courts of the Member States to take into
account proceedings pending before the courts of third
States, considering in particular whether a judgment of a
third State will be capable of recognition and
enforcement in the Member State concerned under the
law of that Member State and the proper administration
assess all the circumstances of the case before it. Such
circumstances may include connections between the facts
of the case and the parties and the third State concerned,
the stage to which the proceedings in the third State have
progressed by the time proceedings are initiated in the
court of the Member State and whether or not the court
of the third State can be expected to give a judgment
within a reasonable time.
That assessment may also include consideration of the
question whether the court of the third State has
exclusive jurisdiction in the particular case in circum
stances where a court of a Member State would have
should include, for example, protective orders aimed at
obtaining information or preserving evidence as referred
to in Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April
2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property
). It should not include measures which are not
hearing of a witness. This should be without prejudice
to the application of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation
between the courts of the Member States in the taking
of evidence in civil or commercial matters (
justifies the principle that judgments given in a Member
State should be recognised in all Member States without
the need for any special procedure. In addition, the aim
of making cross-border litigation less time-consuming
and costly justifies the abolition of the declaration of
enforceability prior to enforcement in the Member
State addressed. As a result, a judgment given by the
courts of a Member State should be treated as if it had
been given in the Member State addressed.
judgment given in a Member State should be recognised
and enforced in another Member State even if it is given
against a person not domiciled in a Member State.
that measure or order, including any right indicated
therein, should, to the extent possible, be adapted to
one which, under the law of that Member State, has
equivalent effects attached to it and pursues similar
aims. How, and by whom, the adaptation is to be
carried out should be determined by each Member State.
a judgment given in another Member State without a
respect for the rights of the defence. Therefore, the
person against whom enforcement is sought should be
able to apply for refusal of the recognition or
enforcement of a judgment if he considers one of the
grounds for refusal of recognition to be present. This
should include the ground that he had not had the
opportunity to arrange for his defence where the
judgment was given in default of appearance in a civil
action linked to criminal proceedings. It should also
include the grounds which could be invoked on the
basis of an agreement between the Member State
addressed and a third State concluded pursuant to
Article 59 of the 1968 Brussels Convention.
in another Member State should, to the extent possible
State addressed, be able to invoke, in the same procedure,
in addition to the grounds for refusal provided for in this
Regulation, the grounds for refusal available under
national law and within the time-limits laid down in
The recognition of a judgment should, however, be
refused only if one or more of the grounds for refusal
provided for in this Regulation are present.
) OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, p. 45.
) OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 1.
Pending a challenge to the enforcement of a judgment, it
should be possible for the courts in the Member State
addressed, during the entire proceedings relating to such
a challenge, including any appeal, to allow the
enforcement to proceed subject to a limitation of the
enforcement or to the provision of security.
is sought of the enforcement of a judgment given in
another Member State, the certificate established under
this Regulation, if necessary accompanied by the
judgment, should be served on that person in reasonable
time before the first enforcement measure. In this
context, the first enforcement measure should mean the
first enforcement measure after such service.
substance of the matter, their free circulation should be
ensured under this Regulation. However, provisional,
including protective, measures which were ordered by
such a court without the defendant being summoned
to appear should not be recognised and enforced under
this Regulation unless the judgment containing the
measure is served on the defendant prior to enforcement.
This should not preclude the recognition and
enforcement of such measures under national law.
Where provisional, including protective, measures are
ordered by a court of a Member State not having juris
diction as to the substance of the matter, the effect of
such measures should be confined, under this Regulation,
to the territory of that Member State.
lation (EC) No 44/2001 and this Regulation should be
to that end. The same need for continuity applies as
regards the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the
European Union of the 1968 Brussels Convention and of
the Regulations replacing it.
the Member States means that this Regulation should not
affect conventions relating to specific matters to which
the Member States are parties.
affect the application of bilateral conventions and
agreements between a third State and a Member State
concluded before the date of entry into force of Regu
lation (EC) No 44/2001 which concern matters governed
by this Regulation.
connection with the recognition or enforcement of judg
ments, authentic instruments and court settlements under
this Regulation are kept up-to-date, the power to adopt
acts in accordance with Article 290 of the TFEU should
be delegated to the Commission in respect of
amendments to Annexes I and II to this Regulation. It
is of particular importance that the Commission carry
out appropriate consultations during its preparatory
work, including at expert level. The Commission, when
preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a
simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of
relevant documents to the European Parliament and to
the principles recognised in the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to
an effective remedy and to a fair trial guaranteed in
Article 47 of the Charter.
ciently achieved by the Member States and can be
better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt
measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity
as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union
(TEU). In accordance with the principle of propor
tionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does
not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that
Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the TEU and to the
then Treaty establishing the European Community, took
part in the adoption and application of Regulation (EC)
No 44/2001. In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol
No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and
Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and
justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, the United
Kingdom and Ireland have notified their wish to take part
in the adoption and application of this Regulation.
on the position of Denmark annexed to the TEU and to
the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of
this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its
application, without prejudice to the possibility for
Denmark of applying the amendments to Regulation
44/2001 pursuant to Article 3 of the
Agreement of 19 October 2005 between the European
Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on juris
diction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments in civil and commercial matters (