What is the Convention?

• The Convention is an international convention that aims to create a common framework for cross-border recognition and enforcement of court judgments between contracting states.
• It is the latest instrument to come out of the Hague Conference on Private International Law's "Judgments Project", and follows the 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.
• The Convention was concluded in 2019 and has so far been ratified by 26 of the 27 EU member states (excluding Denmark) and Ukraine. It will enter into force for these jurisdictions on 1 September 2023.
• Several jurisdictions have signed the Convention but not yet ratified it, including Costa Rica, Israel, Russia, the United States and Uruguay.

How does the Convention operate?

• The Convention provides for the recognition and enforcement of a court judgment from one contracting state in the courts of another with no further review of the merits of that judgment. Recognition and enforcement may only be refused on the grounds stated in the Convention, such as public policy, due process, or where it is inconsistent with a prior judgment.
• Contracting states may effectively prevent the Convention from applying to specific types of matters by issuing a declaration that they have a "strong interest" in the Convention not applying to such matters. For instance, the EU has declared that it will not apply the Convention to non-residential leases of immovable property in the EU.
• The Convention represents the minimum requirements for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments - it does not prevent recognition and enforcement under national law, bilateral, regional or other international instruments, except for immovable property. The Convention, therefore, provides a "floor" rather than a "ceiling".

What are the advantages of the Convention?

• It has the potential to provide a unified global framework for the recognition and enforcement of court judgments, reducing costs and fulfilling the Hague Conference's stated aim to "increase certainty and predictability, promote the better management of transaction and litigation risks, and shorten timeframes for the recognition and enforcement of a judgement in other jurisdictions".
• All jurisdictions are eligible to join the Convention. There is potential, in time, for the Convention to become a near-universal solution for recognition and enforcement of court judgments, in the way that the New York Convention has become for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. This contrasts favorably with other conventions, such as the Brussels Regime and Lugano Convention, which are geographically limited to EU member states and European Free Trade Association member states respectively.
• The Convention is much broader in scope than the 2005 Hague Convention of Choice of Court Agreements, applying to judgments where the court took jurisdiction under a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, including asymmetrical jurisdictions clauses (see para 217). It also applies to a wider range of disputes, including consumer cases, employment matters, and those relating to rights in rem and leases of immovable property.

What are some of its limitations?

• The Convention only applies to civil and commercial judgments, and so does not apply to criminal, revenue, customs or administrative matters. Certain civil and commercial matters are also excluded, including family law matters, insolvency, privacy, intellectual property, certain antitrust matters, arbitration and related proceedings and interim measures.
• The Convention applies only to the recognition and enforcement of judgments but does not address the jurisdiction of a court to hear a dispute until the enforcement stage, increasing the risk of parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions. The Brussels Regime, Lugano Convention and Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements are so-called "double conventions," addressing both jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments, reducing the likelihood of parallel proceedings. The Judgments Project has begun provisional work that may eventually lead to a new instrument addressing jurisdiction in cross-border litigation, but this is expected to be many years in the making.
• Contracting states may make declarations 1) limiting the Convention's application to specific matters (as noted above) or 2) stating that the Convention will not apply between them and another contracting state. These declarations can be made, modified or withdrawn at any time. The extent to which contracting states utilize such declarations may determine how useful the Convention will ultimately be.
• So far, only the EU and Ukraine have ratified the Convention. For it to become the "true game changer" the Hague Conference claims it to be, the Convention will need to be ratified by a significantly more diverse list of jurisdictions. This is especially so as EU member states are likely to continue to use the Brussels Regime for enforcing intra-EU judgments, given the relative advantages of that regime and the Convention's "give way" provisions for pre-existing and conflicting instruments.