Brussels, 03/03/2015 (Agence Europe) - A national court may refuse to recognise a decision delivered in a civil case by a court of another member state only if that decision clearly infringes a rule of law considered to be fundamental or essential in domestic legal order. However, in order to be able to invoke the objection on the grounds of public order, the party which raised it must have exhausted all other remedies in the member state in which the decision was delivered.
That was the opinion provided by Advocate General Maciej Szpunar on Tuesday 3 March for the Court of Justice of the EU. In the case at issue, C-681/13, between a Dutch company and a Bulgarian company over the import of Johnny Walker whisky, the key point is not defining the scope of the term “public order” since the Court of Justice has already ruled on this - case C-420/07 in 2009.
The Advocate General relied on this case law to conclude that, so long as a civil case decision delivered in a member state does not unacceptably affect the legal order of the court which is required to take this decision into consideration, the decision must be recognised. An error in law, such as the failure of a decision to comply with Community law, for example, incorrect application or interpretation of a directive introducing a minimum level of harmonisation, would not constitute a breach of key rules or fundamental principles, he argued.
What is different in this case, against existing case law, is the issue of whether a court can use the notion of “public order” to refuse to recognise a decision by a court of another member state when the party invoking this argument has not pursued any other legal avenues in the member state in which the decision was delivered. Advocate General Szpunar took the view that, to be able usefully to invoke the “public order” objection, all remedies offered by the law of the member state of origin to correct errors of law must have been used. The purpose of so doing is that referral be made to the Court of Justice before the issue of recognition of a decision that may not comply with Community law is raised in another member state. (Jan Kordys)