Summary
The appellant has Belgian nationality while the respondent has Polish nationality. They met in France during the summer of 1989. In October 1989, the respondent informs the appellant that she is expecting their child. She asks for financial support. On 15 November 1990, she sues the appellant before the District Court of Lublin in Poland in name of their daughter to establish the paternity of the child and obtain financial damages. On 28 October 1991, the appellant received a writ of summons to a hearing, including a list of questions. The appellant sent back the answers to the questions, but he was unable to obtain Polish legal counsel (his Belgian counsel had contacted a Polish lawyer, who failed to respond). On 12 October 1992, the District Court of Lublin established the paternity of the appellant and ordered him to pay monthly maintenance contributions as well as financial damages. The appellant was notified on 7 July 1994.
In March 1995, the appellant received a summons dated 5 December 1994 to a hearing on 14 March 1995. In September 2001, the appellant received a summons dated 4 July 2000 to a hearing on 10 October 2001. Following that, by decision of 25 March 2004, the District Court of Lublin increased the maintenance obligation of the father which had been awarded on 25 April 1996. The respondent applied for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur) of that judgment on 20 April 2007. The Court of First Instance granted the declaration of enforceability on 8 May 2007. The appellant lodged an opposition against that decision. By judicial decision of 11 February 2010, the Court of First Instance decides that, in accordance with Art. 45 Brussels I, it may revoke the earlier declaration of enforceability only on one of the grounds specified in Arts. 34-35. It should only verify the proceedings that resulted in the decision of 25 March 2004. No regard should be had to earlier proceedings between the same parties. After asking that the parties submit some additional documents, the Court of First Instance finally decides on 6 May 2010 that the Polish decision of 25 March 2004 was adequately motivated, there is no public policy issue so that there is no reason to revoke the declaration of enforceability.
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
The Court of Appeal agrees with the Court of First Instance that the Brussels I Regulation is applicable on the basis of Art. 66(2)(a), since the application which led to the decision of 25 March 2004 was made on 4 July 2000.
However, the Court of Appeal considers that it must take into account the previous proceedings. The decision of 25 March 2004 increases the maintenance contribution of the father, but this decision wouldn’t have been possible without the earlier decision of 12 October 1992 which established the father’s paternity. By enforcing the decision of 25 March 2004, the Court would implicitly recognize the decision of 12 October 1992.
The Court of Appeal decides to stay the proceedings until the parties submit additional documents which will allow it to take its decision on the declaration of enforceability, particularly the “exequatur” of the judicial decision of 12 October 1992.
Short critique
The issue here is whether, in matters of recognition and enforcement, the Court may have to verify the conformity with public policy not only of the decision for which a declaration of enforceability is requested, but also of previous proceedings between the same parties in cases where the more recent decision necessarily depends on the previous decision.
The Court of Appeal decides the case by analogy with the Krombach case (C-7/98).