Since 1 July 2025, the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the ‘Convention’)[1] has been officially in effect between the European Union and the United Kingdom. This development is an important step towards greater legal certainty and predictability with regard to the enforcement of judicial decisions for parties involved in cross-border disputes.
From Brussels I bis to bilateral complexity
Until Brexit, the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments was governed by the Brussels I bis Regulation, but this came to an end after Brexit in 2020. The recognition and enforcement of British judgments in EU Member States (and vice versa) became dependant on bilateral treaties or the 2005 Hague Choice of Forum Convention, which applies only to exclusive choice of forum clauses.
Initially, the United Kingdom tried to accede again to the 2007 Lugano Convention, which offers a framework comparable to that of the Brussels I bis Regulation between the EU and EFTA countries (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland) and Denmark. However, the European Commission denied this request because, among other reasons, the United Kingdom as a third country has no special ties anymore with the EU internal market.[2]
What is regulated in the Convention?
The Convention has been in effect for the EU since 1 September 2023 and consequently for all its Member States (except Denmark) and sets a minimum standard for the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments between contracting States. However, the Convention contains many exclusions, such as (agreements relating to) the carriage of persons and goods, (decisions of) legal persons, intellectual property, insolvency, arbitration and competition (Article 2). It follows from the definition of ‘judgment’ that the Convention relates only to final judgments. Interim measures and measures of protection, such as levying an attachment or summary proceedings, are not covered by the Convention.[3]
Article 5 sets out in which cases a judgment must be recognised and enforced. Paragraph 1 lists a total of thirteen indirect grounds of jurisdiction connected to the State of origin. The grounds of jurisdiction are divided into three categories: jurisdiction based on i) a connection between the defendant and the State of origin (such as place of residence or place of business), ii) agreement about the jurisdiction, and iii) a connection between the claim and the State of origin.[4] A judgment is recognised only if it has effect in the State of origin, and is enforced only if it is enforceable in the State of origin. In addition, judgments given by a State of origin cannot be reviewed as to substance by the requested court (Article 4).
The recognition or enforcement can only be refused on the grounds listed in the Convention (Article 7). For example, refusal is possible when the defendant did not receive the document instituting the proceedings in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable them to arrange for their defence. Another ground for refusal may exist if the notification is incompatible with fundamental principles of the requested State. Besides, recognition may be refused if the judgment was obtained by fraud, or if recognition is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the requested State. The latter includes violation of the right to a fair trial or infringement of the security or sovereignty of that State. Another important ground exists if the dispute should have been submitted to a court other than that of the State of origin by virtue of an agreement or a trust instrument. Inconsistency with an earlier judgment between the same parties (from the State requested or another State) may also lead to refusal, provided that this earlier judgment is eligible for recognition. Recognition or enforcement may moreover be postponed or refused if proceedings between the same parties on the same subject matter are pending before a court of the requested State, provided that those proceedings were brought earlier and there is a close connection between the dispute and the requested State. Finally, Article 10 also contains a ground for refusal if the judgment awards damages of an exemplary or punitive nature that do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered.
Before 1 July 2025, the Convention hardly had any practical interest since it is overridden by the Brussels I bis Regulation in respect of judgments of courts in the EU. Now that the Convention has come into effect for the United Kingdom, its practical interest is increasing, as it now regulates the enforcement of decisions by English courts to which the Convention applies.[5]
What does this mean for Dutch companies?
Because of the minimum standard that was set in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters between the countries that are parties to the Convention, the Convention furthers access to the courts for everyone and facilitates international trade, investments and mobility by lowering the risks and costs of cross-border disputes. The Convention thus provides for a harmonised system for the recognition of foreign judgments, in which the State requested can only refuse recognition in limited cases. Companies that contract with British parties are offered more legal certainty and predictability.[6] Within the bounds of the Convention, Dutch civil procedural law applies to the enforcement. This entails that an exequatur is required for the performance of the judgment (Articles 12 and 13 Judgments Convention in conjunction with Section 985 Code of Civil Procedure).[7]
European support and perspective for the future
In a resolution of 19 June 2025, the European Parliament expressed its support to the accession of the United Kingdom. The EP emphasized that the Convention facilitates access to the courts and international legal transactions.[8] Although the Convention does not offer the same level of legal integration as the Lugano Convention, it is an important step towards efficient cooperation with the United Kingdom in
civil law matters.[9]
[1] Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, The Hague, 2 July 2019 (which took effect for the Netherlands as an EU Member State on 1 September 2023).
[2] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – Assessment on the application of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention of 4 May 2021 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu).
[3] Q. Schier, ‘Het Haags Vonnissenverdrag 2019: (r)evolutie van internationale erkenning en tenuitvoerlegging?’ [The Hague Judgments Convention 2019: (r)evolution of international recognition and enforcement?], Bb 2023/1, p. 61.
[4] F.J.N. van Osch, ‘De Game Changer’, NJB 2020/4, p. 273.
[5] J.M. van Dijk, ‘Opinionkwesties: Brexit, het Haags Forumkeuzeverdrag en het Haags Vonnissenverdrag’ [Opinion Issues: Brexit, the Hague Choice of Forum Convention and the Hague Judgments Convention], On 2024/72, p. 484.
[6] European Parliament resolution of 19 June 2025 on supporting the United Kingdom accession to the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (2025/2709(RSP)), paragraph C (https://www.europarl.europa.eu).
[7] J.M. van Dijk, ‘Opinionkwesties: Brexit, het Haags Forumkeuzeverdrag en het Haags Vonnissenverdrag’ [Opinion Issues: Brexit, the Hague Choice of Forum Convention and the Hague Judgments Convention], On 2024/72, p. 484.
[8] European Parliament resolution of 19 June 2025 on supporting the United Kingdom accession to the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (2025/2709(RSP)) (https://www.europarl.europa.eu).
[9] S. Blaakman, ‘The United Kingdom's accession to the Hague Judgments Convention’, June 2025 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu).
