Summary
The case concerns the recognition and enforcement of a Cypriot judgment rendered against English defendants in default of appearance.
On 21st Oct 2005, Master Eyre ordered registration of the Cypriot judgment in England. The defendants appealed submitting that the Brussels I Regulation does not apply to the area controlled by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Also, they made an application for the registration order to be set aside on the ground of Article 34(2) of Brussels.
There were two aspects which had to be considered by the English court. First, the Cypriot courts established its jurisdiction on the ground of Article 22(1) of Brussels I. However, the dispute was in respect of land situated in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Secondly, the first instance judgment of the Cypriot court was rendered in default of appearance. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the defendants had the opportunity to challenge the judgment at the court of origin which was an important requirement for the purposes of Article 34(2) of Brussels I.
On 6th September 2006, the High Court judge held that the Cypriot judgment should not be recognised because Brussels I did not apply in this case. The English judge went to hold that, in any case, “Article 34.2 requires that the judgments shall not be recognised.” [66]
An appeal was made before the Court of Appeal. By an order dated 26th June 2007, the CA made a reference for preliminary ruling. The CJEU held that:
“52 […] article 35(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not authorise the court of a Member State to refuse recognition or enforcement of a judgment given by the courts of another Member State concerning land situated in an area of the latter State over which its Government does not exercise effective control.
[…]
“80 […] the recognition or enforcement of a default judgment cannot be refused under Article 34(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 where the defendant was able to commence proceedings to challenge the default judgment and those proceedings enabled him to argue that he had not been served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with the equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence. Case C-420/07 [52 and 80]
On 19th January 2010, the Court of Appeal, in the light of the CJEU ruling, reinstate the order of Master Eyre.