# C_2022303EN.01000601.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) — United Kingdom) — London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-700/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State - Grounds for non-recognition - Article 34(3) - Judgment irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the Member State in which recognition is sought - Conditions - Whether the prior judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award complies with the provisions and fundamental objectives of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 34(1) - Recognition manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought - Conditions)

(2022/C 303/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 34(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment entered by a court of a Member State in the terms of an arbitral award does not constitute a ‘judgment’, within the meaning of that provision, where a judicial decision resulting in an outcome equivalent to the outcome of that award could not have been adopted by a court of that Member State without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of that regulation, in particular as regards the relative effect of an arbitration clause included in the insurance contract in question and the rules on lis pendens contained in Article 27 of that regulation, and that, in that situation, the judgment in question cannot prevent, in that Member State, the recognition of a judgment given by a court in another Member State; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 34(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment entered by a court of a Member State in the terms of an arbitral award does not constitute a ‘judgment’, within the meaning of that provision, where a judicial decision resulting in an outcome equivalent to the outcome of that award could not have been adopted by a court of that Member State without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of that regulation, in particular as regards the relative effect of an arbitration clause included in the insurance contract in question and the rules on lis pendens contained in Article 27 of that regulation, and that, in that situation, the judgment in question cannot prevent, in that Member State, the recognition of a judgment given by a court in another Member State;

| 2. | Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that Article 34(3) of that regulation does not apply to a judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award, the recognition or enforcement of a judgment from another Member State cannot be refused as being contrary to public policy on the ground that it would disregard the force of res judicata acquired by the judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that Article 34(3) of that regulation does not apply to a judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award, the recognition or enforcement of a judgment from another Member State cannot be refused as being contrary to public policy on the ground that it would disregard the force of res judicata acquired by the judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award.

---

(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.

---