EUPillar M.B., P.B., K.B. v Soginvest - C.11.0467.F

Summary

The appellants are opposed to the recognition in Belgium of a foreign judgment of the Court of Appeal of Luxembourg. Before the Court of First Instance they argued that, since a criminal charge has been brought before another court, the claimants being civil parties to these proceedings, the Court should stay the proceedings until a decision concerning the criminal charge has the force of res judicata. This principle is legally enshrined in Art. 4(1) of the Preliminary Title of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to Art. 45(1) Brussels I Regulation, enforcement may be refused only on the grounds specified in Arts. 34 and 35. The appellants argue that the Court must refuse the declaration of enforceability on the basis of the public policy exception. They argue that enforcement of the judgment mentioned above is possibly constitutive of a crime (depending on the outcome of the pending criminal case), in which case the recognition would be manifestly contrary to public policy. However, the Court of First Instance ruled that where a court is seised to rule on the enforceability of a foreign decision, the principle enshrined in Art. 4(1) of the Preliminary Title to the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply. The Court is not allowed to amend the foreign decision. In exequatur proceedings, the foreign judgment may under no circumstances be reviewed on the merits (cf. Art. 45(2)). Therefore, there is no risk of conflicting decisions. The rule that civil proceedings must be suspended while criminal proceedings are pending does not have as an effect that a foreign civil judgment, dating from before the criminal proceedings were introduced, cannot be enforced. The Court of Cassation agrees and dismisses the appeal.