Korkein oikeus; 2002-05-10; Société Chantiers et Ateliers de la Perriere, Hollming Oy; KKO:2002:34
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FI:KKO:2002:34
Date: 2002-05-10
Subject matter: Lugano Convention
Origin: Finland

82002FI0510(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A French company, CAP (hereinafter the „plaintiff”), applied to the Finnish District Court to recognise and enforce a judgment of a French Court of Appeal against the company Hollming (hereinafter “the defendant”).
The District Court, invoking Articles 27, 28, 31, 34 and 36 of the Lugano Convention (1), held the application admissible, recognised the judgment and declared it enforceable in Finland.
The defendant appealed this decision alleging he had not been notified of the summons and for that reason he was not legally represented in the proceedings in France. The Court of Appeal assessed the presence of the defendant in the first-instance proceedings in France and the legality of the summons served on him. It was ascertained that the defendant was summoned and presented in the proceedings in France, however, all the communication was held only via the intermediary law firm Sofraret, so the defendant was not summoned himself. Furthermore, Sofraret did not have the right to take care of defendant’s defence in court proceedings, nor was authorised by the defendant to handle this specific matter on behalf of him. According to Article 27(1) of the Lugano Convention, “a judgment shall not be recognized if such recognition is contrary to public policy in the State in which recognition is sought”. Ignoring the key procedural principles could be regarded as contrary to public policy. The defendant, according to the Court of Appeal, was not directly summoned to the trial in France, and had not received any specific information about the matter and thus the trial could not be regarded as fair. Based on the aforementioned, the recognition of the French judgment was held manifestly contrary to Finnish public policy and the application of the plaintiff was dismissed.
The plaintiff appealed to the Korkein oikeus (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) seeking the annulment of the decision of the Court of Appeal and appealing that the French judgment be declared enforceable.
The Supreme Court stated that by virtue of Article 34(2) of the Lugano Convention, “the application may be refused only for one of the reasons specified in Article 27 and 28.”. According to Article 27(2), “a judgment shall not be recognized, where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not duly served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence”. According to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-78/95 (2), Article 27(2) “applies to judgments given against a defendant who was not duly served with, or notified of, the document instituting proceedings in sufficient time and who was not validly represented during those proceedings, albeit the judgments given were not given in default of appearance because someone supporting to represent the defendant appeared before the court first seised.”. There is no evidence that the defendant had authorised the lawyers of Sofraret to represent him in the trial and thus they did not have the right to take care of this matter in the proceedings. It was not even proved that the defendant was properly notified of the action filed against him in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence.
Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the application of the plaintiff and the French judgment was not recognised nor declared enforceable in Finland.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Done at Lugano on 16 September 1988.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 October 1996, Bernardus Hendrikman and Maria Feyen v Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH. C-78/95, ECLI:EU:C:1996:380.