Since 1 July 2025, the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments of 2019 has applied to the enforcement of judgments between the United Kingdom and the European Union (with the exception of Denmark). This has removed legal uncertainties in international legal relations that had arisen as a result of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. However, the enforcement procedure still faces some practical challenges.
Introduction
Brexit took place already a decade ago. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union continues to have repercussions. The challenges for trade and legal relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom are numerous. One of these challenges is the cross-border enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters between the EU Member States and the United Kingdom.
Since the expiry of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020, such enforcement has been fraught with considerable uncertainty. For all judgments in proceedings initiated since then, a simplified enforcement procedure under the EU Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“Brussels I Regulation”) is no longer possible. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 2015 facilitates the enforcement only if the judgment to be enforced was delivered by a court whose jurisdiction is based on an exclusive choice of court agreement. In all other cases, it was unclear whether the national law of the state of enforcement or older bilateral agreements, such as the Agreement between Germany and the United Kingdom on the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments of 1960, apply.
The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
This gap has been filled by the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments of 2019 (“Hague Judgments Convention”). It entered into force on 1 September 2023, following its ratification by the European Union (with the exception of Denmark) and Ukraine. Other states, including the USA, Russia and Israel, have signed it but have not yet ratified it.
On 27 June 2024, the United Kingdom also ratified the Hague Judgments Convention. As a consequence, the Convention applies between the United Kingdom and the European Union (with the exception of Denmark) to judgments arising from proceedings commenced on or after 1 July 2025.
The aim of the Hague Judgments Convention is to establish a uniform global basis for the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in order to strengthen legal certainty and predictability in international legal relations. In this respect, it is modelled on the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958, to which a total of more than 170 contracting states have acceded. Until 1 July 2025, the territorial scope and thus the significance of the Hague Judgments Convention were still very limited. However, the United Kingdom’s accession has given it considerable practical relevance in legal dealings between companies in the European Union and the United Kingdom.
Scope of application and procedures under the Convention
The Hague Judgments Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Excluded from its scope are, amongst others, judgments relating to arbitration proceedings or concerning insolvency law, intellectual property or certain competition law matters (exclusions from the scope are set out in Article 2).
It covers enforceable court judgments or orders on the merits of the case. However, unlike under the Brussels I Regulation, it does not cover interim measures (Article 3(1)(b)).
Where the decision is based on an exclusive choice of court agreement, the provisions of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 2015 take precedence (Article 23).
The decision is eligible for recognition and enforcement if the court of origin has based its jurisdiction on one of the grounds exhaustively listed in Article 5. Similarly to Section 328 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), recognition may only be refused if one of the grounds for refusal set out in Article 7 applies, for example if enforcement would be manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) or if the judgment would be irreconcilable with an earlier judgment in the state of enforcement.
The Hague Judgments Convention provides for a simplified procedure for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The court examines only the procedural requirements for recognition. There is no review of the substance of the foreign judgment (révision au fond). The Convention obliges the courts to reach a decision expeditiously (Article 13). The German Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments provides, amongst other things, that the competent Regional Court shall, upon application by the creditor grant an enforcement order usually without an oral hearing. The creditor is thus spared a lenghty exequatur procedure.
Practical challenges
As far as can be ascertained, there has not yet been any court decision addressing the conditions for the application of the Hague Judgments Convention. It is likely to take another decade before established case law is available. Furthermore, jurisdiction for interpreting the Hague Judgments Convention lies solely with the respective national court. Unlike under the Brussels I Regulation, the interpretation of which is overseen by the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”), divergent case law may therefore occur in the various contracting states with regard to the Hague Judgments Convention.
The following requirements, amongst others, leave room for interpretation:
- The key factor in distinguishing the Hague Judgments Convention from the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is whether or not there is an exclusive choice of court agreement. However, the courts of the contracting states assess when this is the case in different ways. Furthermore, last year the ECJ adopted a very restrictive approach in a ruling on asymmetrical choice of court agreements under the Brussels I Regulation (ECJ judgment of 27 February 2025, Case C-537/23). An asymmetrical choice of court agreement exists where a choice of court agreement designates an exclusive forum and grants only one of the parties the option to bring proceedings before any other competent court. The ECJ has, in some respects, called into question the validity of such agreements. It remains to be seen whether the courts in the United Kingdom will take an equally critical view of the validity of asymmetric choice of court agreements.
- The exclusions from the scope set out in Article 2 also require interpretation. In particular, cases in which the claim at issue itself concerns a conventional civil matter, but in which, for example, competition law objections have been raised during the proceedings, are likely to be difficult to classify unequivocally. It raises the question of whether such an objection is sufficient in itself to trigger the exception from the scope and render the Hague Judgments Convention inapplicable.
- Doubts as to interpretation may also arise in relation to individual grounds for jurisdiction. Under Article 5(1)(g), the jurisdiction depends on the place of performance. This is generally determined by the underlying substantive legal relationship. If, for example, this substantive legal relationship is governed by English law, the German court must, in the event of an application for an enforcement order, examine incidentally whether the court in the United Kingdom was right or wrong to assume its own jurisdiction on the basis of the place of performance. A party that has been unsuccessful in the United Kingdom might, for instance, attempt to raise the arguments that failed there once again during the review of jurisdiction. However, this would run counter to the purpose of the Hague Judgments Convention, which is to avoid a review of the substance of the foreign judgment.
In practical terms, the party seeking enforcement must submit an application at the time of enforcement and provide a certified copy of the judgment, together with a certificate from the court of origin confirming its enforceability (Article 12). If the documents are not drawn up in the official language of the state of enforcement, the court may require certified translations. When enforcing judgments from the United Kingdom, it may therefore be advisable to submit the application for a declaration of enforceability to a German Regional Court that has already established Commercial Chambers pursuant to the Act to Strengthen Germany as a Forum for Litigation (Justizstandort-Stärkungsgesetz). These courts should generally have no difficulty dealing with English procedural documents. However, whether they actually have jurisdiction must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Conclusion
The Hague Judgments Convention significantly facilitates the cross-border enforcement of judgments between the European Union and the United Kingdom. It offers a simplified procedure that is far less time-consuming than exequatur proceedings. Its scope of application also extends beyond that of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and that of older bilateral agreements. Nevertheless, the procedure under the Hague Judgments Convention currently still lags behind the Brussels I Regulation in terms of legal certainty and clarity. It is to be hoped that, with time and the accumulation of case law, it will also be able to ensure a high degree of legal certainty in the enforcement of judgments between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
Weiterleiten
