JURE summary



JURE summary

I. The comparison of paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, apparently leads one to conclude that the certificate "using the standard form in Annex V to the Regulation" is not necessary, unless the party requests the declaration of enforceability. On the contrary, whenever the only issue is the recognition of a judgment it shall suffice to present "a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity".

II. However, in either case - simple recognition or declaration of enforceability - Article 55 of the Regulation states that "If the certificate referred to in Article 54 is not produced, the court or competent authority may(...) accept an equivalent document or, if it considers that it has sufficient information before it, dispense with its production".

III. The recognition of a foreign judgment does not necessarily depend on a petition by the plaintiff. It can be invoked, under the terms of Article 33(2) of the Regulation, as an incident, as is the case when the defendant intends to justify the exception of "res judicata" or the authority of "res judicata".

IV. Under the terms of Article 33 of the Regulation, the recognition of the judgment issued in a Member State is automatic, or "ipso Jure", which means it does not depend on a prior court action.

V. The consequence of the recognition is, first of all, the automatic recognition of the effect of "res judicata", but it also includes the statement within the process which uses the respective authority of "res judicata".

VI. The authority of "res judicata" can act regardless of the triple identity required for "res judicata", since the object of the later court action, while depending on the object of the previous court action, is not identical to it.

VII. The relationship between the procedural object of the court case where the foreign judgment in question was issued and the object of the current court case should be analysed as a relationship of non reciprocal and exclusive (objective) consumption - the object of the latter case includes the object of the former, which implies that it cannot reach a different definition of civil liability arising from the car accident in Spain.

VIII. The "res judicata" of the Spanish judgment does not apply to the defendant, lessee of the uninsured vehicle with a Portuguese license plate, because the defendant in the Spanish court case was the lessor, not the lessee.

IX. The lessee should be considered a third party regarding the ruling of the former court action, and thereby not bound by it.

X. If the lessee had been a defendant in the Spanish court action and, within this action, the truck driver had not been proven to be an agent (for liability purposes) of the lessee, the lessee would, even so, be ruled liable in this case under the terms of Article 25(3) of Decree Law 522/85, already in force at the time of the events, since this Decree Law states that the "Fundo de Garantia Automóvel" (Fund used to cover damages incurred by uninsured cars) could be repaid, not only at the expense of the guilty party(ies), but also (and autonomously) at the expense of the subjects themselves, who omitted their duty to take out insurance, even if they were not liable for the damages caused by the accident.