Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1999:446
Date: 1999-09-23
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968;Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Jurisdiction
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Recognition and 
enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusal — Contrary to the public policy of 
the State in which enforcement is sought — Assessment by the court before which 
enforcement is sought — Limits — Review by the Court 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 27(1)) 
I - 1935 
SUMMARY — CASE C-7/98 
2. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Recognition and 
enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusal — Contrary to the public policy of 
the State in which enforcement is sought — Jurisdiction of the original court founded 
on the nationality of the victim of an offence — Account taken by the court before 
which enforcement is sought — Not permissible 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 27(1)) 
3. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Recognition and 
enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusal — Contrary to the public policy of 
the State in which enforcement is sought — Definition 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 27(1) 
4. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Recognition and 
enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusal — Contrary to the public policy of 
the State in which enforcement is sought — Defendant prosecuted for an intentional 
offence — Refusal of the original court to allow the defendant to have his defence 
presented unless he appeared in person — Account taken by the court before which 
enforcement is sought — Whether permissible 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 27(1) and Protocol, Art. II) 
1. While the Contracting States in 
principle remain free, by virtue of 
the proviso in Article 27, point 1, of 
the Convention of 27 September 
1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enfor­
cement of Judgments in Civil and 
Commercial Matters, to determine, 
according to their own conceptions, 
what public policy requires, the 
limits of that concept are a matter 
for interpretation of the Convention. 
Consequently, while it is not for the 
Court to define the content of the 
public policy of a Contracting State, 
it is none the less required to review 
the limits within which the courts of 
a Contracting State may have 
recourse to that concept for the 
purpose of refusing recognition to a 
judgment emanating from a court in 
another Contracting State. 
(see paras 22—23) 
2. The court of the State in which enfor­
cement is sought cannot, with respect 
to a defendant domiciled in that State, 
take account, for the purposes of the 
public-policy clause in Article 27, 
point 1, of the Convention of 27 Sep­
tember 1968 on Jurisdiction and the 
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and 
Commercial Matters, of the fact, with­
out more, that the court of the State of 
origin based its jurisdiction on the 
nationality of the victim of an offence. 
(see para. 34 and operative part) 
3. Recourse to the public-policy clause in 
Article 27, point 1, of the Convention 
of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction 
and the Enforcement of Judgments in 
Civil and Commercial Matters can be 
I - 1936 
KROMBACH V BAMBERSKI 
envisaged only where recognition or 
enforcement of the judgment delivered 
in another Contracting State would be 
at variance to an unacceptable degree 
with the legal order of the State in 
which enforcement is sought inasmuch 
as it infringes a fundamental principle. 
In order for the prohibition of any 
review of the foreign judgment as to its 
substance to be observed, the infringe­
ment would have to constitute a man­
ifest breach of a rule of law regarded as 
essential in the legal order of the State 
in which enforcement is sought or of a 
right recognised as being fundamental 
within that legal order. 
(see para. 37) 
4. Recourse to the public-policy clause in 
Article 27, point 1, of the Convention 
of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction 
and the Enforcement of Judgments in 
Civil and Commercial Matters must be 
regarded as being possible in excep­
tional cases where the guarantees laid 
down in the legislation of the State of 
origin and in the Convention itself have 
been insufficient to protect the defen­
dant from a manifest breach of his right 
to defend himself before the court of 
origin, as recognised by the European 
Convention on Human Rights. Conse­
quently, Article II of the Protocol 
annexed to the Convention, which 
recognizes the right of persons dom­
iciled in one Contracting State, who are 
being prosecuted in the criminal courts 
of another Contracting State of which 
they are not nationals, to have their 
defence presented even if they do not 
appear in person only where the 
offence in question was not intention­
ally committed, cannot be construed as 
precluding the court of the State in 
which enforcement is sought from 
being entitled, with respect to a defen­
dant domiciled in that State and pro­
secuted for an intentional offence, to 
take account, in relation to the public-
policy clause in Article 27, point 1, of 
the fact that the court of the State of 
origin refused to allow the defendant to 
have his defence presented unless he 
appeared in person. 
(see paras 44-45 and operative part) 
I - 1937