Judges M Safjan, N Piçarra, N Jääskinen (Rapporteur), M Gavalec
Advocate General J Richard de la Tour
The defendants, the owner and the operator of a vessel which was lost at sea, along with its cargo, requested an indemnity from the insurers of the vessel. When the insurers refused to pay, the owner brought proceedings in England. The defendants and the insurers reached settlement agreements which contained exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of the English courts. The settlement agreements were subsequently ratified, along with an order suspending any and all subsequent proceedings relating to the action. Subsequently, the defendants brought fresh actions in Greece against the claimants, the representatives of the insurers, seeking compensation for the harm suffered as a result of false and defamatory allegations made by the insurers and the claimants. The insurers and the claimants then brought proceedings against the defendants before the English High Court seeking a declaration that those fresh actions were in breach of the settlement agreements, in particular the exclusive jurisdiction clause. By a judgment and orders handed down before the end of the transition period for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the English High Court awarded the claimants provisional damages in respect of the Greek proceedings and costs. The claimants’ application to a Greek first-instance court for recognition and a declaration of enforceability of the High Court judgment and orders, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, was granted. However, on the defendants’ appeal, the Greek appeal court found that the English judgment and orders contained “quasi anti-suit injunctions” which precluded the persons concerned from bringing any action before the Greek courts and that, therefore, such recognition violated Greek public policy, contrary to article 34(1) of the Regulation. On the claimants’ appeal, the Greek Court of Cassation stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling the question, inter alia, whether a court of a member state (Greece in the present case) could refuse to recognise and enforce a judgment of a court of another member state (the United Kingdom in the present case) on the ground that it was contrary to public policy within the meaning of article 34(1) of Regulation 44/2001, in circumstances where the English court’s judgment obstructed the continuation of proceedings pending before the Greek court by awarding the claimants interim damages and costs, having found that, first, the subject matter of the Greek proceedings was covered by settlement agreements, and, second, that the Greek court lacked jurisdiction by virtue of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in those settlement agreements.
On the reference—
Held, the English High Court judgment and orders in the present case could have the effect of deterring the defendants from bringing proceedings before the Greek courts or continuing an action before those courts, the purpose of which was the same as the actions brought before the English courts. An injunction having such effects would be incompatible with Regulation No 44/2001. However, the court of a member state in which enforcement was sought could not refuse to recognise a judgment from another member state solely on the ground that it considered that national or European Union law had been misapplied in that judgment. It followed that it had to be determined whether a court of a member state could revoke a declaration that a judgment of a court of another member state was enforceable, on the ground that that judgment was akin to a “quasi anti-suit injunction”. The English High Court judgment and orders could be classified as a “quasi anti-suit injunctions” in that they indirectly influenced the continuation of proceedings brought before the Greek courts. The judgment and orders were, therefore, liable to be incompatible with the public policy in Greece since they could infringe the fundamental European Union principle based on mutual trust, that every court was to rule on its own jurisdiction. Furthermore, such quasi anti-suit injunctions also undermined access to justice for defendants since, by granting compensation in the form of provisional damages, they could make it more difficult for the defendants to continue with any pending proceedings. Accordingly, a court of a member state could refuse to recognise and enforce a judgment of a court of another member state on the ground that it was contrary to public policy, within the meaning of article 34(1) of Regulation 44/2001, in circumstances where the English court’s judgment impeded the continuation of proceedings pending before the Greek court by awarding the claimants interim damages and costs, having found that, first, the subject matter of the Greek proceedings was covered by settlement agreements, and, second, that the Greek court lacked jurisdiction by virtue of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in those settlement agreements (judgment, paras 25–29, 37–41, operative part).
S Cogley, A Nasikas, G Orfanidis and K Sotiriadis for the claimants.
K Georgopoulos for the defendants.
Z Chatzipavlou, K Georgiadis and L Kotroni, agents, for the Greek Government.
MJ Ruiz Sánchez, agent, for the Spanish Government.
T Adamopoulos and S Noë, agents, for the European Commission.