COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Decision on the accession by the European Union to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters
Date: 2021-07-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: accession to an agreement, civil law, civil procedure, commercial law, enforcement of ruling, international convention, judicial cooperation, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, private international law, real property

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.7.2021  SWD(2021) 192 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Decision on the accession by the European Union to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters  {COM(2021) 388 final} - {SEC(2021) 279 final} - {SWD(2021) 193 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 1 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................... 7 

2.1   What are the problems and who is impacted by them? ................................................ 7 
2.2  What are the problem drivers? .................................................................................... 13 
2.3  How will the problem evolve? .................................................................................... 14 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 16 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 16 

4.1  General objectives ...................................................................................................... 16 
Specific objectives ...................................................................................................... 17 
4.2 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .................................................................... 17 

5.1  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? .............................................. 18 
5.2  Description of the policy options ................................................................................ 20 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ........................................................... 23 

6.1. 
6.2. 
6.3. 

6.4  

6.5 

Impacts of policy option 0 - baseline scenario............................................................ 25 
Impacts of policy option 1a – EU accession without any declaration ........................ 25 
Impacts  from  policy  option  1b  –  EU  accession  with  a  declaration  under 
Article 18 .................................................................................................................... 32 
Impacts  from  policy  option  1c  –  EU  accession  with  a  declaration  under 
Article 19 .................................................................................................................... 35 
Impacts  from  policy  option  1d  –  EU  accession  with  a  declaration  under 
Articles 18 and 19 ....................................................................................................... 36 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ............................................................................................ 36 

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION ...................................................................................................................... 41 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 43 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 47 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 51 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 61 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 64 

ANNEX 5: ANALYSIS OF THE POSSIBLE DECLARATIONS .............................................................. 80 

ANNEX 6: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 99 

ANNEX 7: STUDY SUPPORTING THE PREPARATION OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT – 

EXCERPTS FROM THE FINAL REPORT BY DELOITTE .......................................................... 103 

 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Brussels Convention 

1968  Brussels  Convention  on  jurisdiction  and  the  enforcement  of 
judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 299, 31.12.1972 

Brussels I Regulation  

Brussels Ia Regulation 

CAGR 

Charter 

Choice of court agreement  

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  44/2001  of  22  December  2000  on 
jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in 
civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16.1.2001 

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition 
and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,  OJ 
L 351, 20.12.2012  

Compounded average growth rate 

Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union,  OJ  C  326, 
26.10.2012 

An  agreement  by  which  parties  agree  that  any  present  or  future 
dispute  arising  out  of  their  relationship  should  be  resolved  by  a 
particular court 

Choice of Court Convention  

Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements 

CJEU 

Court of Justice of the European Union* 
(*and its predecessors where applicable) 

Contracting States/Parties 

States/Parties that joined the Judgments Convention 

Court addressed 

Declaration  

DG JUST 

The court which is asked to recognise or enforce a judgment 

A  unilateral  statement  by  a  State  or  an  international  organisation 
made when joining the Judgments Convention (or thereafter) which 
purports  to  specify  the  scope  of  the  application  of  the  Convention 
with respect to the declarant. Declarations can only be made where 
envisaged by the Judgments Convention and have to be notified to 
the depository of the Convention. 

Directorate-General  for  Justice  and  Consumers  of  the  European 
Commission  

European judgment 

A judgment which originates from a Member State of the EU  

Enforcement  

EUR/€  

EU 

Exequatur procedure  

The act of a public authority by which a judgment or administrative 
order  is  put  into  practice  through  coercive  measures  against  the 
judgment debtor 

Euro 

European Union 

Formal  court  procedure  by  which  a  foreign  judgment  is  declared 
enforceable  (i.e.  "validated"  for  enforcement)  in  the  state  where 
enforcement is sought.  

Explanatory Report  

Explanatory  Report  on  the  2019  HCCH  Judgments  Convention  by 
Professor Francisco Garcimartín and Professor Geneviève Saumier 

FDI 

Forum  
(plural: fora)  

Foreign direct investment 

A  judicial  body,  e.g.  a  court  or  tribunal,  where  a  dispute  can  be 
brought  

 
 
GDP 

Gross domestic product 

Ground for refusal, refusal ground 

A  circumstance  in  which  the  recognition  or  enforcement  of  a 
judgment otherwise entitled to recognition and enforcement may be 
refused 

GVA 

HCCH 

Gross value added 

Hague Conference on Private International Law 
An  intergovernmental  organisation  with  its  seat  in  The  Hague, 
which  works  on  the  progressive  unification  of  the  rules  of  private 
international law mostly by means of international conventions 

IMF 

International Monetary Fund 

Indirect grounds of jurisdiction  
(also called a jurisdictional filter) 

Criteria  which  determine  whether  the  foreign  court  that  issued  the 
judgment  in  question  was  a  competent  one  and  whether  the 
judgment in question is thus entitled to recognition and enforcement 

IO 

Judgment  

Input-Output 

Here: a judgment given in civil and commercial matters 

Judgments Convention, the 
Convention 

Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of 
Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters 

Judgment creditor 

Judgment debtor 

The  winning  party  in  a  lawsuit  that  is  entitled  to  benefit  from  the 
judgment in their favour 

The  losing  party  in  a  lawsuit  that  is  obliged  to  satisfy  a  court 
decision 

Jurisdiction/International jurisdiction   The power conferred upon a court or tribunal to hear a specific case; 
international  jurisdiction  is  the  competence  of  the  courts  of  a 
particular country to hear a case 

Lis pendens 

Lugano Convention  

Member State 

National Reports 

[Latin, ‘pending  suit’] Situation in  which at the  moment  when one 
court is seised, another court is already in the process of examining 
the same dispute  

Convention on jurisdiction and the  recognition and enforcement of 
judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 339, 21.12.2007 

Member State of the European Union 

National  Reports  were  compiled  by  Spark  Legal  Network  in  the 
context  of  the  Study  by  an  external  contractor  (see  below).  They 
were based on a questionnaire completed by national legal experts. 

New York Convention  

Convention  on  the  Recognition  and  Enforcement  of  Foreign 
Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 21 UST 2517, 330 UNTS 3 

OECD 

Re-litigation 

Recognition  

Reference period  

Requested State 

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

Here:  The  act  or  process  of  litigating  a  dispute  again  even  though 
the dispute has already been resolved by a foreign court 

The  act  of  accepting  a  judgment  or  other  act  of  sovereignty  of 
another State and giving it the same effect in one's own State which 
it has in its State of origin 

Period for which the impacts are assessed, i.e. years 2022-2026 

The State in which the court addressed is situated 

 
 
RSB 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Selected third countries 

Reference  countries  selected  for  the  purposes  of  this  Impact 
Assessment:  Argentina,  Australia,  Brazil,  Canada,  China,  Japan, 
South Korea and the United States 

SMEs 

Small and medium-sized enterprises 

State of origin  

The State in which the court that rendered a judgment is situated  

Study  by  an  external  contractor  / 
Study 

TFEU 

Third countries 

Deloitte.  (2021).  Study  supporting  the  preparation  of  an  impact 
assessment  on  the  potential  EU  accession  to  the  2019  Convention 
on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil 
or Commercial Matters – Final Report. 
The Study was commissioned by DG JUST in the framework of this 
Impact Assessment.  

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Countries which are not members of the EU* 
*  Throughout this report,  Iceland, Norway  and Switzerland should 
not  be  considered  as 
the  (possible) 
application  of  the  Judgments  Convention  is  discussed  since  the 
circulation  of  judgments  with  the  above-mentioned  countries  is 
governed  by  the  Lugano  Convention  which  takes  precedence  over 
the Judgments Convention. 

third  countries  where 

Third-country judgment 

A judgment which originates in a third country 

UK 

US 

USD 

WTO 

United Kingdom  

United States of America 

US dollar 

World Trade Organization 

 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

Globalisation  and  growth  in  international  trade  and  investment  increase  the  chances  of 
disputes arising between parties from different countries. As a result, it is common that 
judgments  need  to  “travel”  internationally  and  be  recognised  and  enforced  in  foreign 
jurisdictions.  

This circulation of judgments takes place both ways – the judgments given by the courts 
in  the  EU  may  need  to  be  brought  for  their  recognition  and  enforcement  in  a  third 
country  (“European  judgments”)  where  judgment  debtors  have  their  assets,  and  the 
judgments  from  third  countries  (“third-country  judgments”)  may  need  to  be  recognised 
and enforced in the EU.  

To enable such a  global circulation of judgments, a  reliable and transparent  system for 
the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is needed. Without such a system, 
the companies and individuals involved in international dealings risk that the judgments 
handed  down  in  their  favour  will  not  be  accepted  in  another  jurisdiction  for  the 
recognition and enforcement. 

The currently existing rules on the recognition and enforcement applicable between the 
Member  States  and  third  countries  include  national  rules  and  bilateral,  regional,  and 
international  instruments.  This  dense legal  framework makes it a complex landscape to 
navigate for all parties involved. 

The new Convention (“the Judgments Convention” or “the Convention”)1, adopted under 
the  auspices  of  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private  International  Law  in  2019,  holds  the 
prospect  of  becoming  an  instrument  to  create  an  international  framework  for  the 
acceptance of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters.  

This  Impact  Assessment  assesses  the  desirability  of  the  accession  of  the  European 
Union to the Judgments Convention.  

Since the Judgments Convention applies only to judgments given in civil or commercial 
matters2, the term “judgment” should also be understood narrowly in this report as only a 
judgment given in civil or commercial matters.  

Legal and political context  

The Union derives its competence to regulate the matters of recognition and enforcement 
of  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  from  Article  81(2)  TFEU.  On  this  basis, 
the EU has already adopted internal rules governing the jurisdiction and recognition and 
enforcement  of  judgments  –  the  Regulation  (EU)  No  1215/2012  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) of 12 December 2012 (“Brussels  Ia 

1 Available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=137.  
2  For  the  delineation  of  the  notion  of  “civil  or  commercial  matters”  under  the  Judgments  Convention, 
please see the Explanatory Report, paras. 33-37.  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Regulation”)3.  The  provisions  of  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  are  applicable  among  26 
Member  States  of  the  European  Union4.  Under  the  Regulation,  a  judgment  given  in  a 
Member State shall be recognised and enforced in the other Member States without any 
special procedure being required5. 

It is relevant in the present context that the Brussels Ia Regulation does not in principle 
apply in relation to third, non-EU countries6 and in particular it does not contain rules on 
the recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered in third countries.  

Given the non-application of the Brussels Ia Regulation externally, the European Union 
has up to now acceded to two other international instruments governing the recognition 
and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters:  

-  The  Convention  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  (“Lugano  Convention”)  entered  into 
force  in  2010.  Its  effects  and  material  scope  are  the  same  as  the  Brussels  I 
Regulation7 but it geographically extends the rules of the Brussels I Regulation to 
relations between the European Union and its Member States on the one side and 
Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland on the other side8. 

-  The other instrument concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil 
and  commercial  judgments  which  the  EU  joined  is  the  Convention  of  30  June 
2005  on  Choice  of  Court  Agreements  (“Choice  of  Court  Convention”)9.  The 
Choice  of  Court  Convention  applies  to  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
judgments  given  by  courts  designated  in  exclusive  choice  of  court  agreements 
concluded  in  civil  and  commercial  matters.  The  Choice  of  Court  Convention  is 
currently  applicable  among EU Member States (including Denmark) on the one 

3  Notably,  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  is  not  the  first  legislative  endeavour  purporting  to  simplify  the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  among  the  EU  Member  States.  A  system  for  the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  was  considered  a  necessary  component  of  an  internal  market 
already since the dawn of the European Communities. The Brussels Ia Regulation is a recast of the earlier 
Brussels  I  Regulation,  which  in  turn  is  based  on  the  earlier  Brussels  Convention  concluded  between  the 
Member  States  already  in  1968.  The  Brussels  Convention,  despite  its  international  character,  was 
exceptionally subjected to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”). It follows that the 
cooperation  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters 
between the Member States dates long back – even before the EU gained competence on these matters in 
the Amsterdam Treaty. 
4  With  the  exception  of  Denmark.  In  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  the  Protocol  (No  22)  on  the 
position  of  Denmark  annexed  to  the  TFEU,  Denmark  does  not  take  part  in  any  measures  adopted  under 
Title V TFEU (this including Article 81 TFEU). However, even though the Brussels Ia Regulation does not 
apply to Denmark, Denmark has concluded a parallel agreement with the EU, which largely replicates the 
Brussels  Ia  Regulation.  Notably,  for  the  reasons  above,  Denmark  would  also  not  take  part  in  the  EU’s 
accession to the Judgments Convention. 
5 Article 36(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The judgment from one Member State shall be accepted in 
another Member State without any special procedure (so-called “exequatur procedure”) that would declare 
it enforceable.  
6 Aside from limited rules on exclusive jurisdiction, consumer and employment cases,  lis pendens and on 
related proceedings. 
7 The predecessor of the Brussels Ia Regulation. 
8  On  the  international  plane,  Denmark  is  not  included  in  any  signature  or  ratification  by  the  European 
Union  of  an  international  agreement  in  this  field.  However,  Denmark  has  ratified  inter  alia  the  Lugano 
Convention and the Choice of Court Convention in its own right. 
9 Available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=98.  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
side and Mexico, Montenegro, Singapore, and the United Kingdom on the other. 
The Choice of Court Convention, also negotiated and adopted under the umbrella 
of  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private  International  Law,  is  a  sister  instrument  to 
the  Judgments  Convention  insofar  that  they  are  drawn  up  as  complementary 
instruments.  

Aside from the Lugano Convention with its limited geographical scope and the Choice of 
Court  Convention  applicable  only  to  the  judgments  given  by  courts  designated  in 
exclusive choice of court agreements, the Union has not to date harmonised the rules on 
the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  or  commercial  matters  given  in 
third countries.  

Currently,  there  are  no  bilateral  agreements  between  the  EU  and  third  states  on  the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  third-country  judgments.  Since  the  Union  has  not 
exercised  its  competence  and  regulated  the  field,  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
third-country judgments are governed by the national rules of each Member State and by 
bilateral treaties that some Member States have with third countries. Indeed, several EU 
Member States have bilateral agreements with certain third countries covering the mutual 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters. 
These bilateral treaties date back to the time when the EU did not have exclusive external 
competence  in  this  matter  or  before  the  accession  of  a  given  Member  State  to  the  EU. 
These bilateral treaties continue to apply even nowadays, however, Member States are no 
longer competent to negotiate new bilateral agreements or to amend the existing ones that 
are out of date.  

The  situation  outside  of  the  EU  resembles  in  its  complexity  the  one  in  the  Union.  
Previous  international  instruments  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  civil  and 
commercial judgments were limited – either by their subject matter, geographical scope 
or by their limited uptake10. Countries thus generally either rely on their national law or 
bilateral  agreements  or  on  a  small  number  of  regional  instruments  as  a  basis  for  the 
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. As a 
result,  the  rules  for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  vary 
considerably around the world, as well as among the EU Member States, and judgments 
between the EU and certain countries do not circulate at all11. 

In  this  context,  the  Judgments  Convention,  adopted  under  the  auspices  of  the  Hague 
Conference  on  Private  International  Law  (“HCCH”),  has  the  potential  to  improve  the 
current  system  of  the  circulation  of  foreign  judgments.  The  Convention  aims  at 
promoting effective access to justice for all and facilitating rule-based multilateral trade 
and investment, and mobility, through judicial co-operation12.  

The EU has been always supportive of creating a multilateral system for the recognition 
and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  or  commercial  matters  and  was  thus  actively 

10 The previous international efforts at an international instrument on the recognition and enforcement of 
foreign  judgments  were  not  crowned  with  success.  The  1971  Convention  on  the  Recognition  and 
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters was considered too complex due to 
the additional need to enter into bilateral treaty negotiations separately with every other Contracting Party. 
It attracted only five contracting states and remained inoperative.  
11 E.g. due to lack of reciprocity (as to which see section 2 of this Impact Assessment).  
12 Preamble of the Judgments Convention.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
involved  in  the  negotiation  process  of  the  Convention  with  a  view  to  its  possible 
accession to this future international system. Based on the mandate given by the Council 
to the European Commission in May 201613, the Commission represented the interests of 
the  block  during  the  negotiation  process  at  the  HCCH.  As  members  of  the  HCCH, 
Member  States  also  participated  in  most  meetings  leading  up  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Convention. In addition, the positions to be taken in negotiations were discussed with the 
Member  States  in  advance  in  the  Council’s  Working  Party  on  Civil  Law  Matters.  The 
European  Parliament  was  also  regularly 
the 
negotiations14. 

the  progress  of 

informed  about 

The negotiations of the Judgments Convention were successfully concluded in July 2019 
and the Convention is currently open for signature, ratification, or accession. Should the 
European Union accede to the Judgments Convention, the Convention would apply to the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  incoming  and  outgoing  judgments  among  the  EU 
Member States and other future Contracting States of the Convention. 

A potential future proposal for the EU accession to the Judgments Convention would be 
in line with the objectives of the Commission set out in the Political Guidelines for the 
European  Commission  (2019-2024)15,  in  particular  related  to  the  priority  “A  new  push 
for  European  democracy”16.  It  would  also  epitomize  the  Union’s  commitment  to 
multilateralism  in  international  relations  and  likely  encourage  other  countries  and  EU 
trading  partners  to  join  the  Judgments  Convention.  The  EU  accession  to  a  multilateral 
convention  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial 
matters  would  also  be  in  line  with  the  Union's  policy  aimed  at  increasing  growth  in 
international trade and foreign investment and the mobility of citizens around the world. 

The Judgments Convention  

The HCCH Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign 
Judgments  in  Civil  or  Commercial  matters  (Judgments  Convention)  is  an  international 
treaty  aiming  at  creating  a  uniform  set  of  minimum  rules  on  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters.  

The Judgments Convention is a result of long-standing efforts of the Hague Conference 
on Private International Law and the international legal community to work towards an 
instrument  that  would  facilitate  the  international  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters.  The  Judgments  Convention  represents  the 
culmination  of  many  years  of  preparatory  work.  It  builds  on  the  previous  unsuccessful 
attempts to  negotiate a comprehensive international  instrument  including  both  the rules 
on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and jurisdictional rules17. Another 
international  Convention  that  crystallized  from  these  attempts  is  the  Choice  of  Court 

13 See the Outcome of the Council Meeting on Competitiveness (3470th Council meeting) of 26 and 27 May 
2016, No 9357/16 and the Draft Council Decision (No 8814/16) authorising the opening of negotiations on 
a  Convention  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  (the 
Judgments Convention) in the framework of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Among 
others, the negotiation mandate requested to adhere as closely as possible to the acquis. 
14 The European Parliament was kept informed through the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI).  
15 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf.  
16 While also supporting the objectives of the headline categories “A stronger Europe in the World” and 
“An economy that works for people”.  
17 See the 1999 Preliminary Convention and 2001 Interim Text, available at: www.hcch.net.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Convention. The troubled background to the Convention led its negotiators to opt for a 
more minimalist approach which would gain the consensus of all the states participating 
in  the negotiation. This consensual nature may  also  induce a larger number of states to 
join the Convention. Indeed, three countries, Israel, Ukraine and Uruguay, have already 
signed  the  Convention  thereby  indicating  their  intention  to  later  ratify  it.  Moreover, 
several  countries  indicated  that  they  consider  adopting  the  Convention18.  Nevertheless, 
despite  any  indications  of  interest  in  the  Judgments  Convention  by  any  countries,  it  is 
difficult to predict which countries will eventually join the Convention.  

The  main  obligation  set  out  in  the  Convention  is  the  reciprocal  recognition  and 
enforcement of judgments in civil or commercial matters between Contracting States. To 
this  end,  the  Convention  lays  down  a  set  of  “indirect  grounds  of  jurisdiction”  that 
indicate  a  sufficient  link  between  the  court  of  origin  and  the  dispute.  This  means  in 
practice  that  a  judgment  is  eligible  for  recognition  and  enforcement  in  another 
Contracting  State  if  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  that  gave  the  judgment  complied  with 
one  of  the  grounds  of  jurisdiction  enumerated  in  Articles  5  or  6  of  the  Judgments 
Convention.  

The Convention applies to judgments given in civil or commercial matters as specified in 
Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Contracting States may exclude the application 
of the Convention to further matters and judgments by using a declaration as provided in 
Articles  18  or  19  of  the  Convention.  If  a  judgment  falls  within  the  scope  of  the 
Convention  and  is  given  in  compliance  with  the  indirect  grounds  of  jurisdiction  in 
Articles 5 or 6 of the Convention, such a judgment must in principle be recognised and 
enforced  in  the  other  Contracting  States.  This  applies  unless  a  justification  exists  to 
refuse the recognition of the judgment in question. The refusal grounds listed in Article 7 
of  the  Convention  delineate  the  cases  wherein  a  Contracting  Party  “may”  refuse  the 
recognition of judgments where the Convention would otherwise command recognition. 
The States may, but are not obliged to use these grounds for refusal. 

The  Convention  provides  only  a  mandatory  minimum  standard  for  the  acceptance  of 
foreign  judgments.  Its  Contracting  States  may  keep  their  more  favourable  national 
regimes and recognise even judgments that go beyond what the Convention obliges them 
to.  The  Judgments  Convention  thus  does  not  interfere  with  the  currently  applicable 
national  systems  where  they  provide  for  more  generous  rules  on  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of foreign judgments19.  

18 See for instance the news from Russia indicating that the country intends to sign the Convention: 
http://rapsinews.com/legislation_news/20210409/306951220.html. Moreover, all the countries selected as a 
reference for the purposes of this impact assessment (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, 
South Korea, the United States) have been actively involved in the negotiations of the Convention. Some 
have already indicated their interest in the Convention. Nevertheless, despite any indications of interest in 
the  Judgments  Convention  by  any  country,  their  accession  cannot  be  taken  for  granted.  An  active  role 
during  the  negotiations  of  the  Convention  on  the  technical  level  may  not  translate  into  actual  political 
buy-in and eventual ratification of the Convention.  
19 There is only one exception from this principle which concerns judgments that ruled on rights in rem in 
immovable property (Article 6 of the Convention). These judgments may be recognised only if they were 
given by courts in the country in which the immovable property is located. Significantly, this rule does not 
only  apply  to  the  recognition  and  enforcement  under  the  Convention.  It  must  also  be  respected  under 
national  law  with  the  result  that  the  Contracting  States  must  not  in  principle  recognise  and  enforce 
judgments  in  rem  in  immovable  property  given  in  other  Contracting  States  than  where  the  property  is 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
The Convention also takes into account both bilateral and multilateral agreements on the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  that  have  been  adopted  before  the 
Judgments Convention, such as the Lugano Convention, the Choice of Court Convention 
or bilateral agreements. In its Article 23(2), the Judgments Convention provides that “this 
Convention  shall  not  affect  the  application  by  a  Contracting  State  of  a  treaty  that  was 
concluded before this Convention”. The earlier treaties thus continue to apply.  

Finally,  the  Judgments  Convention  also  does  not  affect  the  intra-EU  system  for  the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  between  Member  States  as  based  on  the 
Brussels  Ia  Regulation.  The  Judgments  Convention  contains  a  “disconnection  clause” 
included in Article 23(4) of the Convention, according to which the Convention also does 
not interfere with the intra-EU system for the recognition and enforcement of judgments 
between  Member  States.  Moreover,  since  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  applies  between 
Member  States  and  the  Judgments  Convention  applies  to  third  countries,  both 
instruments  have  a  different  scope  of  application  and  the  potential  for  overlaps  is  thus 
limited.  

The goals of the Convention 
The Judgments Convention seeks to promote access to justice globally through enhanced 
international  judicial  cooperation.  This  is  expected  to  reduce  risks  and  costs  associated 
with cross-border litigation and dispute resolution. As a result, the implementation of the 
Convention  should  facilitate  international  trade,  investment,  and  mobility.  This  will 
benefit both outward and inward trade and investment.  

The Convention is set to achieve these goals in several ways, namely by: 

- 

-  ensuring that judgments  to  which the Convention applies  will be recognised 
and enforced in all Contracting States, thereby enhancing access to justice for 
the parties involved;  
reducing  the  need  for  duplicative  proceedings  in  two  or  more  Contracting 
States:  a  judgment  determining  the  claim  in  one  Contracting  State  is  to  be 
effective in other Contracting States, without the need to re-litigate the merits 
of the claim;  
reducing the costs and timeframes associated with obtaining recognition and 
enforcement  of  judgments,  thereby  granting  access  to  faster  and  less  costly 
justice;  
improving  predictability:  individuals  and  businesses  in  Contracting  States 
should  be  able  to  ascertain  more  readily  the  circumstances  in  which 
judgments will circulate among those States;  

- 

- 

-  enabling  claimants  to  make  informed  choices  about  where  to  bring 
proceedings, taking into account their ability to enforce the resulting judgment 
in other Contracting States and the need to ensure fairness to defendants.  

No  other  global  instrument  exists  that  has  the  potential  represented  by  the  Judgments 
Convention to meet those objectives. 

located. The Contracting States of the  Convention also cannot deviate from this rule in  any international 
instruments adopted after the Judgments Convention. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1   What are the problems and who is impacted by them? 

What are the problems? 

Currently, to have a European judgment recognised and enforced outside of the EU, the 
judgment  creditors  have  to  navigate  through  a  patchwork  of  national  laws  of  third 
countries  on  the  acceptance  of  foreign  judgments,  as  well  as  bilateral,  regional  and 
multilateral treaties in place. This is typically a complex exercise, often with an uncertain 
result.  

Notably,  in  case  a  judgment  does  not  prove  to  be  acceptable  in  other  countries,  the 
litigants  may  end  up  in  a  situation  where  they  have  obtained  a  final  judgment  but  this 
judgment  is  not  enforceable  in  the  country  where  judgment  debtors  have  their  assets. 
This  may  either  dissuade  the  judgment  creditors  from  continuing  with  pursuing  their 
claim or may lead to the need to re-litigate the claim in the country where the assets are 
located. In both  cases, the judgment creditors  face economic losses  – whether from the 
unenforced claim or from the additional costs and time spent re-litigating. There is also a 
danger that re-litigation may bring about a different decision on the merits than the initial 
litigation and thus produce conflicting judgments. Aside from creating economic losses, 
the non-recognition of judgments thus  also affects the general trust in the possibility to 
vindicate one’s claim in an international dispute.  

To  stand  a  chance  that  their  judgment  will  be  enforced  abroad,  those  engaging  in 
international  litigation  must  invest  resources  and  time  to  gather  expertise  on  the 
third-country procedural laws (e.g. with the help of an external legal counselling) and to 
prepare a robust litigation strategy. This may be challenging, costly and time-consuming. 
Indeed,  82%  of  respondents  to  the  online  survey  have  faced  challenges  in  complying 
with different requirements and procedures either to some extent or to a great extent.20 

Aside  from  the  costs  for  the  preparation  of  litigation  strategy,  the  parties  involved  in 
international litigation bear further costs during the actual recognition and enforcement 
proceedings, such as:  

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

court fees;  
costs for legal advice; 
travel costs and time taken to travel (e.g. to a hearing); 
fees for expert opinions; 
costs for the translation of requests and/or evidence (e.g. testimonies) as well as 
interpretation; 
additional costs associated with exequatur procedure; costs of security, bonds, or 
deposits (in case where enforcement is initiated by a foreign national) and 
costs for possible re-litigation. 

While some of these costs would be borne by the parties even if a comprehensive system 
for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  was  in  place21,  other  costs 

20  See  Figure  14:  Challenges  for  respondents  of  complying  with  different  requirements  and  procedures 
depending on a third country in section 13 of Annex 7. 
21 E.g. court fees, costs for the translations, travel costs etc. 

7 

 
                                                           
could be significantly reduced in such cases (such as the cost of additional legal advice, 
costs  incurred  due  to  lengthier  proceedings,  costs  for  re-litigation,  fees  for  expert 
opinions22 or costs of security, bond, or deposits in cases where enforcement is initiated 
by  a  foreign  national).  Therefore,  the  average  cost  for  requesting  recognition  and 
enforcement of European judgments in third countries is currently deemed to be greater 
due to the complex legislative framework in place in third countries23. 

For instance, some countries currently accept foreign judgments only where reciprocity 
is established, i.e. where it is established that the state of origin of a judgment would in 
the same circumstances also recognise and enforce a judgment from the requested state24. 
In the absence of any bilateral treaty on the recognition and enforcement of judgments, 
reciprocity  may  need  to  be  verified  factually  by  proving  that  judgments  from  the 
requested country have already been accepted in the state of origin of the judgment. This 
may  require  a  costly  and  lengthy  fact-finding  procedure  requiring  legal  and  expert 
support.  

Box 1: On the overall costs involving foreign judgments25 

The court fees involving foreign judgments (mainly fees for the application for recognition and 
declaration of enforceability) vary on a case-by-case  basis. The rate of court fees may also be 
dependent  on  the  status  of  applicants  -  with  natural  persons  having  a  different  rate  than 
businesses26. Countries either do not require any court fees for the recognition and enforcement 
of foreign judgments or charge a fixed fee or a fee calculated based on the value of the claim.  

The EU Member States either do not require any fee or charge fees ranging from some dozens of 
euros (e.g. in Belgium, Bulgaria, and Poland) to over a few hundred euros (in Greece). 

The same differences in court fees are pertinent also for the selected third countries27; however, 
the differences in the court fees are even more considerable  – the court fees range from some 
dozens  of euros in  Brazil and  China to  hundreds  of euros  in  the  United  States and  potentially 
EUR 700 in Australia.  

In addition to court fees, litigation leads to additional expenses such as lawyer fees, travels costs 

22 For example, it will not be needed to ascertain that reciprocity has been established between the state of 
origin and requested state. 
23 Notably, the average costs of the recognition and enforcement proceedings differ vastly depending on the 
country where the recognition and enforcement are sought, on the value of the dispute and the complexity 
of the proceedings and the existence of other costs (e.g. travel costs, translation costs, and expert opinions). 
A majority of interviewees indicated that for larger businesses, these amounts would run up to hundreds or 
thousands  of  euros.  Imagining  an  enforcement  case  on  which  an  average  lawyer  spends  80  hours,  it  is 
estimated that such a case could amount to more than 25 740 EUR in Australia where the legal framework 
for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is particularly complex. Table 41: Illustration of 
possible fees in Australia in section 10 of Annex 7 and Table 43: Estimated fees per key third country (in 
EUR) in section 11 of Annex 7. 
24 For instance China, Japan or South Korea. 
25 For details, see Table 42: Estimated fees per EU Member State (in EUR) in section 11 of Annex 7. The 
costs involving foreign judgments are estimated based on interviews with national legal experts, national 
reports from Member States and Multilaw Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Project. 
26 This is the case e.g. in Australia.  
27 The countries selected as a reference in this Impact Assessment  - Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, 
China, Japan, South Korea, the United States.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
and other fees such as expert opinions or translation costs. The average lawyer fees differ vastly 
per country and per case at hand with significant differences both within the EU28 and in third 
countries29. The other fees (expert opinions, translation costs, interpretation etc.) were estimated 
to amount to an average of EUR 850 both within the EU and in third countries. 

An additional problem faced by EU parties when attempting to have European judgments 
recognised and enforced in a non-EU country is excessive length of proceedings.  

Box 2: On the length of the recognition and enforcement proceedings30 

Currently, the average length of proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of third-country 
judgments  in  the  EU  is  estimated  to  be  between  7  and  14  months.  When  cases  are  more 
complicated  or  appeals  are  made,  proceedings  can  be  delayed  by  an  additional  year  or  two. 
Another  factor  influencing  the  length  of  proceedings  for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
third-country judgments in the EU is whether the claim is uncontested or contested. In case of an 
uncontested claim, the average length of proceedings ranges between 6 and 8 months, whereas in 
case of a contested claim the average length increases to between 11 and 17 months31. 

In third countries, the average length of proceedings related to the recognition and enforcement 
of European judgments varies on a case-by-case basis and depending on the country. However, 
on average, the proceedings are longer than in the EU. The average length ranges between 9 and 
23  months  in  general  -  with  a  range  of  between  7  and  11  months  for  uncontested  cases  and 
between 15 and 30 months for contested cases. However, there are outliers  – e.g. Brazil – with 
proceedings lasting from 20 to 32 months for uncontested claims and from 32 to 56 months for 
contested claims.  

Notably,  the  average  length  of  the  proceedings  can  be  partially  exacerbated  by  the  difficulties 
related to obtaining information about the recognition and enforcement procedures abroad (e.g. 
whether  the  debtor  has  assets  in  the  given  country  and  what  the  requirements  are  for  the 
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in that country) and by the possible need for 
re-litigation. 

Indeed, 18% of respondents to an online survey mentioned the length of the recognition 
and  enforcement  proceedings  as  the  main  challenge  caused  by  the  absence  of  a 
comprehensive treaty on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments32. Other 

28 The estimated average is 247 EUR/hour in the EU, however, the average estimated rates differ in each 
Member State, ranging from around 31 EUR/hour in Malta and Bulgaria to over 500 EUR/hour in Italy and 
about 350-360 EUR/hour in Finland, France and Germany.  
29  Ranging  from  estimated  48  EUR/hour  in  Brazil  to  375  EUR/hour  in  South  Korea,  246  EUR/hour  in 
China and 205 EUR/hour in the USA.  
30  See  section  10  of  Annex  7.  The  length  of  proceedings  for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign 
judgments  was estimated based on the replies  to an online survey, interviews  with national legal experts 
and Multilaw Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Project. It should be noted that the length of proceedings 
varies  on  a  case-by-case  basis  and  that  the  estimates  were  thus  extrapolated  based  on  limited  available 
sources of data. These estimates were subsequently validated by experts during a validation workshop. 
31  According  to  the  online  survey  conducted  by  the  contractor  among  legal  professionals  who  had 
requested the recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment in the EU, 28% of them stated that 
the average length of proceedings was less than a year. See section 13 of Annex 7. 
32 See Figure 20: Problems or challenges due to the lack of a comprehensive treaty on the recognition and 
enforcement of foreign judgments in section 14 of Annex 7. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
problems described above have been also mentioned by the respondents to the survey  - 
32%  of  the  respondents  regarded  having  to  litigate  the  same  dispute  in  two  different 
states  as  the  main  issue.  For  25%  the  most  problematic  aspect  was  potentially 
contradictory judgments issued by two different states and 11% saw the main problem in 
the costs of proceedings.  

Aside  from  the  factual  problems  with  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign 
judgments, another significant problem in the current system is  legal uncertainty as to 
whether  a  judgment  would  later  be  recognised  and  enforced  abroad  and  under  what 
conditions.  The  legal  uncertainty  manifests  itself  in  various  phases  of  the  process  –  it 
influences the decision whether to pursue one’s claim through international litigation and 
later whether to request the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. Indeed, 
given the uncertainties concerning the future enforceability of a judgment, some parties 
may  prefer  to  opt  for  an  immediate  financial  loss  instead  of  pursuing  an  international 
claim.  The  limited  knowledge  of  the  legal  framework  for  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  in  foreign  countries  as  well  as  the  costs  associated 
with  international  litigation  and  enforcement  proceedings  can  be  particularly  strong 
deterring factors against pursuing one’s claim in a third country33. 

Indeed, the above-described factual problems and legal uncertainty can lead to decreased 
confidence  in  legal  systems  and  negatively  affect  access  to  justice  for  all  parties 
involved.  

The above-described factual problems and legal uncertainty can also lead to the increased 
demand  for  arbitration34.  While  arbitration  is  often  a  preferred  option  for  disputes  of 
high  value,  it  has  inherent  disadvantages  in  other  circumstances.  Due  to  its  very  high 
costs35,  using  arbitration  for  disputes  of  lower  value  may  prove  to  be  ineffective.  The 
hefty  price  tag  on  arbitration  also  often  dissuades  mainly  smaller  entities,  SMEs,  and 
individuals  from  pursuing  it.  Therefore,  it  is  mostly  large  enterprises  that  resort  to 
arbitration.  As  arbitration  is  not  a  viable  alternative  to  litigation  for  SMEs  and 
individuals,  they  are  more  often  impacted  by  the  problems  related  to  the  missing 
international standard for the acceptance of foreign judgments. 

The recourse to arbitration and the avoidance of international litigation by some parties in 
case  a  dispute  arises  affects  the  number  of  judgments  that  are  given  in  civil  and 
commercial  matters.  Therefore,  the  number  of  cases  brought  for  recognition  and 
enforcement globally is negatively affected by the persisting absence of any harmonised 
rules on the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments.  

33 Among the respondents to the open public consultation, legal certainty as to the future recognition and 
enforcement  of  a  judgment  outside  the  EU  was  generally  considered  as  very  important  (61.5%)  or 
important (31%) in deciding whether or not to start court litigation against a party from outside the EU. See 
Figure 5: Importance of the legal certainty on future recognition and enforcement of the EU judgments in 
countries outside the EU in the Summary report of the public consultation on the possible EU accession to 
the  2019  Hague  Convention  on  the  Recognition  and  Enforcement  of  Foreign  Judgments  in  Civil  or 
Commercial Matters (2020).  
34  The  New  York  Convention  establishing  a  system  for  the  enforcement  of  arbitral  awards  with  its  161 
contracting states has truly a global outreach significantly simplifying the enforcement of foreign arbitral 
awards worldwide.  
35  EUR  20.000  is  an  estimated  average  cost  of  arbitration  including  the  costs  of  specialized  lawyers  and 
arbitrators. According to the interviews with legal professionals conducted by the contractor, the contract 
value must be well above one million EUR to justify an arbitration proceeding.  

10 

 
                                                           
Box  3:  On  the  number  of  cases  brought  for  recognition  and  enforcement  between  the  EU  and 
selected third countries36 

Precise data about the number of judgments  in civil and commercial matters circulating among 
the  EU Member  States  and  third countries (i.e.  either  European judgments  that  are brought for 
recognition  and  enforcement  in  third  countries  or  third-country  judgments  brought  for 
recognition  and  enforcement  in  the  EU)  are  not  available.  Many  countries,  both  EU  Member 
States and third countries, do not systematically collect data about the judgments brought for the 
recognition and enforcement in their jurisdiction. The data concerning the number of European 
judgments enforced in third countries was especially scarce.  

It  is  estimated  that  currently,  the  number  of  third-country  judgments  from  the  selected  third 
countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea, the USA) brought for 
recognition  and  enforcement  in  the  entire  EU  is  approximately  770  judgments  yearly37.  The 
overall number of third-country judgments is about 2.000 for the whole EU.  

The  estimated  number  of  European  judgments  brought  for  recognition  and  enforcement  in  the 
eight selected third countries was about 150 in 2020. It differed per country  – ranging from an 
estimated 10 cases in Argentina to 60 in the USA per year.38 The number of European judgments 
brought for the recognition and enforcement in third countries reflects not only the intensity of 
the economic relations with the EU but also the relative difficulty and costs of having a foreign 
judgment recognised and enforced in that country. On a general note, it should be noted that due 
to the limited availability of statistics on the outgoing European judgments, the numbers above 
may be undercounted.   

Furthermore,  the  complexity  of  the  enforcement  of  judgments  abroad,  the  related  costs 
and legal uncertainty may be deterring factors which may move companies and citizens 
to  decide  not  to  engage  in  international  dealings  altogether.  EU  export  and  growth 
potential  is  thus  negatively  impacted  by  the  current  situation.  Indeed,  some  businesses 
and  consumers  may  be  more  reluctant  or  less  willing  to  deal  with  foreign  businesses, 

36  For  details,  see  Table  35:  Estimated  number  of  yearly  cases  in  2020  and  increase  by  2026  under  the 
different policy options in section 8 of Annex 7. 
37  This  data  is  based  on  the  interviews  conducted  with  legal  professionals,  on  the  national  reports 
completed  by  legal  experts  and  on  the  Member  States  questionnaires  filled  in  by  the  competent  national 
authorities.  Out  of  17  EU  Member  States  which  participated  to  the  Member  States’  authorities’ 
questionnaire, 47% indicated that there were on average  more than 100 third-country judgments per year 
that are recognised and enforced in their country. 18% indicated that the average ranged between 0 and 25 
cases, and another 6% pointed out that their country had not recognised any third-country judgments at all. 
See section 14 of Annex 7. 
38  It  is  estimated  that  the  following  number  of  European  judgments  was  brought  for  recognition  and 
enforcement in the selected third countries in 2020: Australia – 20, Argentina – 10, Brazil – 14, Canada – 
11,  China-  13,  Japan  –  17,  South  Korea  –  11,  the  United  States  –  60.  These  estimations  were  based  on 
interviews, literature and research in legal databases. However, it  must be underscored that the estimates 
about the number of incoming judgments from third countries are more solid than those about the outgoing 
ones  since  the  European  courts  are  not  involved  in  those  and  the  statistics  are  thus  difficult  to  get. 
Therefore,  there  is  a  high  likelihood  that  there  is  substantial  undercounting  of  outgoing  judgments.  This 
conclusion is also supported by the reasonable assumption that in a trade relationship the court decisions to 
be  enforced  in  the  territory  of  each  trade  partner  should  be  of  comparable  dimensions.  If  there  is  an 
imbalance, e.g. because the European parties are deterred from enforcing their judgments in third countries 
due to the problems mentioned in the section 2, the Convention would contribute to bringing the number of 
incoming and outgoing judgments to a better equilibrium.  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
clients,  and suppliers39. Such foregone benefits  in  international  trade will also  impact 
the transnational investment, thereby decreasing market opportunities and hampering the 
overall economic upswing. 

Figure 1: Visualisation of the problems 

While the legal uncertainty about the possibility to enforce a judgment abroad exists to 
some extent in relation to all foreign countries, the problem with the non-recognition of 
European judgments manifests itself in particular with some foreign countries depending 
on the openness of their systems for the acceptance of foreign judgments. For instance, 
several common law countries have a more restrictive approach to enforcing judgments. 
Some Asian countries require reciprocity to recognise foreign judgments.  

Who is affected by the problems? 

The  above-described  factual  problems  with  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign 
judgments  and  related  legal  uncertainty  may  affect  all  EU  parties  involved  in 
cross-border  dealings.  Large  companies  usually  engage  in  international  trade  and 
investment more intensively, therefore, due to the volume of their transactions, they are 
potentially the most affected by the problems described above40. However, they typically 
have the resources to get expert advice on third countries’ legal systems to minimise the 
legal  uncertainty.  They  also  more  frequently  opt  for  alternative  dispute  resolution,  in 
particular  arbitration.  Consequently,  the  most  affected  by  the  problems  with  the 
circulation  of  foreign  judgments  are  smaller  and  medium  enterprises  (SMEs).  SMEs 

39 According to the interviews and online survey conducted by the external contractor, SMEs in particular 
are more reluctant to further engage internationally because of the fear of international disputes. 
40 Moreover, also court fees for larger businesses tend to be significantly higher as the value of their claim 
tends to be higher. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                           
typically choose litigation over costly arbitration41  and they often lack easily accessible 
and  readily  understood  specialist  knowledge  on  the  rules  on  the  recognition  and 
enforcement procedure abroad and timely awareness of possible pitfalls of the procedure. 
Although the costs of litigation are higher for larger corporations and higher-value claims 
in  absolute  terms,  they  still  make  up  a  bigger  percentage  of  the  value  of  the  smaller 
claims of SMEs. Against that background, SMEs are also more likely to get discouraged 
from pursuing international business because of the fear of international dispute.  

With  regard  to  consumers  and  other  individuals,  legal  uncertainty  is  even  greater  as  a 
recourse  to  arbitration  is  typically  not  an  option  and  they  often  lack  expertise  in  legal 
procedures  in  third  countries42.  In  comparison  to  businesses,  their  engagement  in 
international  dealings  (and  thus  also  international  litigation)  is  however  more  limited. 
The  most  common  ground  for  legal  action  concerning  consumer  rights  relates  to  the 
online purchase of goods or services.  

The  absence  of  a  comprehensive  international  framework  for  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  also  affects  national  authorities  to  a  certain  extent, 
depending  on  the  current  system  of  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign 
judgments in the respective Member State (existing national law, number of cases etc.). 
In  10  out  of  17  responses  to  a  questionnaire43,  national  authorities  of  Member  States 
confirmed that the lack of a comprehensive treaty on the recognition and enforcement of 
foreign judgments poses problems to their country. 

Finally, while EU companies and other parties may struggle with having their European 
judgments  recognised  abroad,  third-country  parties  may  likewise  face  the  same 
difficulties of legal uncertainty and inadequate access to justice when trying to bring their 
third-country judgments for the recognition and enforcement in the EU. The lack of legal 
certainty  and  predictability  for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  third-country 
judgments  may  also  deter  non-EU  companies  from  investing  and  trading  in  the  EU  or 
with EU counterparts.  

2.2  What are the problem drivers? 

The  problems  illustrated  above  stem  from  the  current  fragmented  legal  framework 
consisting  of  disparate  national  rules  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign 
judgments and the absence of a widely accepted international standard, e.g. in a form 
of a convention.  

The  scope  of  existent  multilateral  and  regional  conventions  on  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  is  limited  either  geographically  or  materially  (as 
explained  above  in  section  1).  The  acceptance  of  foreign  judgments  is  thus  regulated 

41 According to legal professionals interviewed by the external contractor, SMEs  make use of arbitration 
only if their claim is substantive and amounts to well over million euros. 
42 According to the survey respondents conducted in the framework of the Study by an external contractor, 
the lack of expertise to inform consumers about legal procedures in third countries, together with the lack 
of legal remedies for the claimant in some foreign countries are the main challenges. 
43  Replies  to  this  questionnaire  were  provided  by  national  authorities  from  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria, 
Croatia,  the  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Malta,  Portugal, 
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. For further details on these replies see  Section 14 of Annex 7 
below. 

13 

 
                                                           
  
mainly in the national law of each country or through bilateral agreements. With regard 
to  the  latter,  Member  States  have  concluded  several  bilateral  agreements  –  mostly 
concerning  the  Eastern  Partnership,  the  Southern  Neighbourhood,  and  in  some  cases 
former  colonies44.  However,  the  number  of  bilateral  or  other  agreements  with  major 
trading partners45 is limited, with some EU trading partners having only a small number 
of bilateral  agreements  with  the EU Member States (e.g. Argentina,  Brazil, China) and 
some having none (e.g. Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, the United States). In the 
absence of a treaty commanding the mutual acceptance of judgments, the recognition and 
enforcement  in  a  third  state  will  be  governed  by  its  national  law  and  sometimes 
conditioned by reciprocity.  

Word  should  be  added  here  about  the  specific  situation  of  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of judgments between the EU and the United Kingdom46. This country was 
a full Member State of the European Union until 31 January 2020 and the EU acquis still 
applied in  the UK during the transition  period, until  31 December 2020.  In accordance 
with the Withdrawal Agreement47, the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments 
is  still  to  be  governed  by  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  where  the  proceedings  have  been 
instituted  before  the  end  of  the  transition  period.  Therefore,  the  situation  in  this  field 
would  be  comparable  to  the  one  described  above  for  other  third  states  only  for 
proceedings which are instituted after 1 January 2021. For those judgments it is expected 
that the problems mentioned here will be similar because of the absence of a clear legal 
framework  for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  between  the  EU 
and the UK.  

The  disparate  approaches  to  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  are  a 
clear driver of legal uncertainty and thus unpredictability in international dealings. This 
current  patchwork  of  disparate  rules  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign 
judgments  is  also  difficult  and  costly  to  navigate  leading  to  various  factual  problems 
described above.  

2.3  How will the problem evolve? 

In  the  absence  of  EU  action,  the  problems  would  persist.  First,  the  factual  and  legal 
difficulties  with  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  abroad  will  remain, 
causing undue delays and costs in international enforcement proceedings and hampering 
the  access  to  justice  of  both  EU  and  foreign  parties.  Second,  legal  uncertainty  and 
unpredictability in international dealings will continue to contribute to the reluctance of 
parties to engage in international dealings.  

44 These bilateral agreements date back to the time when the EU did not have exclusive competence in this 
matter or before a particular Member State joined the EU. 
45 For the main EU trading partners, see Main Trading Partners – EU table in: December 2020, Euro area 
international trade in goods surplus €29.2 bn, news release published by Eurostat. For the purposes of this 
Impact  Assessment,  the  following  countries  were  chosen  as  reference  to  assess  the  impact  of  the 
Convention on mutual relations: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea and the 
US.  
46 It should be noted that due to the fact that the EU acquis applied until very recently in relation to the UK, 
there  is  no  data  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  between  the  EU  and  the  UK  after  the 
acquis stopped applying.   
47 See  Article 67(2)(a) of the Agreement  on  the  withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern  Ireland  from  the  European  Union  and  the  European  Atomic  Energy  Community,  OJ  C  384  I, 
12.11.2019, p. 1–177. 

14 

 
                                                           
While the status quo regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments will persist in the 
coming  years,  the  trade  in  goods  and  services  is  expected  to  continue  to  grow  after  a 
temporary decline due to COVID-1948, in particular with the EU’s main trading partners. 
Due  to  increased  trade  volumes,  the  number  of  international  disputes  is  expected  to 
gradually increase for the coming years. 

It is estimated that in the reference period 2022-2026, the number of European judgments 
where the recognition  and enforcement is  sought abroad  will increase proportionally to 
the expected increase in foreign trade and investment49. In the short term, the number of 
judgments  can  be  affected  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  disruption  caused  by 
COVID-19  is  expected  to  lead  in  the  near  future  to  significant  economic  losses 
worldwide,  including  defaults  of  obligations.  The  enforcement  of  due  payments  and 
obligations would thus have a direct effect on the market situation and companies’ cash 
flow. In the context of consumer litigation, the most affected by COVID-related litigation 
will likely be tourism-related sectors. Therefore, the demand for speedy and predictable 
enforcement procedures for foreign judgments would probably grow as an indirect effect 
of the pandemic.  

As  compared  to  2020,  it  is  expected  that  the  number  of  judgments  circulating  between 
the EU and third countries will steadily increase in the reference period of 2022-2026. In 
2026, more judgments will be brought for their recognition and enforcement both in the 
EU  (by  about  +179  third-country  judgments  from  the  selected  third  countries  in  2026) 
and in the selected third countries (about +39 European judgments in 2026)50. Therefore, 
the  number  of  incoming  third-country  judgments  will  grow  by  9%  by  2026  and  the 
number of outgoing European judgments by 25%. 

The  increase  in  the  number  of  cases  will  have  an  impact  on  all  the  parties  involved. 
Moreover, it will also impact the judiciary that will have to deal with a greater caseload. 
However, given the fact  that recognition  and enforcement proceedings represent  only  a 
small  share  of  cases,  the  additional  burden  for  Member  States’  judiciary  will  generally 
remain marginal.  

While  the  number  of  cases  will  grow  in  the  reference  period,  the  present  length  of  the 
recognition and enforcement procedure and costs borne by the parties to the dispute are 
predicted to remain comparable with the current situation. 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

The  competence  of  the  Union  to  regulate  matters  of  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters is based on Article 81(2)(a) TFEU.  

48  See  Corrections  related  to  the  Covid-19  pandemic  in  section  2.4  of  Annex  4.  See  also  the  European 
Commission. (2020). The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on global and EU trade. 
49 However, it should be highlighted that only a part of the enterprises involved in foreign trade will end up 
litigating their disputes and will thus need to have a judgment recognised and enforced abroad. In general, 
the  assumption  is  that  directly  affected  enterprises  would  be  involved  in  litigation  to  a  higher  extent  as 
compared to indirectly affected ones. 
50  The  number  of  European  judgments  to  be  recognised  and  enforced  will  increase  in  all  selected  third 
countries with the exception of Australia, where it is estimated that the number of cases will decrease by 3 
cases by 2026. 

15 

 
                                                           
In line with Article 3(2) TFEU the Union has exclusive competence for the conclusion of 
an  international  agreement  insofar  as  such  conclusion  may  affect  common  EU  rules  or 
alter their scope. As a result of the adoption of the Brussels I Regulation, the Union has 
acquired  such  exclusive  external  competence  to  regulate  matters  concerning  the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  third-country  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial 
matters51.  

The  Judgments  Convention  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments 
thus  falls  within  this  exclusive  external  competence  of  the  Union.  The  Union  may 
accede  thereto  on  the  basis  of  Articles  81(2)(a)  and  218(6)(a)  TFEU.  The  subsidiarity 
principle does not apply. 

Given the Union’s exclusive external competence on the subject matter of the Judgments 
Convention,  Member  States  cannot  ratify  the  Judgments  Convention  in  their  own  right 
and  likewise  cannot  enter  into  any  other  bilateral  or  multilateral  international 
arrangement  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments.  Therefore,  to 
tackle the problem driver of the absence of an international convention on the recognition 
and enforcement of foreign judgments (as explicated in section 2), action on the part of 
the EU would be needed.  

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

The following general and specific objectives reflect the problems identified in section 2 
and set out goals to the achievement of which the below policy options contribute52. The 
objectives  are  in  line  with  the  logic  underpinning  Article  81  TFEU  that  the  EU  should 
strive to improve the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil matters. 

4.1  General objectives 

The overarching objectives of the action are as follows: 

  To enhance access to justice for EU businesses and citizens through a  system 
judgments 

that  facilitates 
everywhere in the world where the judgment debtor happens to have assets; 

the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign 

  To promote international trade and investment, thereby increasing economic 

growth and creating jobs. 

4.2 

Specific objectives 

The specific objectives of the action are: 

  To increase legal certainty and predictability of international litigation for EU 

businesses and citizens involved in international trade and investment;  

51 This has been confirmed by the CJEU in its  Lugano Opinion, where the CJEU held that the exclusive 
external competence of the European Community, first laid down in the ERTA judgment, applies inter alia 
to  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  third-country  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters.  See 
Opinion 1/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:81 and Commission v. Council, European Agreement on Road Transport, 
ERTA, 22/70, ECLI:EU:C:1971:32. 
52 For the visualisation of the intervention logic see Figure 5 in Annex 7.  

16 

 
                                                           
  To  reduce  costs  and  length  of  proceedings  for  EU  businesses  and  citizens 

involved in international dealings or in international dispute resolution;  

  To allow for the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments in the 
EU  only  where  fundamental  principles  of  EU  law  are  respected  and  EU 
internal acquis on the same subject matter is not affected53. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

Policy options are limited by the very nature of the question of the accession to an existing 
international  convention.  They  are  essentially  reduced  to  acceding  or  not  acceding.  In  the 
case  of  accession,  some  sub-options  are  conceivable  concerning  declarations  which  are 
possible  under  the  Convention  and  which  affect  the  scope  of  its  application.  Against  that 
background, the following policy options will be considered below:  

-  Option  0:  Baseline  scenario:  no  policy  change.  The  Union  will  not  accede  to  the 

Judgments Convention and the current status quo will continue.  

-  Option  1a:  The  Union  will  accede  to  the  Judgments  Convention  without  making  any 

declaration.  

-  Option 1b: The Union will accede to the Judgments Convention, excluding54:  

(i)  Certain  matters  reflecting  the  EU’s  policy  objective  of  protecting 
weaker parties, such as consumers, employees or, in matters relating 
to insurance, the policyholder, the insured or the beneficiary;  

or/and  

(ii) Certain  matters  falling  under  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  EU 
courts55,  for  instance  with  regard  to  disputes  relating  to  commercial 
lease of immovable property.  

-  Option  1c:  The  Union  will  accede  to  the  Judgments  Convention  excluding  cases  to 

which State entities are parties from the application of the Convention56.  

-  Option 1d: A combination of Options 1b and 1c.  

The  Convention  allows  several  declarations  that  Contracting  Parties  can  make  when 
acceding to the Convention or at any time thereafter57. The declarations may be modified 
or withdrawn at any time. A disadvantage of the declarations under Articles 18 and 19 of 
the Convention is that they apply in a reciprocal  manner  – i.e. they allow the declaring 

53  This  specific  objective  will  be  relevant  in  particular  when  deciding  which  policy  option  should  be 
preferred.  
54 By way of a declaration pursuant to Article 18 of the Judgments Convention, which allows a Contracting 
Party to declare that that Contracting Party will not apply the Convention to a specific matter.   
55  The  specific  situations  in  which  EU  courts  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  are  listed  in  Article  24  of  the 
Brussels Ia Regulation. 
56 By way of a declaration pursuant to Article 19 of the Judgments Convention, which allows a Contracting 
Party  to  declare  that  a  Contracting  Party  will  not  apply  the  Convention  to  judgments  arising  out  of 
proceedings  in  which  a  State,  a  governmental  agency  or  a  natural  person  acting  for  a  State  or  for  a 
governmental agency was a party.   
57 Aside from the declarations under Article 18 – declaration with respect to specific matters - and Article 
19 – declaration with respect to judgments pertaining to a State, the Judgments Convention also provides 
for declaration under Article 14 – declaration with respect to the requirement of security, bond or deposit -, 
under Article 17 – declarations limiting recognition and enforcement - and Article 25 – declarations with 
respect to non-unified legal systems.  

17 

 
 
                                                           
state not  to  recognise  and enforce  certain  judgments  under the Convention but  also  the 
judgments on these matters would not  circulate if  given in the declaring  state. Without 
the  declarations,  the  Convention  would  then  apply  more  widely.  The  declarations  limit 
the scope and the added value of the Convention. As such, they should generally be made 
only  where  a  state  has  a  strong  interest  in  not  applying  the  Convention  (Article  18(1)) 
and  should  be  no  broader  than  necessary  (Articles  18(1)  and  19(1)  of  the  Judgments 
Convention). 

5.1  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

Under  the  baseline  scenario,  the  European  Union  would  not  accede  to  the  Judgments 
Convention.  By  not  acceding,  the  EU  would  not  take  part  in  this  new  legal  framework 
facilitating  international  circulation  of  foreign  judgments  and  the  current  patchwork  of 
rules would continue to apply. Under this scenario, the problems described in section 2 
would  persist,  since  the  underlying  problem  drivers,  the  disparate  national  rules  on  the 
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and the lack of international standard, 
would remain unaffected.  

As a result, the factual problems (such as the non-recognition of foreign judgments, the 
need  for  re-litigation,  excessive  costs  and  length  of  the  proceedings)  and  the  legal 
uncertainty for the parties involved in international dealings would continue.  

These problems would continue to hamper the access to justice of EU parties. Moreover, 
some  EU  parties,  in  particular  large  enterprises,  would  resort  to  arbitration  in  order  to 
avoid  the  uncertainties  of  international  litigation.  Some  EU  parties  would  continue 
avoiding not only court litigation but also just about any international dispute resolution 
mechanism. Some EU parties would be discouraged from pursuing international dealings 
altogether. This would further negatively affect foreign trade and investment.  

In the baseline scenario, where the EU would not accede to the Judgments Convention, 
the above problems will continue and might get aggravated because of the increase in the 
instances  of  international  litigation  as  a  result  of  an  increase  in  foreign  trade  and 
investment  that  is  forecasted  for  the  reference  period  of  the  years  2022-202658.  As 
foreign  trade  is  expected  to  grow,  the  number  of  businesses  and  SMEs  affected 
indirectly59  by  EU  export  will  increase  by  around  25%  for  both  export  in  goods  and 
services60. The number of enterprises and SMEs affected by the current problems would 
thus also increase.  

From  the  perspective  of  fundamental  rights,  the  absence  of  a  clear  international 
convention  would  perpetuate  the  issues  currently  faced  by  EU  parties  when  litigating 

58  When  measuring  foreign  trade  and  investment,  the  Impact  Assessment  does  not  consider  phantom 
investments and intra-firm trade. For the details about the  economic forecasts, see  Annex 4 on analytical 
methods. 
59 The assessment of the magnitude of indirect impacts, was based on Input-Output Model (see Annex 4 on 
analytical methods). As a result, a calculation was made of the  number of enterprises affected indirectly, 
such  as  the  impacts  on  enterprises  across  the  whole  supply  chain,  which  are  affected  indirectly  by  trade 
flows. 
60 See Table 10: Output and gross value added multipliers in section 2.5 of Annex 4, detailing the estimate 
that in 2026, 681 312 enterprises will be affected indirectly by EU export in goods and 227 457 enterprises 
by the EU export in services (as compared to 546 596 and 181 518 enterprises in 2022).  

18 

 
 
                                                           
abroad.  In  the  current  status  quo,  EU  parties  may  be  subject  to  proceedings  in  third 
countries in breach of the fundamental rights protected under EU law. These can entail 
for  example  the  special  protection  of  weaker  parties  in  the  context  of  international 
transactions, parties’ procedural rights61 and other principles and rights. The rights may 
for  instance  include  consumer  protection,  right  to  property,  equality  before  the  law, 
workers’ rights62, the right to protection of data and freedom to conduct a business. If the 
Judgments  Convention  provided  a  framework  for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
foreign judgments, foreign courts would be incentivised to deliver judgments that would 
not  be  in  violation  of  the  public  policy  of  the  Member  States  and  that  could  hence  be 
recognised and enforced in the EU63. In contrast, under the baseline scenario, some EU 
principles and fundamental rights may continue to be disregarded in foreign proceedings. 
It  should  however  be  underscored  that  only  a  minimum  of  the  consulted  stakeholders 
were aware of any cases where fundamental rights were not respected in the proceedings 
before a third-country court. 

Finally,  it  is  to  be  highlighted  that  under  the  baseline  scenario  all  bilateral  agreements 
between Member States and third countries continue to apply64. Nonetheless, this is also 
the  case  for  all  other  policy  options,  i.e.  even  if  the  EU  accedes  to  the  Judgments 
Convention65. 

It  could  be  clearly  concluded  from  the  consultation  activities  that  the  stakeholders  and 
Member  States  are  overwhelmingly  in  favour  of  the  EU  accession  to  the  Judgments 
Convention66.  In  particular,  at  a  workshop  with  Member  States’  representatives,  the 
participants  unanimously  favoured  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention.  Given  this 
support  for  the  accession  and  the  positive  impacts  of  the  Convention  which  will  be 
further detailed in section 6, the baseline scenario was considered rather as a benchmark 
scenario for assessing the other policy options. 

5.2 

Description of the policy options 

5.2.1  Policy  option  1a:  EU  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention  without 

making any declarations 

Under  this  policy  option,  the  EU  would  conclude  the  Judgments  Convention  without 
making any declaration.  

The Convention provides a mandatory minimum standard for the acceptance of foreign 
judgments in Contracting States. If a judgment given in one Contracting state meets the 

61 Such as the right to a fair trial, the principle of legality and proportionality of penalties, or the right to an 
effective remedy. 
62  Such  as  the  right  to  fair  and  just  working  conditions,  the  right  of  collective  and  bargaining  action  - 
workers’  rights  granted  by  the  Posting  of  Workers  Directive  (Directive  96/71/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of 
the provision of services, OJ L 18, 21.1.1997) or workers’ rights to information and consultation (Article 
17 of the Charter) and the protection in the event of unjustified dismissal (Article 30 of the Charter).  
63  Violations  of  fundamental  rights  incompatible  with  the  public  policy  of  an  EU  Member  States  would 
lead to a right to refuse recognition and enforcement of a judgment under the Convention. 
64 These bilateral agreements date back to the time when the EU did not have exclusive competence in this 
matter or before a particular Member State joined the EU. 
65 Cf. Article 23(2) of the Judgments Convention which provides that the Judgments Convention does not 
affect the application of a treaty that was concluded before this Convention.  
66 At the workshop, some Member States expressed their preliminary views pending further analysis of the 
implications of all policy options. 

19 

 
                                                           
criteria laid down by the Convention, such a judgment has to be recognised and enforced 
in other Contracting states. For details regarding the Convention, see section 1 – political 
and legal context.  

In the consultation activities conducted in the framework of this Impact Assessment, the 
replies  varied  on  whether  the  EU  should  accede  with  or  without  making  any 
declarations67.  Most  stakeholders  and  Member  States  consulted  did  not  have  definitive 
views on the need for any declaration. It could be safely inferred from the results of the 
consultation activities that an appetite for a declaration under Article 19 is very limited. 
On the other hand, the views of the Member States and stakeholders were divided as to 
whether  a  declaration  under  Article  18  is  desirable  or  the  EU  should  accede  to  the 
Convention  without  making  a  declaration.  About  a  third  of  the  stakeholders  did  not 
indicate  any  preferred  option  (accession  with  or  without  a  declaration),  which  could 
partially be attributed to a lack of interest in any particular declaration. 

5.2.2.  Policy  option  1b:  The  Union  will  accede  to  the  Judgments  Convention 

with declaration(s) pursuant to Article 18 of the Convention  

Article 18 of the Convention allows the Contracting States to not apply the Convention 
with respect to certain specific matters, and thereby to extend the list of matters already 
excluded from scope of the Convention by its Article 2(1). If a Contracting Party makes a 
declaration  excluding  judgments  with  respect  to  certain  specific  matters  from  the 
circulation under the Convention, it has a twofold effect: the country in question will not 
have  to  enforce  such  foreign  judgments  and  equally,  the  judgments  given  by  courts  in 
that country on these specific matters will not circulate68. 

This Impact Assessment will assess whether declarations should be made excluding the 
following:  

  Certain  matters  reflecting  the  EU’s  policy  objective  of  protecting  weaker 

parties:  

o  Consumers; and/or 
o  Employees; and/or 
o 

in  matters  relating  to  insurance,  the  policyholder,  the  insured  or  the 
beneficiary;  

or/and 

  Judgments relating to tenancies or commercial leases of immovable property, a 

matter for which courts in the EU have exclusive jurisdiction. 

The reason behind the contemplated exclusion of the above-mentioned matters from the 
scope  of  the  Convention  is  that  in  these  areas  the  rules  on  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of foreign judgments in the Convention differ from those in the Brussels Ia 
Regulation. 

Taking into consideration that the Brussels  Ia Regulation applies to the recognition and 
enforcement of civil and commercial judgments between the EU Member States and the 

67 See Annex 2 of this report.  
68 In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Convention, the declaration has a reciprocal effect. If 
a state excludes certain specific matters from the application of the Convention, it will not have to accept 
foreign judgments ruling on these matters, but also its own judgments thereon will not circulate.   

20 

 
                                                           
Judgments  Convention  applies  in  relation  to  third  countries,  they  both  have  a  different 
scope of application. Thus, if the European Union accedes to the Judgments Convention, 
the internal EU rules on the recognition and enforcement of judgments among Member 
States would not be affected69. This is true even if the EU made none of the declarations 
under Article 18 (or, for that matter, under Article 19).  

However, the Impact Assessment report considers declarations based on Article 18 where 
the Convention adopted a different approach regarding certain specific matters than the 
ones adopted by the EU legislator. The declarations are considered with the intention to 
protect  also  internationally the policy approaches that the EU legislator  made for intra-
EU  relations.  In  essence,  the  declarations  aim  to  prevent  a  situation  where  judgments 
from third countries should be recognised and enforced in the EU under the Judgments 
Convention  even  if  the  same  judgments  would  not  circulate  under  the  Brussels  Ia 
Regulation if they were given by a court in the EU.  

Therefore,  the  discrepancy  between  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  and  the  Judgments 
Convention  is  only  limited  to  policy  and  there  are  no  direct  legal  overlaps.  When 
acceding to the Judgments Convention, the EU could use the declarations under Article 
18  and  exclude  matters  from  the  application  of  the  Convention,  where  the  Convention 
does not mirror the specific jurisdictional rules that are commonplace in the EU. 

For instance, when it comes to commercial leases of immovable property, the EU courts 
have exclusive jurisdiction in the Member State where the property is located. No other 
court  in  the  Union  can  decide  the  case.  In  contrast,  the  application  of  the  Judgments 
Convention  may  lead  to  the  result  that  the  courts  in  the  EU  might  be  compelled  to 
enforce  third-country  judgments  on  property  located  within  the  EU  even  though  these 
judgments were not given in the country where the property is located but in a third state 
instead.  Therefore,  the  EU  courts  would  have  to  recognise  and  enforce  third-country 
judgments  where  in  the  same  type  of  situation  they  would  have  to  refuse  a  judgment 
issued  in  another  EU  Member  State.  (Under  the  Convention,  the  judgments  on 
commercial tenancies given e.g. at the place of habitual residence of the defendant must 
be recognised by other Contracting Parties.)70.  

In the consultation activities conducted in the framework of this Impact Assessment, the 
majority of interviewed stakeholders and legal professionals and majority of respondents 
to an online survey favoured accession without any declaration. 

With  regard  to  the  possible  declarations  under  Article  18,  12%  of  respondents  to  the 
online survey and most of the interviewed legal professionals and stakeholders favoured 
making a declaration concerning the commercial leases of immovable property. 

Some respondents to an online survey supported the declarations aiming at protecting a 
weaker party – declaration on consumer and employment matters (12% of respondents) 
and  on  insurance  matters  (15%  of  the  respondents).  On  the  other  hand,  several 
stakeholders  specifically  pointed  out  that  the  number  of  judgments  concerning  the 
consumer, employment and insurance matters is limited, the declarations would thus not 
affect  a  significant  share  of  the  judgments  circulating  under  the  Convention.  Targeted 

69  Nor  the  application  of  the  Lugano  Convention  or  other,  bilateral  treaties  that  the  Member  States  have 
with third countries. 
70  For  detailed  explanations  of  the  differences  between  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  and  the  Judgments 
Convention as well as the legal implications of the declarations, see Annex 5. 

21 

 
                                                           
consultation of the insurance sector showed that the insurance sector did not consider that 
the  Judgments  Convention  would  significantly  affect  their  sector  and  most  consulted 
insurance  stakeholders  thus  considered  making  a  declaration  on  insurance  matters 
unnecessary.  In  general,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  limited  number  of  judgments  on 
consumer,  employment  and  insurance  matters  has  been  mentioned  both  as  a  reason  to 
make and not to make the respective declarations.  

None of the Member States expressed its support for a declaration on consumer matters 
and  only  one  Member  State  preliminarily  supported  a  declaration  on  employment 
matters, pending further assessment. Only a few Member States expressed a preliminary 
opinion  on  the  declarations  concerning  insurance  matters  and  commercial  tenancies71. 
Some Member States preliminarily supported a declaration on insurance matters with  a 
view to ensuring consistency with the Choice of Court Convention where the EU made a 
declaration  on  in  that  regard.  Three  Member  States  also  informed  that  they  were 
considering a declaration on commercial tenancies.  

5.2.3.  Policy  option  1c:  The  Union  will  accede  to  the  Judgments  Convention 

with a declaration pursuant to Article 19 of the Judgments Convention 

Article 19 of the Convention permits a State not  to  apply the Convention to  judgments 
arising from proceedings involving that State or government agency thereof, or a natural 
person representing that  State or governmental agency, and to  do so even for the cases 
where they acted in the civil and commercial context72. However, States may not exclude 
from the application of the Convention judgments pertaining to State-owned enterprises – 
something  that  could  have  otherwise  created  an  unfair  advantage  in  comparison  to 
foreign private enterprises that operate on the same markets. 

In the consultation activities conducted in the framework of this Impact Assessment, the 
majority of respondents to the online survey (88%) and vast majority of interviewed legal 
professionals  and  stakeholders  advised  against  making  a  declaration  under  Article  19. 
The same sentiment was voiced in the workshop with the Member States where none of 
the experts supported such a declaration73.   

71 See Annex 2 of this report. 
72 The  Convention does not exclude judgments from its scope  merely because a State  was a party to the 
proceedings. By contrast, it distinguishes where the State acted in civil or commercial context as opposed 
to  where  it  exercised  governmental  or  sovereign  powers.  In  the  latter  case,  the  matter  falls  outside  the 
scope of “civil or commercial matters” and thus outside the scope of the Judgments Convention. Examples 
of situations where the State acts in its sovereign capacity are criminal, constitutional, revenue, customs or 
administrative  matters.  Article  19  enables  the  Contracting  Parties  to  exclude  from  the  scope  of  the 
Convention even matters where the State acted in civil or commercial context and where the Convention 
would otherwise apply. For details, see the explication in the Explanatory Report on Articles 1, 2(4) and 19 
of the Judgments Convention. 
73 See Annex 2 of this report. 

22 

 
 
 
                                                           
5.2.4.  Policy  option  1d:  The  Union  will  accede  to  the  Judgments  Convention 

with declaration pursuant to both Article 18 and 19 of the Convention 

This policy option is a combination of policy options 1b and 1c – i.e. it would involve the 
EU  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention  with  declaration(s)  under  Article  18  and  a 
declaration under Article 19.  

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

This  section  assesses  the  judicial,  legal  and  the  economic  impacts  for  each  policy 
option.  The  indicators  to  assess  these  impacts  have  been:  (1)  impact  on  the  number  of 
cases;  (2)  impact  on  the  length  of  proceedings;  (3)  impact  on  the  legal  environment, 
fundamental  rights,  and  protection  of  weaker  parties;  (4)  impact  on  Member  States’ 
public administrations and (5) macro-economic impacts, (6) micro-economic impacts and 
(7) impacts on competitiveness. Finally, social impacts are briefly expounded. 

No  direct  environmental  impacts  are  envisaged  from  the  policy  options,  the 
environmental impacts will thus not be further considered74.  

In particular, the study considers the impacts of the accession on two levels. On the one 
hand, the report identifies the consequences of the enhanced recognition and enforcement 
of  European  judgments  in  third  countries,  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  impact  of 
recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments in the EU (where appropriate).  

The  assessment  covers  the  impacts  on  all  EU  Member  States,  apart  from  Denmark75. 
Furthermore,  for  the  purposes  of  the  analysis,  it  is  assumed  that  eight  selected  third 
countries  (Australia,  Argentina,  Brazil,  Canada,  China,  Japan,  South  Korea,  and  the 
United  States  of  America)  would  accede  to  the  Convention  and  the  Convention  would 
become applicable between the EU and those countries in 2022. It is acknowledged that 
this approach has limitations insofar that it is unclear whether the said third countries will 
accede to the Judgments Convention and whether they will do so in the given timeframe. 
However,  as  the  EU  has  no  influence  over  the  decision  of  other  countries  to  join  the 
Convention  and  the  timing  thereof  is  thus  unpredictable,  this  “best-case”  scenario 
provides a clear benchmark against which the desirability of the EU’s accession can be 
assessed.  It  could  be  inferred  that  in  case  any  of  the  third  countries  selected  for  the 
purposes  of  this  Impact  Assessment  does  not  accede  to  the  Convention,  the  impacts 
would  have  to  be  slightly  adjusted  to  display  that  reality.  However,  even  in  such  a 
scenario it is highly likely that the general and the specific objectives described in section 
4 will be achieved.  

74  Arguably,  there  could  be  indirect  environmental  impacts,  as  the  Convention  can  for  example  have  a 
positive influence on the growth of international trade or can influence the need to travel to a hearing. Both 
impacts  could  then  further  influence  the  frequency  of  international  travel  and  thus  the  resulting 
environmental  footprint.  Moreover,  a  simpler  system  for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign 
judgments in civil and commercial matters under the Convention, together with the digitalisation of justice 
systems  and  decreasing  of  the  paper-based  communication  could  lead  to  a  reduced  use  of  paper  in  the 
judiciary of the Member States. However, all these impacts are indirect and uncertain and none the policy 
options will thus have more than a marginal effect on environment. 
75 As stated in Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, Denmark does not take part in the adoption and 
application of EU actions taken under Article 81 TFEU.  

23 

 
 
                                                           
It should also not be underestimated that also the EU’s accession to the Convention could 
encourage other countries to  join the Convention. Furthermore, while the impacts  were 
assessed only with respect to the selected third countries, it is likely that other countries, 
including  with  markets  of  considerable  size,  may  join  the  Convention  and  thereby 
amplify  the  impact  of  the  Convention  as  compared  to  the  status  quo76.  Against  this 
background,  the  selection  of  only  eight  trading  partners  for  a  Convention  (that  may,  if 
successful,  be  of  worldwide  application)  may  overestimate  impacts  in  relation  to  those 
eight  countries  (since  not  all  of  them  may  ratify  the  Convention)  but  it  may  also 
considerably underestimate impacts since it does not take into account the likely effects 
of ratification by other States. 

In order to consider the possibility that not all selected third countries join the Judgments 
Convention and/or that other than the selected third countries will join it, an illustrative 
sensitivity analyses has been included in Annex 6.  

With  regard  to  the  relation  between  the  EU  and  the  UK,  as  mentioned  in  section  2.2 
above, the positive impact of the Convention can be assessed only when compared to the 
situation  after  1  January  2021,  because  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  still  applies  for  all 
judgments resulting from proceedings instituted before 31 December 2020. Therefore, if 
both the EU and the UK will accede/ratify the Convention, the impacts described below 
for  the  selected  third  countries  are  expected  to  also  apply  in  relation  to  the  UK  when 
compared  to  the  situation  post-transition  period.  However,  because  that  period  started 
only  on  1  January  2021  and  no  quantitative  data  is  available,  it  is  not  certain  that  the 
figures mentioned above will apply also in this case. At the same time, it is clear that the 
non-quantifiable  positive  effects  of  the  Convention  in  terms  of  enhanced  access  to 
justice,  increased  legal  certainty  and  predictability  in  international  dealings  will  also 
apply in relation to the UK.  

The  reference  period  for  assessment  of  the  impacts  of  all  policy  options  is  2022  to 
2026, as it is assumed that a decision on the potential accession to the Convention would 
be made in 2021 and that the Convention would therefore enter into force in 2022 at the 
earliest. 

It  should  nevertheless  be  noted  that  some  estimates  are  subject  to  a  high  degree  of 
uncertainty given the many unknown variables, including recovery time from the current 
COVID-19  pandemic.  Therefore,  where  specific  figures  are  provided,  the  level  of 
specificity should be interpreted with caution as these represent estimates of the precise 
value. 

6.1. 

Impacts of policy option 0 - baseline scenario 

As detailed in sections 2.3 and 5.1, the baseline scenario will result in the persistence and 
possibly  even  growth  of  the  current  problems,  as  the  underlying  problem  drivers  will 
remain unaffected.  

76  Three  countries,  Israel,  Ukraine  and  Uruguay,  have  already  signed  the  Convention  thereby  indicating 
their intention to ratify it. Moreover, several other countries also expressed their interest in the Convention 
or their intention to join the Convention, for example Russia. 

24 

 
                                                           
6.2.  Impacts of policy option 1a – EU accession without any declaration 

Under  this  policy  option,  the  EU  would  accede  to  the  Judgments  Convention  without 
making  a  declaration  excluding  any  judgments  from  the  scope  of  application  of  the 
Convention. 

6.2.1.  Judicial and legal impacts 

The EU accession to the Judgments Convention would tackle the problem driver insofar 
that  it  would  provide  a  comprehensive  international  convention  on  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  foreign  civil  and  commercial  judgments.  As  a  result,  it  would  thus 
mitigate  the  legal  uncertainty  and  unpredictability  in  international  dealings  as  well  as 
decrease delays and undue costs related to such proceedings. The Convention would thus 
improve the access to justice for EU parties. 

Impact on the number of cases 

The  accession  to  the  Convention  would  likely  result  in  slightly  increased  number  of 
cases.  Indeed,  as  the  Convention  would  bring  about  a  reliable  minimum  standard  and 
legal predictability it would encourage:  

- 

- 

a  larger  portion  of  companies  to  give  preference  to  court  litigation  over 
arbitration; 
companies  (especially  SMEs)  and  consumers  to  pursue  their  claims  that  they 
currently do not pursue because of concerns regarding their enforceability 77. 

Moreover, in case the EU accedes to the Convention, the comparatively better degree of 
the  global acceptance of European judgments may  increase the appeal  of the  European 
courts  as  a  sought-after  forum  in  international  litigation  thereby  enabling  the  better 
protection of EU concepts of procedural fairness and protection of weaker parties in civil 
litigation. 

Overall,  however,  the  amount  of  new  cases  compared  to  the  increase  in  the  baseline  is 
not expected to be significant. The number of European cases brought for the recognition 
and enforcement in the selected third countries is estimated to grow by +11 as compared 
to the baseline scenario and the number of third-country judgments brought to Europe by 
+4778. 

Impact on the length of proceedings 

Under  this  policy  option,  the  burden  from  delays  involved  in  international  dealings  is 
expected  to  decrease  to  some  extent.  Although  it  is  complicated  to  assess  the  overall 
magnitude of this impact due to the different experiences based on the complexity of the 
cases and the efficiency of the judicial systems in the Member States or third countries, it 
is  estimated  that this  decrease  in  length  would  range  from  3  to  6  months  on  average79, 

77  The  assessment  of  impacts  of  legal  unpredictability  on  companies’  litigation  decisions  is  based  on 
interviews conducted by the contractor with two large multinational conglomerates, legal experts and one 
SME representative. 
78 See Table 35: Estimated number of yearly cases in 2020 and increase by 2026 under the different policy 
options. 
79 It should be acknowledged that the figures are informed estimations based on consultation activities by 
the  contractor  –  i.e.  the  responses  to  online  survey  and  interviews  conducted  and  validated  by  experts 
during the workshops.  

25 

 
                                                           
both  for  proceedings  related  to  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  third-country 
judgments in the EU and of European judgments in third countries.  

Impacts on the legal environment and fundamental rights 

The Convention would impact each Member State to a different extent, depending mostly 
on  the  currently  applicable  grounds  for  recognition  and  enforcement  of  third-country 
judgments  in  those  Member  States,  and  grounds  for  refusal  of  such  judgments.  The 
positive  impact  will  be  particularly  high  in  Member  States  that  currently  have  more 
restrictive regimes for the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments80. On 
the other hand, the Convention will bring about more limited or even no changes in those 
Member  States  that  already  have  a  national  law  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
third-country judgments that is either as liberal as the Convention or more liberal81. 

Table 1: On the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments in civil and commercial matters 
based on the current national rules of the Member States82  

Liberal approach to 
third-country judgments* 

Bulgaria 
Hungary 
Netherlands 
Portugal 

Less liberal approach to 
third-country judgments* 
Cyprus  
Estonia 
Greece 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Malta 

Restrictive approach to 
third-country judgments* 
Austria 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Germany 
Spain  
Finland 
Croatia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Poland 
Romania 
Sweden 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 

Little to no improvement in 
the acceptance of third-
country judgments under the 
Convention as compared to 
national law  

Moderate impact of the 
Convention on the acceptance 
of third-country judgments as 
compared to national law 

Considerable increase in 
acceptance of third-country 
judgments under the 
Convention as compared to 
national law 

* as compared to the Judgments Convention 

On the other hand, the Convention will not curtail the acceptance of foreign judgments in 
systems which are more liberal than the Convention. 

Potentially  negative  impacts  of  the  Convention  were  voiced  by  some  either  during  the 
consultation activities in the framework of this Impact Assessment or in literature: 

80 E.g. Poland, Sweden or Spain. 
81 E.g. Portugal or the Netherlands.  
82 A comparison of the grounds for refusal in national law of Member States and those in the Judgments 
Convention  was  made.  Based  on  this  comparison,  Member  States  were  divided  into  three  groups  with 
either  a  liberal  system  for  recognition  and  enforcement,  a  restrictive  one,  as  well  as  a  middle  group.  It 
follows  that  the  Convention  will  have  the  biggest  impact  in  those  Member  States  that  currently  have 
restrictive regime for the acceptance of third-country judgments under their national law. See section 9 of 
Annex 7. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
-  The  Convention  may  create  some  confusion  as  certain  matters  covered  in  the 

Convention fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of EU courts83;  

-  The  Convention  may  create  an  additional  layer  of  complexity  as  joining  the 
Convention would entail that a new system is added to the one existing under the 
EU regulations and to the existing national and international rules84; 

-  The Convention may create some confusion as certain  matters  are covered both 

by the Convention and EU legal instruments85. 

These  issues  could  however  be  overcome  by  providing  better  information  about  the 
Convention to  the  relevant  national  authorities and legal  professionals  (members of the 
judiciary,  lawyers,  bailiffs,  etc.).  Any  training  costs  for  judges  and  legal  professionals 
could possibly be reduced by the fact that some of the provisions of the Convention are 
comparable to  those in  the Brussels  Ia Regulation  and the Choice of Court Convention 
that are both already in force.  

At the same time, overall positive impacts on the legal environment are expected as the 
Convention  would  help  to  align  the  existing  disparate  rules  on  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  worldwide  and  simplify  the  current  fragmented 
regime86.  This  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  administrative  burden  of  EU 
businesses  and  citizens  trying  to  have  judgments  given  by  EU  courts  recognised  and 
enforced in third countries.  

The Convention reflects to a large extent the rules on the recognition and enforcement of 
third-country  judgments  applicable  internally  in  the  EU  –  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation. 
Consequently,  the  Convention  in  principle  does  not  diverge  from  EU  fundamental 
principles  and  principles  of  procedural  fairness.  In  particular,  as  the  Brussels  Ia 
Regulation, the Convention provides a ground to refuse the recognition and enforcement 
of judgments incompatible with fundamental principles of procedural fairness or with the 
public policy of the State where recognition and enforcement is sought. This would help 
to ensure on the basis of a tested approach that fundamental principles and/or rights such 
as the right of the defence or the right to a fair trial have been duly observed in a third 
country.  

However,  the  Convention  differs  from  the  EU  acquis  when  it  comes  to  the  protection 
afforded to weaker parties (consumers, employees or policyholders, beneficiaries or the 
insured in an insurance contract) or has rules which do not correspond to the Brussels Ia 
rules on exclusive jurisdiction87. If these differences would prove to be detrimental to the 
achievement  of  EU’s  policy  objectives  of  protecting  weaker  parties  or  to  attribute 

83 47% of respondents of the survey organised by the external contractor shared that concern. See  section 
13 of Annex 7. 
84 Study commissioned by the European Parliament: The Hague Conference on Private International Law 
“Judgments Convention”. by De Miguel Asensio P.A. et al., p. 38.  
85 45% out of the 17 Member States which responded to the questionnaire. 
86 According to the Study by an external contractor, the Convention can have a particularly positive impact 
in relation to Australia in that it would simplify the current complex legislative framework and to China in 
that it allows to bypass current reciprocity rules and thus increases predictability. Generally speaking, such 
a  positive  impact  is  expected  in  every  country  that  has  currently  reciprocity  as  a  requirement  for 
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (such as Japan, South Korea, some states in the US) but 
also in the states that currently have a rather restrictive regime (such as for instance India).    
87  For  an  extensive  comparative  legal  analysis  between  the  rules  protecting  weaker  parties  and  the 
exclusive jurisdiction rules in the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Convention, including relevant illustrative 
examples, see Annex 5.   

27 

 
                                                           
exclusive jurisdiction to EU courts for disputes related to immovable property situated in 
the EU, then declarations under Article 18 may be used (as further detailed in the policy 
option 1b). 

Impact on Member States’ public administrations 

Under this policy option, it is expected that some one-off costs related to the adoption of 
the Convention may be necessary, such as amendments of national legislation or training 
activities and awareness-raising campaigns to inform about the Convention. However, in 
line with to the position taken by 12 out of the 17 EU Member States who responded to 
the  national  questionnaire,  it  can  be  assumed  that  the  current  resources  would  be 
sufficient to cover the moderate costs that the Convention would imply88.  

Moreover,  it  is  assumed  that  the  slight  increase  in  cases  will  be  offset  by  the  expected 
decrease in the lengths of proceedings.  

Consequently,  no  overall  impact  on  the  Member  States’  public  administration  is 
expected. 

6.2.2.  Economic impacts 

Micro-economic impacts (businesses, consumers, and citizens) 

With  the  EU  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention,  the  average  cost  for  proceedings 
related to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is expected to decrease 
because  of  the  enhanced  legal  certainty  achieved  through  clear  rules  and  standardised 
procedures.  While  the  Convention  may  not  have  a  direct  impact  on  the  costs  of  the 
enforcement procedures, the more efficient procedures and smaller administrative burden 
would  cause  a  decrease  in  overall  legal fees89.  In  particular,  a  decrease  is  expected in 
legal  fees  necessary  for  instance  to  research  the  foreign  law  on  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  or  for  expert  opinion  necessary  to  prove  reciprocity 
with the state of origin of the judgment to be recognised and enforced. For the reference 
period,  this  means  an  estimated  cost  reduction  for  EU  businesses  and  citizens  ranging 
from EUR 1.1 to 2.6 Million in the selected third countries90.  

On average, an estimated decrease in the costs of proceedings for EU parties  related to 
the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  European  judgments  in  selected  third  countries  is 
expected  to  range  between  10%  and  20%  compared  to  today’s  costs91.  This  decrease 
might  differ  per  third  country,  depending  on  whether  the  current  recognition  and 
enforcement system  is  liberal  there. The decrease in  costs achieved by the accession to 

88 Greece, Germany, Malta, Portugal and Sweden  are the EU Member  States  who  stated that the current 
resources would not be sufficient in the National Member States questionnaire. See section 14 of Annex 7. 
89 Based on interviews and further validated by legal experts during the workshops.   
90 It should be noticed that these numbers are based on a conservative estimation of the current number of 
European judgments recognised and enforced in the selected third countries and the estimated increase in 
the overall trade and investment. For further details on the methodology used see Annex 4.     
91 Quantitative estimates based on the online survey. According to respondents convinced that accession to 
the Convention would reduce the costs of proceedings, 50% of them believed that the reduction should be 
between 10% to 30%, 7% that the reduction  would be less than 10%, and 43% that the reduction  would 
range between 30 and 50%. An average of these results was initially taken to estimate that the decrease in 
costs  would  range  between  18%  and  37%.  However,  legal  experts  expressed  the  view  that  this  range 
should be lower during the workshops. As such, the range was corrected towards 10% to 20%. 

28 

 
 
                                                           
the  Judgments  Convention  is  likely  to  be  highest  in  relation  to  Argentina,  China,  and 
Australia. In Argentina and China, this higher effect could be explained by current lower 
degrees of legal certainty92.  

Efficiency  gains  and  a  decrease  in  costs  are  particularly  relevant  for  SMEs  and 
consumers93. Larger companies will also benefit from this effect, but proportionally to a 
lesser extent (as they generally already have more resources and in-house expertise and 
they tend to favour arbitration). 

In this context it should be noticed that these estimated direct benefits for the reference 
period  would  decrease  should  the  assumption  made  above,  that  all  selected  third 
countries join the Convention. For instance,  if the US did not join the Convention, two 
effects would arise:  

1.  No  additional  trade  benefits  in  trade  with  the  US  are  expected  as  compared  to 

status quo. Hence, the status quo continues.  

2.  The  decrease  in  costs  per  case  does  not  materialise.  This  in  effect  leads  to  an 
estimated  decrease  in  savings  for  EU  businesses  and  citizens  of  between  EUR 
518 647 and 1 197 245 compared to the situation in which the US acceded to the 
Convention.  This  impact  is  relatively  high  because  of  the  importance  of  the 
trading relationship between the US and the EU. 

Given that the economic impacts of the accession with declarations do not differ 
vastly from those when the EU accedes without any declarations, these estimates, 
once rounded, are the same under all the policy options 1a), 1b), 1c), 1d)94. 

Macro-economic impacts 

As  the  Convention  contributes  to  enhancing  legal  certainty  and  access  to  justice,  the 
accession would result in speedier and less costly court proceedings, thereby making the 
international dealings more predictable. This, in turn, has the potential of boosting trade 
in goods and services and foreign direct investment (“FDI”). The macro-economic effect 
with all third countries is expected to be positive under this policy option. However, the 
effects  on  FDI  may  be  more  limited  where  free  trade  and  investment  agreements 
providing a reliable standard for foreign investment are already concluded.  

Out of the countries assessed, the macro-economic impact is expected to be the largest on 
the  EU’s  exports  to  China,  Brazil,  and  Argentina  in  relation  to  which  the  legal 
uncertainty  seems  to  be  the  highest.  For  instance,  under  this  policy  option,  the  trade 
volume  and  FDI  with  China  will  increase  by  about  1.2%  for  the  years  2022-2026  as 
compared to the baseline. The trade volume with Australia is also expected to increase as 
the  Convention  can  significantly  reduce  the  complexity  of  the  access  to  courts  in 
recognition  and  enforcement  proceedings  in  this  country.  The  exports  to  Japan,  South 
Korea and the United States will be impacted to a slightly lesser extent. 

92 Based on interviews with three third country legal experts. 
93  While  international  consumer  litigation  may  be  less  common  than  litigation  by  businesses,  consumers 
can  benefit  from  the  increased  legal  clarity  and  certainty  under  the  Judgments  Convention  e.g.  in 
tourism-related situations or in e-commerce transactions. 
94 For further details see Annex 6. 

29 

 
 
 
  
                                                           
Table 2: Estimated total increase of EU trade volume and FDI under the policy option 1a (no declarations) 
- % of increase for the years 2022-2026 as compared to the corrected baseline95  

Goods 
Services 
FDI 

AR 
1.5 
1.3 
0.4 

AU 
1.2 
1.2 
0.4 

BR 
1.5 
1.6 
0.5 

CA 
1.5 
1.1 
0.2 

CN 
1 
1.6 
0.5 

JP 
1 
1 
1 

KR 
1 
1 
0.2 

US 
1 
0.9 
0.3 

In addition, the Convention may facilitate the recognition and enforcement of judgments 
where it is currently exceedingly difficult to have European judgments enforced for the 
benefit  of  EU  creditors,  with  the  indirect  effect  of  further  promoting  trade  with  such 
countries.  Finally,  by  2026  the  number  of  indirectly  affected  enterprises  will  have 
increased under this policy option96. 

Impacts on competitiveness of EU businesses 

In  general,  policies  that  encourage  international  trade  and  investment  also  indirectly 
affect the competitiveness of EU businesses. International trade opens access to foreign 
markets and enables further economies of scale. Nowadays, products are rarely made in a 
single  country  but  rather  assembled  using  parts  and  services  from  many  countries  to 
achieve  the  competitive  advantage  of  having  the  best  price  and  quality.  As  exporting 
businesses need to have a competitive edge globally, international trade is a catalyst for 
the greater efficiency and productivity of businesses97.  

As explained above, the accession to the Judgments Convention would positively impact 
foreign  trade  (albeit  to  a  limited  extent).  Consequentially,  it  will  likely  have  a  positive 
indirect impact also on the competitiveness of EU businesses98. In view of the fact that 
SMEs  would  profit  from  the  Convention  proportionally  to  a  greater  extent  than  large 
companies, the accession to the Convention may improve their competitiveness. This is 
so  because  the  costs  of  international  litigation  and  thus  indirectly  of  doing  business 
internationally  for  EU  SMEs  will  decrease,  which  will  provide  these  businesses  with  a 
comparative advantage on businesses from countries that did not ratify the Convention. 

These positive impacts on competitiveness of EU businesses are estimated mainly based 
on economic theories, as specific data on the impact of the Judgments Convention on the 
competitiveness  are  not  available.  This  Impact  Assessment  also  does  not  consider  the 
impacts on competitiveness in specific sectors as it is expected that no economic sector 
will be disproportionately affected by the accession to the Convention. 

Finally, the Judgments Convention is not expected to have a direct impact on  research 
and  innovation  (aside  from  the  spill-over  effect  linked  to  the  increased  international 

95 For details on the calculation, see Annex 4 on analytical methods. 
96 In 2026 the number of indirectly affected enterprises (such as enterprises across the whole value chain 
which are impacted by trade flows) is estimated to be 683 903 for the export in goods and 228 242 for the 
export  in  services.  The  production  value  in  exports  for  goods  will  increase  to  EUR  417  107  mil.  for  all 
SMEs indirectly affected. The analogous production value for exports in services amounts to EUR 139 203 
mil. in 2026. See section 7 of Annex 7. 
97 As to which see e.g. World Trade Organisation.  WTO can stimulate economic growth and employment 
(Section 3).  
98  Also  mentioned  by  interviewees  consulted  in  the  framework  of  this  Impact  Assessment  that  the  EU 
accession to the Judgments Convention would (among others) indirectly benefit consumers because of the 
increase in competition. See section 3.1 of Annex 2. 

30 

 
 
 
                                                           
trade  which  may  act  as  an  impetus  to  boost  innovation  to  achieve  a  competitive 
advantage).  

6.2.3.  Social impacts  

At  best,  the  impacts  of  the  Convention  on  the  creation  of  jobs,  real  wages  and  welfare 
and  on  specific  social  groups  will  be  negligible  and  indirect  –  i.e.  caused  by  the  link 
between international trade, economic growth, and employment.  

Overall,  wages  in  economies  that  are  open  are  typically  higher  than  in  closed 
economies99 and export-supported jobs often benefit from a wage premium100. Many jobs 
are  linked  to  international  trade  directly,  particularly  in  industries  like  retail,  shipping, 
express  delivery,  and  logistics.  Other  sectors  are  impacted  by  international  trade 
indirectly. Citizens of all Member States would benefit thanks to integrated supply chains 
in  the  internal  market101.  Furthermore,  due  to  global  value  chains,  the  employment 
mobilised to support EU exports would not be confined to the European borders but the 
increase in international trade could have positive social impacts also in third countries.  

Given the positive impact of the Convention on international trade and investment, albeit 
limited, it can be deduced that the Convention would also have a generally positive social 
impact.  The  positive  effect  that  the  Convention  would  have  on  EU  exports  and 
international  trade  could  stimulate  economic  growth  and  generate  welfare  and 
employment  opportunities.  While  no  specific  data  on  social  impacts  of  the  Convention 
were  collected  given  the  indirect  and  unpredictable  nature  of  such  impacts102,  their 
magnitude can be estimated as negligible. This (minor) impact of the accession on social 
rights will not markedly differ in specific sectors and among specific social groups.  

99  According  to  the  World  Trade  Organisation  (“WTO”),  workers  in  the  manufacturing  sector  in  open 
economies  earn  three  to  nine  times  more  than  those  in  closed  economies.  WTO  can  stimulate  economic 
growth and employment (Section 3) – Ibid. 
100  The  data  for  2009  showed  that  this  wage  premium  benefits  export-supported  jobs  across  the  full 
spectrum of skills: this export wage premium ranges from 5% for low-skilled jobs, 9% for medium-skilled 
jobs to16% for high-skilled jobs. See report of the European Commission (2015). EU Exports to the World 
: Effects on Employment and Income – Key findings.  
101  Ibid.  The  report  points  to  the  evidence  that  citizens  in  all  Member  States  benefit  from  international 
trade.  Some  do  because  they  work  in  firms  that  are  selling  directly  outside  the  EU  while  others  are 
employed  by  the  suppliers  of  inputs  to  exporters  that  may  be  located  in  their  own  Member  State  or 
elsewhere in the EU. 
102 It has been mentioned by the interviewees consulted in the framework of this impact assessment that the 
EU accession  to the Judgments Convention  would (among others) have a positive effect on employment 
creation. See section 3.1 of Annex 2. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
6.3.  Impacts  from  policy  option  1b  –  EU  accession  with  a  declaration  under 

Article 18 

Under  this  policy  option,  the  European  Union  would  accede  to  the  Judgments 
Convention  with  a  declaration  with  respect  to  one  or  more  specific  matters  –  i.e.  
declarations  excluding  consumer  matters,  and/or  employment  matters,  and/or 
insurance  matters  and/or  certain  judgments  related  to  commercial  leases  of 
immovable property. 

In  case  a  declaration  is  made,  it  should  be  no  broader  than  necessary  and  the  specific 
matter excluded should be clearly and precisely defined103. This is also in the interest of 
the  Union  as  its  general  policy  objective  has  been  to  have  comprehensive  rules  for  the 
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments having the largest possible scope. The 
general  approach  to  declarations  both  under  Articles  18  and  19  should  thus  be  that  the 
EU  would  use  these  declarations  only  in  instances  where  there  is  a  sufficiently  serious 
interest in not applying the Convention to such area(s). 

In  addition,  it  should  be  noted  that  any  declaration  under  Article  18  would  have  a 
reciprocal effect – i.e. while it would prevent the recognition and enforcement in the EU 
of  third-country  judgments  given  in  the  excluded  matters,  it  would  equally  prevent 
similar European judgments from circulating under the Convention.  

It  should be noted that by  excluding certain  matters from the scope of the Convention, 
the  impact  on  the  current  status  quo  would  generally  be  smaller  than  under  the  policy 
option 1a) because certain matters will not benefit from the regime of the Convention. In 
particular, for those matters excluded by the declaration, all indicators would remain the 
same as the status quo. However, considering that these matters only concern a limited 
number of cases, the overall impacts of the accession with or without these declarations 
would generally not differ significantly for most of the indicators (the number of cases, 
legal  certainty,  impact  on  Member  States’  public  administrations,  macroeconomic 
impacts etc.). The following part thus only lists indicators where the impacts might 
differ more significantly under the policy option 1b) as compared to 1a) described 
above.  

6.3.1.  Impacts on the legal environment and fundamental rights 

The reason behind the contemplated exclusion of certain matters from the scope is that 
the rules in the Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in 
certain  matters  differ  from  the  rules  in  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation.  This  raises  the 
question whether the rights of weaker parties, duly protected in the acquis, as well as the 
EU general policy objective of attributing exclusive jurisdiction to EU courts to rule on 
disputes  related  to  commercial  tenancies  of  immovable  property  situated  in  the  EU, 
would be best preserved by excluding these matters from the scope of application of the 
Convention.   

Therefore,  to  protect  the  weaker  parties  in  consumer,  employment  and  insurance 
contracts not only internally in intra-EU relations but also with respect to third countries, 
declarations  under  Article  18  of  the  Judgments  Convention  were  considered.  The 
Convention does provide for a sufficient protection for the weaker parties to  consumer 
and employment contracts in its Article 5(2), even though the level of protection for the 

103 Article 18(1) of the Judgments Convention. 

32 

 
                                                           
weaker parties under the Judgments Convention is different than that under the Brussels 
Ia  Regulation.  With  regard  to  insurance  matters,  the  Judgments  Convention  does  not 
include  any  special  protection  to  the  weaker  parties  (the  policyholders,  the  insured  and 
the beneficiaries of the insurance contracts). However, the Convention does protect  the 
weaker parties when they are also consumers104.  

Finally, a declaration excluding commercial leases (tenancies) of immovable property 
situated  in  the  EU  was  considered.  The  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  affords  exclusive 
jurisdiction  in  the  Member  State  where  an  immovable  property  is  located  to  all 
tenancies105  irrespective  whether  they  are  residential  or  commercial.  The  Judgments 
Convention however includes specific jurisdictional rules only  for residential tenancies. 
As a result, under the Convention the Member States would be obliged to recognise and 
enforce  third-country  judgments  on  commercial  lease  of  immovable  property  that  is 
situated in their territory. This would be in a contradiction to the policy objective sought 
by  the  EU  legislator  in  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  to  attribute  exclusive  jurisdiction  to 
courts in the EU for disputes related to immovable property located in the EU.  

For a closer analysis of the comparison of the Judgments Convention with Brussels Ia 
Regulation and the reasons why the declarations were contemplated, see Annex 5. 

In case a declaration is made and a matter is thereby excluded from the application of the 
Convention, the current fragmented rules will continue to apply. This is true both for the 
national laws of the EU Member States and for the application of the national regime in 
third countries where European judgments issued in the excluded areas might be brought 
for recognition and enforcement.  

Moreover,  if  a  declaration  excluding  certain  specific  matters  from  the  scope  of  the 
Convention is made, legal uncertainty may also emerge about the interpretation of such a 
declaration  and  about  its  scope,  in  particular  if  the  declaration  could  give  raise  to 
different interpretations.   

6.3.2.  Economic impacts 

For  matters  excluded  by  the  declaration,  no  macro-economic  effect  is  expected  as  the 
status  quo  remains  for  these  sectors.  The  overall  economic  impacts  are  thus  slightly 
smaller than under the policy option 1a)106. 

Table 3: Estimated total increase of EU trade volume and FDI under the policy option 1b  - % of increase 
for the years 2022-2026 as compared to the corrected baseline107  

Goods 
Services 
FDI 

AR 
1.4 
1.3 
0.3 

AU 
1.1 
1.2 
0.3 

BR 
1.4 
1.6 
0.4 

CA 
1.4 
1.1 
0.15 

CN 
0.9 
1.6 
0.4 

JP 
0.9 
1 
0.9 

KR 
0.9 
1 
0.15 

US 
0.9 
0.9 
0.2 

104 By contrast, the policyholder, the insured and the beneficiary of insurance contracts are protected in the 
EU as weaker parties even if they are not factually a weaker party (e.g. large companies). 
105 With a possible exception for tenancies of immovable property concluded for temporary private use for 
a maximum period of six consecutive months (mostly residential short-term holiday rentals). 
106 Table 3 takes into account the combined effect of all the exclusions considered under Article 18 of the 
Convention. 
107 For details on the calculation, see Annex 4 on analytical methods. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                           
If  consumer  and/or  employment  and/or  insurance  matters  are  excluded  from  the  scope, 
the  parties  to  these  types  of  agreements  (e.g.  consumers,  employees,  insurance 
policyholders,  beneficiaries  or  insured  persons)  will  not  be  able  to  benefit  from  the 
Convention and the economic impact would thus not change as compared to the baseline 
scenario.  The  same  is  valid  also  for  the  parties  to  a  commercial  lease  agreement.  This 
means that the overall microeconomic direct benefits of the Convention will remain the 
same  (cost  reduction  of  between  10%  and  20%)  but  will  not  apply  for  the  excluded 
categories  of  EU  citizens  and  businesses.  However,  due  to  the  small  number  of 
judgments given in the potentially excluded matters, the overall benefits for the reference 
period will remain unchanged, ranging from EUR 1.1 to 2.6 Million in the selected third 
countries. As a potential declaration would have a reciprocal effect the benefits for third-
country parties seeking to have a foreign judgment recognised and enforced in the EU in 
one of the excluded matters will also not materialise. 

Even  though  the  overall  cost  savings  for  EU  parties  are  similar  to  those  in  option  1a, 
some  citizens  will  not  be  able  to  reap  the  benefits  of  the  Convention  if  consumer, 
employment and/or insurance matters are excluded (option 1b(i)). At the same time, the 
economic impact on citizens if only judgments related to commercial leases are excluded 
(option 1b(ii)) is rather positive and is comparable to that of option 1(a). Due to the very 
small  number  of  judgments  given  in  this  particular  area,  only  a  small  number  of 
businesses is expected to be negatively impacted by such a targeted exclusion.        

One  can  notice  that  the  differences  in  trade  and  FDI  volumes  between  this  option  and 
option  1a  are  rather  insignificant.  As  mentioned  above,  this  has  to  do  with  the  low 
number  of  judgments  given  in  these  areas  (approximately  5%  of  the  total  numbers), 
mainly in disputes about trade in  goods or tourism related services subject to insurance 
policy108.    

6.3.3.  Social impacts  

While the mild positive social impacts will continue to exist under the Convention even 
if a declaration under Article 18 is made, it should be noted that by excluding judgments 
concerning  employment  matters  from  the  scope  of  the  Convention,  employees, 
employers,  and  social  partners  (trade  unions  and  employers’  organisations)  will  not 
benefit  from  the  simplified  regime  under  the  Convention.  However,  it  should  be 
acknowledged that this type of international litigation is generally uncommon.  

At  the  same  time,  such  potentially  negative  social  impacts  are  not  expected  for  option 
1b(ii)  because  a  limited  declaration  with  regard  to  commercial  leases  of  immovable 
property  will  not  affect  citizens.  Its  social  impacts  would  thus  be  comparable  to  those 
under option 1(a).     

Therefore, since the combined impacts of both strands of this option, and in particular the 
economic ones, are negligible when compared to option 1a, the decisive factor should be 
the  policy  interest  in  ensuring  coherence  with  the  intra-EU  system.  Next  section  will 
show how best this coherence could be achieved.     

108 According to the interviewed legal professionals in the framework of the Study by external contractor. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
6.4  

Impacts  from  policy  option  1c  –  EU  accession  with  a  declaration  under 
Article 19  

Under  this  policy  option,  the  European  Union  would  accede  to  the  Convention  with  a 
declaration under Article 19 of the Convention (“Declaration with respect to judgments 
pertaining  to  a  State”)  and  would  thereby  exclude  judgments  involving  States,  a 
government agency of a State or natural persons acting for States from the application of 
the Convention. 

Just  like with  the declarations under Article 18,  it should be noted that  any declaration 
under Article 19 would have reciprocal effect, in the sense that while it would prevent the 
recognition  and  enforcement  in  the  EU  of  third-country  judgments  in  which  an  EU 
Member  State  is  party,  it  would  equally  prevent  similar  European  judgments  in  which 
foreign States are parties from circulating under the Convention109.  

A declaration under Article 19 would concern rather a small number of cases. Therefore, 
the  accession  of  the  EU  to  the  Convention  with  a  declaration  under  Article  19  is  not 
expected  to  make  a  significant  difference  to  most  of  the  indicators  as  compared  to  an 
accession without any declaration (policy option 1a).  

6.4.1.  Impacts on legal environment and fundamental rights 

The  declaration  under  Article  19  could  provide  additional  legal  certainty  regarding  the 
interpretation  of  the  term  “civil  and  commercial  matters”  in  cases  that  involve  a  state, 
governmental agency or a natural  person acting on behalf of a state where it is  unclear 
whether  they  acted  in  a  public  or  private  function  since  straightforwardly  all  cases  to 
which they are parties would be excluded (whether civil and commercial or not).  

In  case  a  declaration  under  Article  19  is  made  by  the  Union,  the  Convention  will  not 
apply to judgments  arising  from  proceedings involving States,  a  government agency  or 
natural persons acting for these entities. As a result, national law on the recognition and 
enforcement of such foreign judgments will continue to apply.  

On  the  other  hand,  the  declaration  can  decrease  legal  certainty  to  a  certain  extent  by 
adding  an  additional  interpretation  issue  as  to  what  is  and  what  is  not  a  governmental 
agency,  especially  in  countries  where  the  boundary  between  the  public  and  private 
domain is blurred. 

6.4.2.  Economic impacts  

The macro-economic impacts for the EU-26 (without Denmark) depend on the respective 
third country. On the international stage, this declaration would affect more extensively 
the  states  where  the  state  is  more  deeply  involved  in  the  economy110  or  has  less 
liberalised  markets.  According  to  interviewed  third-country  legal  experts,  this  could 
apply to third countries such as China, and to a certain extent Brazil and Argentina111. In 

109 The recognition and enforcement of a judgment pertaining to a State may be refused by either the State 
that made the declaration or the requested State.  
110 This declaration would be about States, government agency or natural persons acting for a State or for a 
government  agency.  Other  legal  entities,  including  state-owned  enterprises,  cannot  be  the  object  of  such 
declarations and therefore cannot be excluded from the scope of application of the Convention.  
111  However,  in  particular  Israel,  as  well  as  Russia  showed  some  interest  in  this  declaration  during  the 
negotiations  of  the  Judgments  Convention.  Based  on  interviews,  Brazil  and  Australia  do  not  currently 
envisage any declaration in relation to Article 19. 

35 

 
                                                           
the  case  of  China,  this  declaration  could  lead  to  increased  legal  uncertainty  as  public 
institutions in the country can act as such, but also develop business internationally.  

On the microeconomic level, it should be noted that the accession to the Convention with 
a declaration under Article 19 is not expected to impact consumers, citizens, and SMEs. 
This is because SMEs, consumers and citizens are typically not involved in international 
dealings with states entities. This policy option is thus more relevant for larger businesses 
as they contract more frequently with state and governmental agencies.  

As state-owned enterprises cannot benefit from this declaration, the Convention does not 
give  them  an  unfair  advantage  over  European  private  companies,  for  instance  by 
shielding such state-owned enterprises from the enforcement of judgments.  

6.5 

Impacts  from  policy  option  1d  –  EU  accession  with  a  declaration  under 
Articles 18 and 19 

Under  this  policy  option,  the  European  Union  would  accede  to  the  Convention  with 
declarations under both Articles 18 and 19. Therefore, judgments with respect to specific 
matters  (consumer,  employment,  insurance  matters  and/or  commercial  leases  of 
immovable  property)  and  those  pertaining  to  a  State  would  be  excluded  from  the 
Convention. 

As policy option 1 d) is a combination of the policy options 1 b) and 1 c), the effects of 
both policy options would logically add up under this variant. Since more matters would 
be  excluded  from  the  circulation,  the  effects  (such  as  economic  effects,  effects  on  the 
length  and  costs  of  the  proceedings  etc.)  brought  about  by  the  EU  accession  to  the 
Convention  will  generally  be  more  limited  than  in  the  policy  options  1  a),  b),  and  c). 
However, even under this combined option, the change to the indicators described under 
the policy option 1 a) (accession without any declaration) is not significant.  

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

The options described above are compared based on three criteria, as follows: 

  Effectiveness  of  the  policy  option,  in  terms  of  the  capability  to  achieve  the 
general and specific objectives of the initiative, as described above in section 4; 
  Efficiency  of  the  policy  option,  in  terms  of  the  probability  of  achieving  cost 
reductions in the process of recognition and enforcement of European judgments 
in third countries; 

  Coherence of the policy option, in terms of how the option would integrate in the 
legal  landscape, at  the national  level  of the Member States,  at  the EU level  and 
internationally. 

With regard to its effectiveness, policy option 1a whereby the Union would accede to the 
Judgments Convention without making any declarations would address all the objectives 
of  this  initiative.  By  providing  EU  businesses  and  citizens  with  a  legal  tool  in  order  to 
seek recognition and enforcement of European judgments wherever the debtor happens to 
have  assets,  this  option  will  enhance  access  to  justice.  Compared  to  the  current 
situation, it will equally increase legal certainty by providing a clear and comprehensive 
set  of  rules  to  be  applicable  instead  of  disparate  national  strict  regimes  for  recognition 
and enforcement. The impacts described above show that this option is expected to lead 
to  a  reduced  length  of  proceedings  and  to  lower  costs  for  EU  parties  seeking  to 
enforce an European judgment in a third country. Finally, the increase in legal certainty 

36 

 
and the decrease in  costs  and length  of proceedings is  expected to  encourage parties to 
claim  their  rights  more  often  in  international  court  litigation,  thereby  leading  to  more 
international  dealings,  which  could  contribute  ultimately 
in 
international trade and in investment. 

increase 

to  an 

The effectiveness of policy option 1b is comparable to that of option 1a. This option will 
equally achieve the  general  and specific objectives of this initiative, but to a somewhat 
lesser  degree  because  in  the  excluded  matters,  be  it  in  consumer,  employment  or 
insurance matters or in matters related to commercial leases of immovable property, the 
Convention  will  not  be  applicable  and  thus  the  status  quo  will  remain  unchanged. 
However, due to the fact that in these matters the number of cases is not significant, the 
effectiveness of this policy option will not differ greatly from that of option 1a described 
above. There is an exception to this statement, and that relates to the specific objective of 
allowing  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  third-country  judgments  only  where  EU 
fundamental  principles  are  respected  and  the  EU  internal  acquis  is  not  affected.  This 
objective is  fully achieved by this option as  the EU internal  acquis  is  not  affected, and 
this  is  particularly  true  for  the  option  including  a  declaration  excluding  commercial 
leases of immovable property  (option  1b(ii)). With  regard to  the possible affectation  of 
the  EU  acquis  concerning  such  commercial  tenancies,  this  option  scores  better  than 
option 1a.    

Finally, with regard to the effectiveness of policy option 1c, this is comparable with that 
of option 1a described above, with the notable difference that litigation concerning civil 
an  commercial  disputes  in  which  States  or  State  entities  are  involved  will  be  excluded 
from the scope of application, and thus for such matters the status quo will remain. Given 
the  fact  that  mostly  large  businesses  are  involved  in  international  dealings  with  States, 
the effectiveness of this policy option will be less important for this type of stakeholders.          

All  policy  options  considered  present  comparable  efficiency  scores.  The  direct 
benefits for EU businesses and citizens trying to have judgments given by courts in the 
EU  recognised  and  enforced  in  third  countries  is  similar  in  all  options  considering 
accession.  These  benefits  stem  from  the  estimated  cost  reduction  and  range  from  EUR 
1.1  to  2.6  Million  in  the  selected  third  countries  during  the  reference  period.  These 
savings  will  benefit  all  stakeholders,  but  will  have  no  impact  on  consumers, 
employers/employees,  parties 
in 
cross-border  commercial  leases  under  policy  option  1b.  However,  under  option  1b(ii) 
citizens  will  be  able  to  reap  the  benefits  of  the  Convention  as  the  limited  declaration 
concerning commercial leases of immovable property will have little or no impact on this 
category  of  stakeholders.  By  the  same  token,  such  savings  will  be  less  prominent  for 
large businesses, which are most frequently contracting with States, under policy option 
1c.  Finally,  for  public  authorities  the  cost  of  the  predicted  increase  in  the  number  of 
judgments is only marginal and such costs are expected to be offset in the medium and 
longer term by the predicted decrease in the length of proceedings.    

insurance  contracts  or  businesses 

involved 

to 

With regard to the coherence criterion, one has to differentiate between the coherence of 
the  policy  options  with  the  national,  EU  and  international  legal  environment.  Policy 
option  1a  is  fully  coherent  with  the  international  legal  environment  and  will  have  a 
positive  or  very  positive  impact  on  the  national  legal  environments  of  the  Member 
States112. However, this policy option is less coherent with the internal acquis in terms of 

112 See  Table  1: On the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments in civil and commercial 
matters based on the current national rules of the Member States. p. 26. 

37 

 
                                                           
being in line with the internal policy objective of attributing exclusive jurisdiction to EU 
courts in disputes related to commercial leases of immovable property located in the EU. 
Policy  option  1b  would  be  less  coherent  with  the  international  legal  environment  as  it 
will limit the scope of application of the Convention but will still have a positive impact 
on  the  national  legal  environment,  albeit  slightly  less  than  the  one  observed  in  policy 
option  1a  because  some  matters  will  be  excluded.  However,  the  coherence  with  the 
national legal environment would be at the same level for options 1a and 1b(ii) because 
the  rules  on  exclusive  jurisdiction  for  disputes  related  to  immovable  property  in  the 
Member State where the property is located are widely accepted under national law. At 
the same time, this option will score better overall on the coherence with the EU acquis. 
This is particularly true for commercial leases of immovable property located in the EU. 
For  consumer,  employment  and  insurance  matters,  even  though  there  are  some 
differences between the Convention and the Brussels Ia Regulation, the former provides 
an adequate level of protection for these categories of stakeholders113. Finally, option 1c 
will be less coherent on all three situations, be it at the national, EU or the international 
level.    

 Table 4: Comparison of options 

Criteria 

Option 0 

Option 1a 

Option 1b114 

Option 1c 

Option 
1b(ii)115 

Effectiveness in 
reaching the 
following 
objectives 

To enhance access 
to justice for EU 
businesses and 
citizens 

To promote 
international trade 
and investment 

To increase legal 
certainty and 
predictability of 
international 
litigation 

To reduce costs 
and length of 
proceedings for EU 
businesses and 
citizens 

To allow for the 
recognition and 
enforcement of 
third-country 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

+/++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+/++ 

+/++ 

+/++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+/++ 

+/++ 

++ 

+/++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

113 For an extensive analysis of the differences between the two instruments see Annex 5.  
114  This  option  here  presupposes  a  declaration  excluding  all  the  considered  matters  (consumer, 
employment, insurance and commercial leases (tenancies) of immovable property). 
115 This is option 1b with a limited declaration on commercial leases (tenancies) of immovable property.    

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
judgments in the 
EU only where 
fundamental 
principles of EU 
law are respected 
and EU internal 
acquis is not 
affected 

Efficiency 

Costs 

Member States 
authorities 

Large businesses 

SMEs 

Citizens 

Benefits 

Member States 
authorities 

Large businesses 

SMEs 

Citizens 

Costs v. benefits 

Coherence 

With national legal 
environment 

With EU acquis 

With the 
international legal 
environment 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-/0 

-/0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

0/+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

- 

++ 

-/0 

-/0 

0 

0 

0 

+/++ 

0/+ 

+ 

++ 

- 

-/0 

-/0 

0 

0 

0 

+/++ 

0/+ 

- 

++ 

+ 

+/++ 

+/++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

- 

-- 

- 

-/0 

-/0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

0/+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

The  analysis  of  these  three  criteria  reveals  that  the  three  policy  options116  show 
comparable results when it comes to effectiveness and efficiency. However, it can be 
observed that, while all three options show positive yields in these two criteria, there are 
still slight differences which indicate a better chance to fully achieve these objectives for 
option 1a and option 1b(ii), followed closely by option 1b and, as the last one, option 1c. 
This  has  to  do  with  the  fact  that  the  Convention  will  simply  not  produce  its  effects  to 
certain  categories  of  citizens  (option  1b  –  declarations  with  regard  to  consumer, 
employment or insurance matters) or some businesses (option 1c – large businesses) and 
thus fails to achieve the objectives for those categories of stakeholders. However, should 

116 It should be noticed that option 1d, which is a combination of options 1b and 1c, is not analysed in this 
comparison. However, being a combination of two options that are analysed here, its scores will be equal 
to the lowest score attributed to one of these two options (mostly option 1c).   

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
the  declaration  under  Article  18  be  limited  to  the  commercial  tenancies,  the  scores  of 
options 1a and 1b(ii) under these two criteria are practically similar.  

The  situation  is  different  when  it  comes  to  coherence.  Under  this  criterion  option  1b 
scores better, while option 1a follows closely behind. Option 1c has a negative yield 
under this criterion. Option 1b scores better here because it is aligned with the EU acquis, 
while option 1a scores better for its alignment with the international legal framework but 
fails to take into account EU’s policy interest of awarding exclusive jurisdiction to courts 
in  the EU for disputes concerning commercial leases of immovable property located in 
the EU.   

To sum up, option 1c receives a negative score under coherence and combined with the 
third score received for the effectiveness and efficiency criteria one can safely conclude 
that this option should not be pursued.  

The  question  that  needs  to  be  answered  is  whether  option  1a  or  option  1b  should  be 
preferred.  In  case  the  latter  would  be  the  preferred  option,  the  question  is  which 
declaration  can  strike  the  right  balance  between  the  least  number  of  stakeholders  that 
would  not  be  able  to  take  advantage  of  the  Convention,  on  one  hand,  and  the  fullest 
possible coherence with the policy interests behind the choices made in the EU  acquis, 
on the other hand.  

Option  1b  has  slightly  lower  scores  on  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  criteria  mainly 
because  it  takes  into  account  the  lack  of  impact  of  the  Convention  on  the  citizens  that 
could  be  impacted  by  a  declaration  with  regard  to  certain  matters  (i.e.  consumers, 
employees,  policyholders,  insured  persons  or  beneficiaries  of  an  insurance  policy). 
However,  if  the  declaration  covered  only  commercial  leases  of  immovable  property 
located in the EU (option 1b(ii)), then the possible downside of such a declaration would 
be  rather  limited  because  only  a  small  number  of  EU  businesses  would  not  be  in  the 
position to take advantage of the Convention. This will occur in the reciprocal situation, 
where  if  courts  in  the  EU  rendered  a  judgment  on  commercial  leases  of  immovable 
property  located  outside  the  EU,  such  a  judgment  would  not  circulate  under  the 
Convention.  At  the  same  time,  despite  the  differences  between  the  Convention  and  the 
Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  such  a  limited  declaration  would  not  come  at  the  expense  of 
consumers, employees or weaker parties in insurance contracts because the Convention 
does provide an adequate level of protection for these categories117.   

Therefore,  if  option  1b  is  to  be  retained,  it  would  have  to  comprise  a  limited,  targeted 
declaration that would not affect the effectiveness and efficiency of this initiative, and at 
the  same  time  enhance  its  coherence.  A  targeted  declaration  excluding  the  recognition 
and enforcement of judgments rendered outside the EU on commercial leases (tenancies) 
of immovable property located in the EU would enhance the coherence of this initiative 
with the EU acquis. This is so because it is fully in line with the policy objective sought 
by  the  EU  legislator  to  attribute  exclusive  jurisdiction  to  courts  in  the  EU  for  disputes 
related to immovable property located in the EU.  

As  a  result,  option  1b(ii)  with  a  limited,  targeted  declaration  concerning  commercial 
lease of immovable property  scores better on all  three criteria  and is  thus  the preferred 
option.  

117 See Annex 5 for further details. 

40 

 
 
                                                           
8.  PREFERRED OPTION 

Based  on  the  above  analysis,  option  1b(ii),  which  entails  that  the  EU  accedes  to  the 
Judgments Convention with a declaration excluding the recognition and enforcement of 
third-country  judgments  that  ruled  on  commercial  leases  (tenancies)  of  immovable 
property situated in the EU, is the preferred option.  

This  option  strikes  the  right  balance  between  guaranteeing  the  achievement  of  all  the 
objectives  of this initiative, on one hand, and its coherence with  the EU  acquis, on the 
other.  

In  terms  of  its  efficiency,  the  direct  benefits  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses  when 
attempting  to  have  a  European  judgment  recognised  and  enforced  in  a  third  country  is 
estimated  to  be  between  EUR  1.1  and  2.6  Million  during  the  reference  period  and  is 
practically  equal  to  that  under  the  option  without  declarations.  This  has  to  do  with  the 
expected low number of judgments that would fall under this declaration.       

In terms of the expected impacts of this option, the public authorities of the Member 
States  are  expected  to  have  some  one-off  costs  related  to  the  implementation  of  the 
Convention but  such costs  are  expected to  be negligible. The judiciary would  probably 
experience  a  slight  increase  in  the  number  of  cases  in  the  reference  period,  but  this 
increase will be offset by the expected decrease in the length of proceedings.    

With  regard  to  the  impact  on  the  legal  environment,  this  option  will  have  a  positive 
impact  on  most  national  legal  systems  of  the  Member  States,  standing  to  improve  the 
regime  for  recognition  and  enforcement  of  third-country  judgments  in  22  Member 
States118. For the remaining four Member States the situation after accession will not be 
worse  off  than  today,  but  there  would  be  little  or  no  improvement  compared  to  the 
current situation. In addition, as stated also above, this option is fully in line with the EU 
acquis (Brussels Ia Regulation) and, as a result, has the highest level of coherence at this 
level.    

EU  businesses  will  benefit  from  the  increase  in  legal  certainty  and  predictability  in 
international dealings. These benefits are expected to be more prominent for SMEs than 
for large businesses because the latter tend to prefer arbitration rather than court litigation 
when trying to resolve an international legal dispute. To the extent that EU businesses are 
engaging in court litigation, they will benefit from improved access to justice because of 
the  higher  likelihood  of  recognition  and  enforcement  of  European  judgments  in  third 
countries,  but  also  from  lower  costs  (between  10%  and  20%)  and  shorter  length  of 
proceedings (between 3 to 6 months). It should be noticed that, because of the reciprocal 
effect  of  the  declaration  to  be  made  by  the  EU,  these  benefits  will  not  extend  to  EU 
businesses  seeking  recognition  and  enforcement  of  European  judgment  that  ruled  on  a 
commercial lease of an immovable property situated in the State where such enforcement 
is  sought.  However,  the  estimated  low  number  of  such  judgments  means  that  these 
situations will not affect the overall positive impacts on businesses.    

The impact on EU citizens can be seen from two angles: On one hand, there are citizens 
involved  in  international  dealings,  for  instance  who  engage  in  trade  or  investment 
activities  in  non-EU  countries.  For  this  category  of  citizens  the  impacts  would  be 

118 See  Table  1: On the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments in civil and commercial 
matters based on the current national rules of the Member States. p. 26. 

41 

 
                                                           
comparable to those for SMEs, as described above and in Annex 3. On the other hand, 
there will be also  direct  impacts  on consumers and employees, such as better access  to 
justice  and  increased  legal  certainty  and  predictability,  for  example  when  an  EU 
consumer purchases goods from a non-EU trader or when an EU employee tries to have a 
European  judgment  recognised  and  enforced  wherever  the  employer  happens  to  have 
assets.  In  these  situations  consumers  and  employees  will  also  benefit  from  lower  costs 
and shorter length of proceedings.  

Table 5: Overview of benefits of the preferred option 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Amount 

Direct benefits 

Comments 

During  the  reference  period  (2022-2026)  a 
decrease  of  10-20%  of  costs  related  to  the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  European 
judgments  in  the  selected  third  countries  is 
expected to occur in each case, bringing the 
total to the amount presented in the left row. 

The  current  average  length  of  proceedings 
for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
European 
third  countries 
ranges  between  9  to  23  months  and  is 
expected to decrease by 3 to 6 months. 

judgments 

in 

Non quantifiable 
Beneficiaries: EU businesses and citizens 
Businesses and citizens from outside the EU 
will  also  benefit  from  an  improved  system 
of 
and 
for 
third-country  judgments  in  many  Member 
States 

enforcement 

recognition 

For  the  reference  period  (2022-2026)  trade 
in  goods  and  services  as  well  as  foreign 
direct  investment  with  the  selected  third 
countries is expected to increase with figures 
of between 0.3% and 1.6%  
Beneficiaries: Mostly businesses engaged in 
in  international  trade  and  investment  but 
indirect  benefits  expected 
to  ultimately 
translate  in  improved  economic  growth  and 
job creation  

Non quantifiable 
Beneficiaries: EU businesses and citizens 

Description 

Reduced 
for  EU 
costs 
businesses and citizens when 
seeking to have an European 
recognised  and 
judgment 
enforced 
another 
Contracting State 

in 

length 
for 

of 
Shorter 
proceedings 
EU 
businesses and citizens when 
seeking to have an European 
recognised  and 
judgment 
enforced 
another 
Contracting State 

in 

EUR 1.1 to 2.6 Million 

By 3 to 6 months 

Improved access to justice, 
increased legal certainty and 
predictability in international 
dealings 

An  improved  and  more  predictable  regime  for 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  European 
judgments in other Contracting States.  
Likewise,  the  current  system  will  improve  in 
many EU Member States   

Increase 
trade and investment 

in 

international 

Between 0.3% and 1.6% 

Indirect benefits 

Judgments  from  outside  the 
EU  will  be  recognised  and 
enforced only where they are 
in line with EU fundamental 
principles  and  respect  the 
EU acquis 

As the recognition and enforcement of judgments 
under  the  Convention  is  subject  to  a  number  of 
refusal  grounds  and  depends  on  the  jurisdiction 
assumed  by  the  court  of  origin,  third-country 
judgments  will  only  gain 
recognition  and 
enforcement  if  in  line  with  EU  fundamental 
principles and acquis.  
The  declaration  excluding  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  third-country  judgments  that 
ruled  on  commercial 
(tenancies)  of 
immovable  property  situated  in  the  EU  ensures 
full  compliance  with  the  acquis  (Brussels  Ia 
Regulation) 

leases 

42 

 
9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

It  is  the  practice  of  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private  International  Law,  under  whose 
auspices  the  Convention  was  drawn  up,  to  organise  regular  meetings  (“Special 
Commissions”)  to  take  stock  of  the  practical  application  of  conventions,  in  order  to 
monitor and evaluate their success and help resolve difficulties in their interpretation and 
application.  The  Judgments  Convention  will  not be  an  exception.  Even  the  Convention 
itself  states  clearly  that  the  Secretary  General  of  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private 
International  Law  shall  at  regular  intervals  make  arrangements  for  review  of  the 
operation of this Convention, including any declarations (Article 21 of the Convention).  

In addition to this review mechanism organised by the HCCH, the European Union as a 
Contracting  Party  should  put  in  place  its  own  monitoring  and  evaluation  mechanism. 
This  mechanism  should  include  a  comprehensive  set  of  qualitative  and  quantitative 
indicators.  Since  this  Impact  Assessment  worked  with  several  assumptions  and 
estimates119, these should also be revisited as a part of the evaluation exercise to confirm 
their accuracy.  

9.1 Achievement of the main objectives  

First,  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  would  serve  to  verify  whether  the 
Convention is successful in achieving its main objectives set forth in section 4 of this 
Impact Assessment. The table below provides suggestions for monitoring and indicators 
to inform such assessment.   

Table 6: Assessment criteria as per the main policy objectives 

Assessment criterion 
(per main policy objectives) 

Possible indicators or assessment methods 

To enhance access to justice 
for EU businesses and 
citizens  

- Number of cases in which the Judgments Convention was applied in third 
countries120; 

- Specifics of the above cases, e.g.:   

- subject matter of the cases and/or affected sectors;  
- application of specific provisions of the Convention121; or 
- where the recognition and enforcement of a judgment was refused, the 
reasons for the refusal. 

-  Number  of  European  citizens  and  businesses  that  benefited  from  the 

119 E.g. estimates related to the future volume of trade with or without the EU accession to the Judgments 
Convention  and  the  time  needed  for  economic  recovery  from  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  estimates 
regarding  the  current  number  of  European  and  third-country  cases  brought  for  recognition  in  third 
countries and in Europe etc.  
120 If  possible, the statistics should include both the  statistics on the total number of instances  where the 
Convention  has  been  used  globally  and  disaggregated  data  per  each  of  the  Contracting  Parties  of  the 
Convention.  The  statistics  should  in  particular  distinguish  where  the  judgments  recognised  under  the 
Convention have been European judgments. 
121  Such  as  specific  indirect  grounds  of  jurisdiction  (e.g.  Article  5(2)  on  consumer  and  employment 
contracts,  or  Article  6  on  exclusive  jurisdiction  for  judgments  that  ruled  on  rights  in  rem  in  immovable 
property). 

43 

 
 
 
                                                           
Convention; 

-  Total  number  of  relevant  civil  and  commercial  cases  where  recognition 
and  enforcement  were  sought  abroad  (i.e.  including  those  instances  where 
recognition and enforcement happened under national law or under bilateral 
agreements)122; 

- Perception of the Judgments Convention by the relevant stakeholders and 
legal professionals123. 

- Changes in the volume of mutual trade and investment vis-à-vis the States 
that have joined the Judgments Convention;  

NB: Since the volume of international trade and investment is dependent on 
several  aspects  unrelated  to  the  Judgments  Convention,  the  above  data 
should be collected for contextual purposes.  

-  Opinion  of  relevant  stakeholders  on  the  impact  of  the  Judgments 
Convention on the international trade and investment124.  

- Examples of relevant case law:  

- at national level;  
- at EU level; and 
- in third countries that are party to the Judgments Convention 
pointing  to  uncertainties  connected  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Convention  or  to  its  application  (e.g.  lack  of  clarity  on  certain 
concepts);  

- Opinions of relevant stakeholders on the impact of the Convention on legal 
certainty and predictability125. 

-  Comparison  of  the  length  of  recognition  and  enforcement  proceedings 
before and after the accession of a State to the Judgments Convention126;  

-  Comparison  of  the  costs  of  recognition  and  enforcement  proceedings 
before and after the accession of a State to the Judgments Convention127.  

-  Number  of  cases  at  Member  States  level  in  which  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  a  third-country  judgment  was  refused  on  the  basis  of  the 
incompatibility of a judgment with public policy of a requested State; 

-  Number  of  cases  at  Member  States  level  in  which  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  a  third-country  judgment  was  refused  on  the  basis  of  the 
incompatibility  of  the  proceedings  leading  to  that  judgment  with  the  fair 
trial principle. 

In  addition,  further  data  should  be  collected  on  the  recognition  and 

To promote international 
trade and investment, 
thereby increasing economic 
growth and creating jobs 

To increase legal certainty 
and predictability of 
international litigation for 
EU businesses and citizens 
involved in international 
trade and investment 

To reduce costs and length 
of proceedings for EU 
businesses and citizens 
involved in international 
dealings or in international 
dispute resolution 

To allow for the recognition 
and enforcement of foreign 
judgments in the EU only 
where fundamental 
principles of EU law are 
respected  

122 This statistical data should especially include the total number of cases recognised and enforced under 
national  law  in  other  Contracting  Parties  of  the  Convention  and  in  the  third  countries  selected  for  this 
Impact Assessment.  
123 Collected e.g. by means of a survey or targeted interviews.  
124 E.g. by means of a survey or targeted interviews.  
125 E.g. by means of a survey or targeted interviews.  
126  Ideally,  this  data  should  be  disaggregated  comparing  the  length  of  recognition  and  enforcement 
proceedings  in  comparable  cases  before  and  after  the  accession  of  the  given  Contracting  State  to  the 
Convention  and  it  should  focus  on  European  judgments.  Where  possible,  it  should  include  data  on  the 
reasons for undue delays. 
127  Ideally,  this  data  should  be  disaggregated  comparing  the  costs  of  the  recognition  and  enforcement 
proceedings in comparable cases before and after the accession of the Contracting State to the Convention 
and  should  focus  on  European  judgments.  Where  possible,  it  should  include  a  breakdown  of  the  various 
types of costs should be made.  

44 

 
                                                           
enforcement of third-country judgments in the EU, e.g.:  

- Number of cases  in which the Judgments Convention was applied in EU 
Member States128; 

-  Total  number  of  relevant  foreign  civil  and  commercial  cases  where 
recognition  and  enforcement  were  sought  in  EU  Member  States  (i.e. 
including  those  instances  where  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  a 
third-country  judgment  happened  under  national  law  or  under  bilateral 
agreements)129. 

9.2 Evaluation of the desirability and/or impacts of declarations  

Additionally, the monitoring and evaluation system should serve to assess: 

-  whether the European Union should make a declaration under Article 18 with 

respect to specific matters at a later stage; 

-  whether the European Union should make a declaration under Article 19 with 

respect to judgments pertaining to a State at a later stage;  

-  whether,  to  the  extent  that  declarations  are  made  upon  accession,  the 

European Union should revoke or modify any of its declarations. 

Indeed,  as  declarations  can  be  either  revoked  under  the  Convention  or  new  additional 
declarations can be made at a later stage130, the evaluation should also specifically focus 
on the review of the need for declarations. Depending on the results of this assessment, 
the  Commission  could  present  a  new  proposal  along  the  lines  of  the  three  points  made 
above.   

9.3 Timing of the evaluation and sources of relevant data 

The  internal  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  should  as  much  as  possible 
correspond to the evaluation process done under the auspices of the Hague Conference of 
Private International  Law. In any case, the review of the functioning of the Convention 
should  be  done  at  regular  intervals  (for  instance  every  3  to  5  years)  as  has  been  the 
practice for other legislative instruments in the area.  

Given the time that might be needed before other states join the Judgments Convention 
(as  already  demonstrated  by  the  limited  uptake  of  the  Choice  of  Court  Convention131), 
the evaluation and monitoring might be postponed to the time when sufficient experience 
with the practical operation of the Convention can be gathered.  

128 If  possible, the statistics on cases in  which  Convention  was applied should be disaggregated per each 
Member State.  
129 This statistical data should especially include the total number of cases recognised and enforced under 
national  law  in  other  Contracting  Parties  of  the  Convention  and  in  the  third  countries  selected  for  this 
Impact Assessment.  
130 Article 30 of the Judgments Convention. 
131  The  EU  acceded  to  the  Choice  of  Court  Convention  on  1  October  2015  and  the  Convention  thereby 
entered into force. Yet, according to the information from the Hague Conference on Private International 
Law, the first judgment was enforced under the Convention only in 2018. See First case under the Choice 
of Court Convention. One of the likely reasons could be the limited amount of Contracting Parties to the 
Choice of Court Convention to date.  

45 

 
 
                                                           
The  evaluation  could  be  assisted  by  a  study  done  by  an  external  source.  Likewise,  the 
European  Judicial  Network  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  could  assist  in  the 
monitoring of the application of the Convention.  

To tackle the problem that data on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in the 
EU is not available in many instances, the Commission should encourage Member States 
to introduce processes that would help to gather data which could later serve as a basis 
for monitoring and evaluation of the success of the Judgments Convention.  

46 

 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1. Lead DG, Decide Planning 

Lead DG: DG JUSTICE AND CONSUMERS (“DG JUST”) 

Decide Planning: PLAN/2019/5402 – Accession to the Judgments Convention  

2. Organisation and timing 

A Commission inter-services steering group (ISG) was established in  October 2019 for 
preparing  this  initiative.  The  ISG  was  chaired  by  the  Directorate-General  Justice  and 
Consumers  (JUST).  The  following  DGs  and  services  participated  at  the  inter-service 
group:  Communication  Networks,  Content  and  Technology  (CNECT),  Competition 
(COMP), Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL), Energy (ENER), Financial 
Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union (FISMA), Migration and Home 
Affairs  (HOME),  Mobility  and  Transport  (MOVE),  Health  and  Food  Safety  (SANTE), 
Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  (GROW),  Legal  Service  (SJ), 
European  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement  Negotiations  (NEAR),  Secretariat-General 
(SG) and European Union External Action Service (EEAS). 

The  ISG  met  five  times  in  the  period  from  October  2019  to  March  2021.  The 
inter-service group approved the Inception Impact Assessment  on 22 October 2019 and 
the Impact Assessment report on 15 March 2021. 

3. Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

DG JUST received advice from the members of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (“RSB”) 
at  an  upstream  meeting  organised  on  9  February  2021  before  the  finalisation  of  the 
Impact Assessment report. 

The Impact Assessment report was then examined by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and 
received  a  positive  opinion  on  23  April  2021.  In  its  opinion,  the  Board  also  provided 
suggestions as to possible improvements of the report. The table below shows how this 
report takes into account the main comments of the RSB.  

(1)  The  report  should  better  explain  the 
legal nature and remit of the Judgments 
Convention,  and  which  countries  are 
likely  to  join  it.  It  should  clarify  the 
impact  of  the  EU’s  accession  to  the 
Convention 
existing 
conventions  (e.g.  Lugano  Convention, 
Choice  of  Court  Convention)  and  on 
bilateral  agreements  between  Member 
States and signatory countries. 

other 

on 

(2)  The 

report 

should 

strengthen 

impact  of 

the 
rationale  for  the  initiative  by  clarifying 
the 
legal  uncertainty 
concerning  foreign  judgments  on  EU 
companies’  decisions  to  engage  or  not 
in international trade and investment.  

47 

Section 1 of the report has been amended to 
include 
the 
interactions  of  the  Judgments  Convention 
with the other international instruments.  

explanation  on 

a  better 

Additional  explanations  were  also  provided 
in section 5.2 regarding the interplay between 
the  Judgments  Convention  and  the  Brussels 
Ia Regulation.  

The  impact  of  legal  uncertainty  was  further 
illustrated  in  section  2.  It  follows  from  the 
open  public  consultation,  that  92.5%  of  the 
respondents  believe  that  legal  certainty  is 
very  important  or  important  in  deciding 
whether  to  start  a  court  litigation  against  a 

 
 
 
 
 
It should also be clearer on the problems 
that  relate  to  the  areas  considered  for 
possible exclusions (declarations). 

(3)  The report should better distinguish the 
preferred  option  in  the  section  that 
describes 
either  by 
the  options, 
presenting it as a self-standing option or 
a  distinct  sub-option  (under  the  option 
that  considers  different  possible  EU 
declarations). Subsequently, it should be 
assessed (and compared) along the other 
options  to  better  substantiate  the  final 
choice of the preferred option. 
Although all four options have a similar 
cost-benefit  outcome,  the  report  should 
better  explain  what  distinguishes  them 
and what the preferred choice entails. 
report  should  better 

integrate 
stakeholder  opinions.  It  should  be  clear 
where views differ on specific issues. In 
particular, 
the  report  should  clarify 
stakeholders’  support  for  the  different 
options, including the preferred one. 

(4)  The 

party from outside the EU. 

No  specific  problems  going  beyond  those 
described  for  other  judgments  in  civil  and 
commercial matters were detected during the 
collection of data for this impact assessment. 
The  possible  excluded  matters  are  selected 
for reasons of conformity of the legal rules in 
the  Convention  with  the  EU  acquis.  This  is 
now made clearer in section 5.  
In  order  to  further  highlight  the  distinctive 
character of the preferred option, changes and 
additions  were  made  in  section  5,  where  the 
different  policy  options  are  presented,  in 
section  6,  where the impacts  of  the  different 
policy  options  are  presented,  as  well  as  in 
section  7  in  which  the  different  policy 
options are compared.  

The  report  has  been  amended  to  include 
further details about stakeholder opinions and 
preferences in its section 5.2.  

4. Evidence, sources and quality 

The  Commission  consulted  widely  and  received  input  from  various  sources  for  this 
impact  assessment  work.  Evidence  used  in  this  Impact  Assessment  was  gathered 
following  a  consultation  strategy,  which  included  an  open  public  consultation  and 
workshop with Member States. Additionally, targeted consultations were made with 
stakeholders where specific data was missing.   

Further  evidence  for  this  Impact  assessment  has  been  gathered  through  an  extensive 
study  by  an  external  contractor  (Deloitte)  and  from  the  materials  and  knowledge 
acquired during the course of the negotiations of the Judgments Convention. The study 
by an external  contractor, on which this  Impact  Assessment  report was based, included 
quantification of impacts (to the extent possible), literature review and more consultation 
activities (interviews, stakeholder survey, and questionnaire for national authorities). 

The robustness of the findings in this Impact Assessment can be partially impacted by the 
fact that several key variables on which this assessment was based remain uncertain. This 
includes in particular the uncertainty as to which third countries will become a party 
to the Judgments Convention and when. As it is impossible to predict this factor, the 
impact assessment had to be based on an informed assumption. The Commission selected 

48 

 
 
 
eight  third  countries  that  belong  to  the  EU’s  main  trade  partners  and  that  actively 
participated in the negotiations of the Convention and based the impact assessment on the 
assumption that these countries will accede in 2021132. To mitigate the drawbacks of this 
approach,  a  limited  sensitivity  analysis  was  included  in  Annex  6  illustrating  how  the 
results of the impact assessment change should one of the key third countries not join the 
Convention as assumed.  

The Impact Assessment was also based on other assumptions, namely: 

- 

It  was  estimated  that  the  number  of  judgments  would  continue  growing  after 
international  trade  recovers  from  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  More  judgments 
would thus need to be recognised and enforced abroad in the future133.  

-  Other assumptions were used to help with the quantification of the current status 
quo and impacts of each policy option. The need for these assumptions partially 
stems from data limitations that the Impact Assessment encountered.  

The data limitations encountered in this Impact Assessment have been in particular:  

o  fragmented  data  on  the  current  number  of  European  and  foreign  civil  or 
commercial judgments that circulate for the recognition and enforcement 
between the EU and selected third countries;  

o  fragmented  data  on  the  current  length  and  costs  of  the  recognition  and 

enforcement proceedings. 

Notably, a significant number of countries (both Member States and third countries) do 
not  keep  systematic  records  about  foreign  judgments  brought  for  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  before  their  courts.  It  follows  that  data  regarding  the  current  number  of 
cases, and average length and costs of proceedings for the recognition and enforcement 
of foreign judgments abroad had to be estimated.  

Similarly, Member States and third countries often do not systematically collect data on 
the length of the recognition and enforcement proceedings and costs borne by the parties 
in such proceedings.  

Finally,  data  limitations  are  also  a  result  of  the  limited  representativeness  of  the 
responses in terms of a number of participants and their professional background. Given 
the high-level and technical nature of this proposal, many stakeholders found it difficult 
to  make  up  their  opinion  on  the  Convention.  Despite  the  efforts  to  promote  public 
consultation,  only  13  answers  were  eventually  received134.  Out  of  over  180  potential 
interviewees contacted in the framework of the study by an external contractor, only 28 

132 The Convention could thus be used by EU and third-country parties already as of 2022. 
133  The  assumption  as  to  the  increase  in  the  number  of  judgments  has  been  made  based  on  another 
assumption,  namely  that  foreign  trade  in  goods  and  services  and  foreign  direct  investment  will  continue 
growing  after  2021.  For  details  regarding  the  assumed  increase  in  trade  and  foreign  direct  investment 
(“FDI”), see section 2.4 of Annex 4 of this Impact Assessment. 
134 Some of them however including views of several difference members or units of the respondent. See 
Annex 2 of this Impact Assessment.  

49 

 
 
                                                           
interviewees from the EU and 6 from third countries were in the position to contribute on 
the  topic  of  this  impact  assessment.  Moreover,  many  of  the  respondents  to  various 
consultation activities were legal professionals135. To mitigate these data limitations, the 
results were extrapolated and additional efforts were made to receive input from specific 
stakeholders136. 

As  a  result,  quantitative  data  generally  appeared  to  be  fragmented  and  not  readily 
available. This includes statistical, quantitative data with regard to indicators, such as the 
number of cases related to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the 
EU and European judgments  in  the selected third countries, costs associated with  these 
proceedings, etc. As such, assumptions were made based on the insights provided in data 
collection tools and on extrapolations. These assumptions were validated or refined based 
on discussions with legal experts during the contractor’s validation workshops. However, 
the extrapolation of the data is complicated by the fact that each country has a different 
regime for the acceptance of foreign judgments,  different volume of international  trade 
and investment  and different  judicial environment.  Informed estimates have been made 
but their representativeness may have some limitations. 

To summarize, in order to mitigate the above-mentioned uncertainties related to the 
assumptions made and to the data limitations, the following has been done:  

- 
- 
- 

- 

targeted consultation was conducted;  
informed conclusions and extrapolation were made;  
the conclusions were validated / refined based on discussions with legal experts 
during the contractor’s validation workshops; 
sensitivity analysis was included in Annex 6. 

135 E.g. 45 out of 52 respondents to the contractor’s survey  were legal professionals. A  majority of them 
was from Portugal.  
136 Such as SMEs, SME associations, and insurance sector. 

50 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  

1.  Summary of Consultation Strategy 

The  aim  of  this  annex  is  to  present  the  consultation  activities  conducted  to  assess  the 
desirability of the possible EU accession to the Judgments Convention. The Commission 
organised  the  following  consultation  activities  throughout  this  process:  an  open  public 
consultation  and  a  workshop with  the  Member  States.  The  external  contractor  also 
conducted  a  number  of  consultation  activities  such  as  an  online  survey,  targeted 
interviews with stakeholders, as well as a Member States’ authorities questionnaire. 
Through  these  consultations  the  Commission  sought  views  on  issues  concerning  the 
possible  EU  accession  to  the  Convention.  Through  the  consultation  activities,  the 
Commission gave the opportunity to  all relevant  stakeholders to  express their opinions, 
in  particular  businesses  and  citizens  involved  or  likely  to  get  involved  in  international 
trade  and  investment,  public  authorities  (including  legal  professionals),  social  partners 
organisations  (trade  unions  and  employers  organisations), 
trade,  business  and 
professional  associations,  including  consumer  and  business  organisations,  as  well  as 
professional organisations representing lawyers or academic institutions.  

2.  Open public consultation 

The open public consultation was launched by the Commission on the ‘Have Your Say’ 
portal on 22 June 2020 and ended on 5 October 2020. The consultation was addressed to 
the  broadest  possible  public  in  order  to  obtain  views  and  input  from  all  interested 
stakeholders. The aim of this public consultation was to collect the stakeholders’ views 
on the desirability of the EU accession to the Judgments Convention and on the potential 
impacts of various policy options. The public consultation resulted in 13 responses from 
individuals  or  organisations  from  various  EU  Member  States  as  well  as  in  other 
contributions on this topic in the form of general comments and position papers related to 
this initiative. 

A  detailed  summary  of  the  replies  to  the  public  consultation  was  published  on  the 
Commission’s ‘Have Your Say’ portal137. 

The respondents to the public consultation represent different sectors, including business 
associations, legal practitioners, academics, self-employed and/or private individuals and 
an  expert  from  a  public  authority.  The  vast  majority  of  the  respondents  were  from  the 
European Union while the rest was from the United Kingdom.  

2.1. Overview of business trends with third countries 

Only  30%  of  respondents  provide  goods  and  services  to  countries  outside  the  EU. 
However,  the  vast  majority  expressed  their  interest  in  changing  this  situation  in  the 
future. Also 30% of the respondents located in the EU indicated that they purchase goods 

137  Summary  Report.  (2020)  Public  consultation  on  the  possible  EU  accession  to  the  2019  Hague 
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.  

51 

 
                                                           
or  services  from  countries  outside  the  EU  and  34%  of  them  would  like  to  start  such  a 
business with service providers outside the EU. 20% of the respondents located in the EU 
invest in countries located outside the EU, while 40% of the respondents located in the 
EU do not invest in third countries and 25% of them intend to do so in the future. 50% of 
the respondents confirm that they do not benefit from investments originating outside the 
EU while 20% said that they benefit from such investments.  

2.2. Trends in international litigation in civil and commercial matters 

The  vast  majority  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  the  legal  certainty  on  the  future 
recognition and enforcement of a European judgment in civil or commercial matters in a 
third country is a very relevant matter in the context of starting litigation against a party 
coming from that third country. A slight majority of the respondents declared that they do 
not  have  practical  experience  with  commercial  disputes  involving  parties  from  third 
countries.  More  than  38%  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  they  were  involved  in  a 
dispute outside the EU in cases concerning the subject matter of tort claims, payments for 
goods  and  services,  insurance,  immovable  properties,  insolvency  and  other  commercial 
disputes. 

Only a small amount of the respondents  indicated to  have had a European judgment in 
civil  or  commercial  matters  recognised  and  enforced  in  a  third  country.  However,  the 
respondents claimed that their attempts to have those judgments recognised or enforced 
in countries outside of the EU were in most cases successful. In those proceedings, the 
court  fees  were  between  EUR  1.000  and  5.000  and  lawyer  fees  were  between  EUR 
10.000 and 25.000.  In terms of length  of the proceedings, recognition  and enforcement 
procedures outside the EU took more than a year.  

When it comes to an attempt to have a third-country judgment recognised and enforced 
in  a  Member  State  of  the  European  Union,  some  of  the  respondents  indicated  to  have 
such  an  experience,  which  resulted  mostly  in  success.  In  most  of  the  cases,  the 
fundamental rights were respected in the litigation procedure in the third-country country 
where the judgment  was given. However, there  were some cases in  which fundamental 
rights were not respected, concerning for instance the right of access to justice, right to a 
fair trial or right to an effective remedy.  

2.3. Opinion about the possible EU accession to the Judgments Convention 

The  majority  of  the  respondents  expect  that  a  potential  EU  accession  to  the  Judgments 
Convention  would  influence  their  decision  to  start  international  trade  and  investment 
activities  in  other  countries  outside  the  European  Union  or  with  companies  from  other 
countries outside the European Union. Many of them believe that it would have a rather 
positive influence. 

The majority of the respondents believe that the prospects of successful recognition and 
enforcement  of  European  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  in  another 
Contracting  State  are  likely  to  improve  after  the  EU  accession  to  the  Judgments 
Convention.  The  respondents  indicated  that  they  want  to  see  improvements  in  the 

52 

 
recognition  and  enforcement  regime  for  European  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial 
matters,  especially  in  the  following  countries:  Brazil,  the  United  States,  Argentina, 
China,  Japan,  South  Korea,  Australia,  Canada,  Algeria,  Congo,  Egypt,  Gabon,  India, 
Iran, Nigeria, Norway, Russia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.  

When  it  comes  to  the  question  of  potential  benefits  from  the  EU  accession  to  the 
Judgments  Convention,  the  vast  majority  of  the  respondents  believe  that  the  potential 
benefits would outweigh the possible disadvantages. 

In terms of costs of the proceedings, a slight majority of the respondents believe that the 
litigation costs in Contracting States might decrease when requesting the recognition and 
enforcement  of  a  European  judgment  in  civil  or  commercial  matters  after  the  EU 
potential accession to the Judgments Convention. Regarding the influence of a potential 
EU  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention  on  the  length  of  proceedings  in  other 
Contracting  States,  the  vast  majority  of  the  respondents  believe  that  the  length  of  the 
proceedings  will  decrease  by  three  to  six  months  or  by  one  to  three  months  when 
requesting  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  a  European  judgment  in  civil  or 
commercial matters. The respondents  had rather  divided opinions on the  influence of a 
potential  EU  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention  on  their  participation  in  public 
procurements in countries outside the European Union.  

The vast majority of the respondents find the safeguards in the Convention are sufficient 
to  guarantee  adequate  protection  for  the  fundamental  rights  if  third-country  judgments 
were brought for recognition and enforcement in a Member State of the European Union. 
Those  respondents  who  do  not  find  the  safeguards  in  the  Convention  sufficient  share 
their  concerns  that  their  justice  rights  might  be  infringed.  They  believe  that  the 
safeguards provided in Article 7 of the Convention are of utmost importance but may not 
be sufficient in cases where the situation as regards the respect of procedural rights and 
the rule of law might be uncertain in other Contracting States.  

The  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  also  shared  their  views  on  acceding  to  the 
Judgments  Convention  under  various  policy  options.  When  it  comes  to  the  question 
whether  the  EU  should  accede  to  the  Judgments  Convention  with  declarations  under 
Articles 18 and 19 of the Convention, the views of the respondents are relatively divided. 
Around  25%  of  respondents  would  favour  accession  while  making  a  declaration  under 
Article  18  of  the  Judgments  Convention  excluding  mostly  consumer,  employment  and 
insurance  matters,  while  one  of  the  respondents  indicated  to  favour  a  declaration 
excluding consumer contracts  and disputes relating to  commercial  leases of immovable 
property. Some of the respondents who expect potential benefits from the EU accession 
indicated  that  they  would  favour  a  declaration  under  Article  19  of  the  Judgments 
Convention excluding the application of the Convention to States, government agencies 
or natural persons acting for the State (8%).  

53 

 
 
 
2.4. Other contributions 

All  additional  contributions  to  the  open  public  consultation  stated  their  support  for  the 
EU accession to the Judgments Convention. It was indicated as a benefit of acceding to 
the Convention that the Convention might foster legal certainty, might result in reduction 
of  costs  and  length  of  proceedings,  enhance  access  to  justice  for  EU  citizens  and 
encourage international trade. The EU accession to the Judgments Convention might also 
facilitate the recognition of European judgments by third countries, particularly those that 
currently  take  a  restrictive  stance  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign 
judgments.  

It was suggested to consider introducing declarations under Article 18 and Article 19 of 
the  Convention.  A  declaration  excluding  matters  relating  to  consumer  and  employment 
contracts could be justified by the need to ensure high-level protection of weaker parties. 
However,  as  European  judgments  concerning  the  excluded  matters  would  not  be 
enforceable  in  other  Contracting  States,  a  special  caution  was  recommended  when 
considering  the  possible  declaration.  Moreover,  the  exclusion  of  consumer  and 
employment matters from the application of the Convention would restrict considerably 
the  scope  of  the  Convention  and  limit  its  impact  for  citizens.  With  regard  to  insurance 
matters, a contribution emphasised the low level of relevance of the Convention for the 
industry, which could  justify an exclusion from  scope. However, the same contribution 
stated  that,  if  insurance  matters  are  not  excluded,  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  EU 
acquis in the Brussels Ia Regulation should be taken into account. 

Finally, it was recommended to exercise utmost vigilance towards a proper application of 
Article  7  of  the  Convention,  which  reduces  the  grounds  for  refusal  of  recognition  to  a 
minimum.  It  was  also  proposed  to  take  advantage  of  Article  29  of  the  Convention138, 
which  provides  for  the  possibility  of  notifying  the  depository  that  ratification  of  the 
Convention  will  exclude  its  application  between  the  notifying  State  and  another 
Contracting State. As a result, the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments 
would not take place with the countries that do not respect procedural rights and rule of 
law.  It  was  also  recommended  to  provide  for  monitoring  tools  to  measure  these 
parameters  in  the  new  Contracting  States.  However,  one  contribution  recognised  the 
difficulties  inherent  in  the  implementation  of  Article  29  pointing  out  the  political  and 
diplomatic consequences of using Article 29 might result in not applying this provision 
when needed.  

138  Article  29  of  the  Judgments  Convention  sets  forth  that  the  Convention  enters  into  force  between  two 
Contracting  Parties  only  in  case  they  do  not  raise  an  objection  against  one  another.  This  specific 
“bilateralisation”  regime  has  been  included  in  the  Convention  to  allow  States  to  exercise  some  level  of 
control  over  their  counterparts  and  avoid  establishing  mutual  treaty  relations  with  certain  Party(ies)  in 
extreme  situations  e.g.  where  mutual  trust  in  their  judicial  system  is  missing.  It  is  possible  to  raise  this 
objection against any other Party in a limited time after one of the Parties joins the Convention. 

54 

 
 
 
                                                           
3.  Consultation activities conducted in the framework of the external study  

The external contractor has conducted numerous consultation activities. The responses to 
the online survey and the input from confidential interviews conducted by the contractor 
were collected in order to find out the attitude of stakeholders towards the EU accession 
to  the  Judgments  Convention  and  their  view  on  the  policy  options.  Additionally,  the 
external  contractor  gathered  views  from  the  Member  States’  authorities  in  a  dedicated 
questionnaire. 

The detailed overview of online survey responses, inputs from interviews and summary 
of responses to the Member States’ authorities questionnaire are included in Annex 7 of 
this Impact Assessment139. 

3.1. Online survey responses and inputs from interviews 

The online survey had a total of 52 respondents out of which 45 were legal professionals. 
91%  of  the  responses  to  the  online  survey  were  from  legal  professionals  from  the  EU. 
The majority of the respondents were bailiffs. The geographical representation of some 
EU Member States in the online survey was rather limited.  

The  external  contractor  had  also  conducted  28  interviews  with  stakeholders  from  EU 
Member States and 6 interviews with stakeholders from third countries. The majority of 
interviewees  were  legal  professionals,  but  multinational  companies,  insurers  and  SMEs 
were also represented.  

Participants in the online survey and interviews shared their experience with international 
litigation.  The  majority  of  the  respondents  to  the  online  survey  were  never  involved  in 
international civil or commercial cases. The vast majority of the respondents to the online 
survey and interviews estimated that the average length of international recognition and 
enforcement proceedings is at least 6 months but in most cases it is longer than one year. 
The respondents also experienced differences in the costs of the proceedings due to the 
discrepancies in fees related to lawyers and courts in each country.  

According  to  96%  of  the  responses  to  the  online  survey  from  legal  professionals,  EU 
Member States do recognise and enforce third-country judgments. The vast majority of 
the respondents has never requested the recognition and enforcement of a third-country 
judgment in the EU. Nevertheless, the respondents with such an experience indicated that 
the main  challenge was  the length  of the proceedings. The minority of the respondents 
indicated  that  the  main  challenge  was  the  cost  of  the  proceedings.  According  to 
interviews,  it  was  estimated  that  the  usual  length  of  the  proceedings  varied  from  6 
months  to  one  year.  No  fixed  charge  for  the  enforcement  of  a  foreign  judgment  was 
indicated,  however  the  overall  costs  estimates  varied  from  EUR  2.000  to  10.000. 
Moreover, the vast majority of the respondents experienced challenges in complying with 

139 See sections 13 and 14 of Annex 7 of the Impact Assessment report on consultation activities conducted 
by the external contractor. 

55 

 
                                                           
different  requirements and procedures  and they  considered the re-litigation of the same 
dispute as problematic.  

The  vast  majority  of  the  respondents  has  never  requested  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  a  European  judgment  in  a  third  country  (including  for  their  client).  A 
slight  majority  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  the  length  of  the  recognition  and 
enforcement proceedings in third countries was excessive with more than six months to 
recognise or enforce a judgment. The average cost of such proceedings was deemed to be 
higher  than  that  for  the  recognition  or  enforcement  of  a  third-country  judgment  in  the 
EU. The vast majority of the respondents has indicated as problematic both the potential 
need  for  re-litigation  as  well  as  the  need  to  comply  with  different  requirements  and 
procedures in third countries.  

Regarding  the  positive  impact  of  the  EU  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention,  the 
majority of the respondents believed that it would outweigh the possible disadvantages. 
In this context, the respondents  to  the online survey indicated that the EU accession to 
the  Judgments  Convention  would  result  in  the  decrease  of  the  length  of  judicial 
proceedings  (40%  of  respondents),  decrease  in  the  number  of  instances  when  a 
third-country judgment is not recognised or enforced (32%) and the reduction of the costs 
of proceedings (25%).  

The  interviewees  indicated  that  the  EU  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention  would 
have a positive impact on enhancing legal certainty (mostly for the countries not being a 
party  to  any  bilateral  agreement  with  a  Member  State),  creating  employment  and  in 
increasing international transactions and trade because of the enhanced certainty in doing 
business  abroad.  The  accession  would  also  indirectly  benefit  consumers  because  of  the 
increase  in  competition  through  international  trade.  The  interviewees  were  equally 
divided between those that believed that there would be a positive impact on the cost and 
length of the proceeding and those that did not expect a decrease in costs and length of 
proceedings as a result of the EU accession to the Judgments Convention.  

According  to  the  respondents  to  the  online  survey,  the  EU  accession  to  the  Judgments 
Convention might have a negative impact in creating confusion as some matters covered 
in the Convention fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of EU courts or because there is no 
sufficient  protection  of  the  weaker  parties.  Some  interviewees  raised  their  concern  that 
the EU employment standards might be endangered.  

Moreover, the respondents to the online survey and interviewees shared their opinion on 
the positive impact that the Convention on the recognition and enforcement of judgments 
in third countries. In the online survey the decrease in the length of judicial proceedings 
was  mentioned  (by  one  to  three  months  according  to  the  majority),  as  well  as  the 
reduction in the costs of proceedings (by between 10 and 30% according to the majority). 

The respondents  presented their views  on  acceding to  the Judgments Convention while 
making a declaration under Article 18 of the Convention. The vast majority believes that 
the  EU  should  accede  to  the  Convention  without  making  a  declaration  excluding 

56 

 
consumer, employment and insurance matters in order to ensure the better protection for 
weaker parties. Some discrepancies arose regarding commercial tenancies of immovable 
properties  situated  in  the  EU.  The  respondents  to  the  online  survey  believe  that  those 
matters  should  not  be  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  convention  while  interviewees 
favoured  their  exclusion  as  immovable  property  rights  are  often  excluded  from  other 
international conventions.  

The  vast  majority  of  respondents  believes  that  the  EU  should  accede  to  the  Judgments 
Convention  without  making  a  declaration  under  Article  19  with  respect  to  judgments 
involving a State or a State entity. Interviewees also believe that a declaration with regard 
to  Article  19  would  be  detrimental  to  the  purpose  of  the  Convention.  However,  some 
interviewees  stated  that  in  the  future  there  should  be  declarations  under  Article  29 
towards  certain  potential  Contracting  States  where  fundamental  rights,  due  process  and 
independence of the judiciary are not fully guaranteed. 

3.2. Summary of responses to our Member States’ authorities questionnaire 

The questionnaire was completed by 17 EU Member States’ authorities140. The majority 
of the Member States’ authorities assessed the number of third-country judgments which 
are  recognised  and  enforced  in  their  countries  as  more  than  100  per  year  (47%  of  the 
respondents)  or  between  0  and  25  per  year  (18%  respondents).  Only  very  few 
respondents  (6%)  indicated  that  there  are  no  third-country  judgments  recognised  or 
enforced in their country. A slight majority of the respondents shared that the evolution 
of the number of judgments was rather negative during the last five years.  

Moreover, the majority  of the respondents  stated  that there is  a challenge or a problem 
because  of  the  lack  of  a  comprehensive  treaty  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
foreign  judgments.  The  Member  States  included  among  these  problems  and  challenges 
the fact that the same dispute might be litigated in two different states (32%), potential 
contradictory  judgments  issued  by  two  different  states  (25%),  excessive  length  of 
proceedings (18%) and costly proceedings for businesses and consumers (11%).  

In  the  vast  majority  of  the  Member  States  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
third-country judgments was in the past. Only 6 % of the respondents claimed that they 
never experienced such a situation. The grounds for refusal were related to the rights of 
the  parties  that  have  not  been  observed  during  the  foreign  proceedings  (36%)  and 
concerned the fact that the third-country judgment was against national or EU principles 
(21%). The rest of the respondents provided additional reasons for refusing to recognise 
and enforce a third-country judgment, such as the lack of reciprocity, formalities and lack 
of documentation. 

Among  the  potential  benefits  from  the  EU’s  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention 
national authorities included increase of legal certainty (37%), decrease of the number of 

140 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, 
Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden.  

57 

 
                                                           
instances where third-country judgments are not recognised and enforced (21%), increase 
of the speed of the judicial proceedings (13%) and reduction of costs of the proceedings 
(10%).  The  other  respondents  indicated  other  positive  impacts  such  as  better  access  to 
justice and wider recognition of judgments.  

At  the  same  time,  some  respondents  to  the  national  questionnaire  believed  that  the  EU 
accession to the Judgments Convention might have certain negative impacts, for instance 
creating  confusion  as  some  matters  are  covered  both  by  the  Convention  and  EU  legal 
instruments (45%), or by creating administrative burden ad due to the lack of protection 
for  weaker  parties.  However,  the  respondents  that  identified  potential  negative  impacts 
were also of the opinion that the benefits of accession outweigh the drawbacks. The vast 
majority  of  the  respondents  did  not  know  which  environmental  impacts  the  EU’s 
accession to the Convention would entail. 

The vast majority of the respondents to the national questionnaire was of the opinion that 
the  current  resources  of  their  administration  were  sufficient  to  implement  the 
Convention. 

4.  Workshop with the Member States 

On  8  December  2020,  the  European  Commission  organised  a  workshop  with  the  EU 
Member  States  on  the  possible  EU  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention.  This 
workshop was devoted to discussing the available policy options. During the workshop, 
the following policy options were discussed with the Member States: no accession to the 
Judgments  Convention  (Option  0),  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention  without 
making  any  declaration  (Option  1a),  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention  with  a 
declaration  under  Article  18  (Option  1b)  and  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention 
excluding State entities from the application of the Convention under Article 19 (Option 
1c).  About  half  of  the  Member  States  shared  their  preliminary  views  on  the  policy 
options. 

4.1. Option 0: No Accession of the EU to the Judgments Convention 

This  option  assumed  that  the  EU  will  not  accede  to  the  Judgment  Convention,  and 
therefore, the current status quo would continue. Member States agreed that in a view of 
the EU’s active involvement in the negotiation process and the level of preservation of its 
policy interests in the final text of the Convention, this option should be treated rather as 
a benchmark scenario.  

4.2. Option  1a:  Accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention  without  making  any 

declaration 

The opinions expressed on this policy option were rather divided. Several Member States 
indicated  that  they  would  like  to  access  the  Judgments  Convention  without  any 
declarations.  The  concern  was  raised  that  after  entering  any  declaration,  national  law 
would continue to apply for the excluded matters and reciprocity in mutual acceptance of 
judgments  with  other  Contracting  parties  might  not  be  ensured.  Some  of  the  Member 

58 

 
States stated that at this stage it was too early to state a final position on the necessity of 
any  declaration.  The  concern  of  possible  inconsistency  with  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation 
was  also  raised.  Therefore,  some  of  the  Member  States  wanted  to  further  examine  the 
possibility  to  make  declarations  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  future  accession  to  the 
Judgments Conventions is consistent with the Brussels Ia Regulation.  

There were also Member States which indicated a possibility to introduce a declaration at 
a  later  stage,  while  being  a  party  to  the  Convention,  which  means  that  it  would  not  be 
necessary to make a declaration upon accession. 

4.3. Option  1b:  Accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention  with  a  declaration 

under Article 18 

The declaration under Article 18 permits excluding from the scope of application of the 
Convention  certain  matters  reflecting  the  EU’s  policy  objective  of  protecting  weaker 
parties: consumers, employees and, in matters relating to insurance, the policyholder, the 
insured or/and the beneficiary. This declaration also permits excluding from the scope of 
the  Convention  judgments  relating  to  tenancies  or  commercial  leases  of  immovable 
property, a matter for which courts in the EU have exclusive jurisdiction. 

The  Member  States’  general  approach  was  against  excluding  matters  related  to 
consumers and employees as the protection of consumers and employees is sufficient in 
the Convention. Those that intervened believed that consumers and employees would not 
be  negatively  impacted  by  the  Convention.  Only  one  Member  State  expressed  its 
preliminary concern regarding the protection of employees as the weaker parties in tort 
litigation. 

The  Member  States  did  not  have  strong  views  regarding  a  possible  declaration  under 
Article  18  excluding  insurance  matters  from  the  scope  of  Convention.  Some  of  the 
Member States did not express great interest for entering such a declaration. However, a 
number of the Member  States raised the point of consistency with  the Choice of Court 
Convention, where a declaration excluding matters related to insurance from the scope of 
the  Convention  was  made.  In  that  regard,  it  was  mentioned  that  the  existence  of  the 
declaration under the Choice of Court Convention does not necessarily mean that such a 
declaration is needed also for the Judgments Convention. 

With  regard  to  a  possible  declaration  under  Article  18  excluding  judgments  relating  to 
tenancies or commercial leases of immovable property, the Member States did not share 
a  clear  tendency  towards  one  approach.  However,  several  Member  States  expressed  a 
preliminary interest in adopting this declaration. Concerns regarding the consistency with 
the  exclusive  jurisdiction  on  these  matters  under  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  were  also 
raised during the discussion.  

59 

 
 
 
4.4. Option 1c: Accession to the Judgments Convention excluding State  entities 

from the application of the Convention under Article 19 

All  Member  States  that  expressed  their  position  on  this  matter  were  not  in  favour  of 
introducing  a  declaration  under  Article  19.  Some  Member  States  also  stated  that  the 
Judgments Convention is consistent with the Brussels Ia Regulation when a state acts as 
a private party. 

60 

 
 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

1. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

1.1. Member States public authorities 

The implementation of the Convention in the Member States is expected to create some 
one-off  expenditures.  These  costs  relate  to  compliance  measures  or  for  instance  to 
training  of  members  of  the  judiciary  or  other  legal  professionals.  At  the  same  time,  in 
most cases it is expected that Member States would not need additional resources for the 
implementation of the Convention. 

In addition, as the Convention will bring about an increase in the number of third-country 
judgments  that  will  be  brought  for  recognition  and  enforcement  before  courts  in  the 
European  Union,  there  will  be  a  marginal  increase  in  costs  for  the  judicial  systems. 
However, it is expected that these costs will be offset in the medium and longer term by 
the expected decrease in the length of proceedings.    

1.2. EU businesses 

There are no costs that are foreseen for EU businesses. However, EU businesses stand to 
benefit  from  the  Convention  because  of  improved  access  to  justice  and  the  increased 
legal  certainty  and  predictability  in  international  dealings.  These  benefits  will  apply 
differently depending on whether the business is large or can be classified as a small and 
medium-sized  enterprise  (SME).  It  should  be  noticed  that  these  benefits  would  not 
materialise for cases related to commercial leases of immovable property, as this matter 
will be excluded. However, since the number of these particular cases is rather small, the 
impact on businesses of such a declaration will be marginal. 

1.2.1 Large businesses 

While large businesses will benefit overall from the Convention because of the reasons 
mentioned above, these benefits will be slightly lower in this case because, if involved in 
a  legal  dispute,  such  businesses  tend  to  prefer  arbitration  rather  than  court  litigation. 
However,  to  the  extent  that  court  litigation  is  used,  these  benefits  will  be  present.  It  is 
also  to  be  expected  that,  because  of  the  improved  access  to  justice  in  international 
litigation,  some  large  businesses  will  prefer  court  litigation  instead  of  arbitration,  for 
instance  because  of  the  lower  costs.  If  this  happens  then  the  expected  lower  costs  for 
recognition and enforcement of judgments in a non-EU country, as well as the decrease 
in the length of such proceedings, will have an impact also on large businesses. Finally, 
because the Convention will essentially lower the costs of doing business internationally, 
it is expected that the global competiveness of large EU businesses will improve.   

1.2.2. SMEs 

SMEs  involved  in  international  dealings  are  expected  to  benefit  directly  from  the 
improved  access  to  justice  and  increased  legal  certainty  and  predictability,  as  well  as 
from lower costs and shorter length of proceedings when litigating internationally. These 

61 

 
lower costs mean that the global competitiveness of EU SMEs will increase, in particular 
compared to SMEs from countries that did not ratify the Convention.   

Indirectly,  other  SMEs  could  profit  from  the  Convention  because  the  positive  impacts 
mentioned  above  might  provide  an  extra  incentive  to  engage  in  international  dealings, 
thereby opening new markets.    

1.3. EU citizens 

Citizens  involved  in  international  dealings,  for  instance  private  individuals  involved  in 
trade or investment activities outside the EU, would benefit from the Convention in the 
same way as SMEs. On the other hand, EU consumers would have improved access to 
justice  as  they  will  be  able  to  have  European  judgments  given  against  non-EU  traders 
recognised and enforced in the State where that trader happens to have assets. The same 
is  true  for  employees  where  they  will  be  able  to  enforce  such  judgments  where  the 
employer  happens  to  have  assets.  Finally,  the  projected  increase  in  international  trade, 
including due to more trade opportunities for non-EU businesses trading in the EU, will 
indirectly benefit the consumers because of the increase in competition.   

2.  SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

Table 7: Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

for  EU 
costs 
Reduced 
businesses and citizens when 
seeking  to  have  a  European 
recognised  and 
judgment 
another 
enforced 
Contracting State 

in 

length 
for 

of 
Shorter 
proceedings 
EU 
businesses and citizens when 
seeking  to  have  a  European 
recognised  and 
judgment 
enforced 
another 
Contracting State 

in 

Amount 

Direct benefits 

Comments 

EUR 1.1 to 2.6 Million 

By 3 to 6 months 

During  the  reference  period  (2022-2026)  a 
decrease  of  10-20%  of  costs  related  to  the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  European 
judgments  in  the  selected  third  countries  is 
expected to occur in each case, bringing the 
total to the amount presented in the left row. 

The  current  average  length  of  proceedings 
for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
third  countries 
European 
ranges  between  9  to  23  months  and  is  thus 
expected to decrease by 3 to 6 months. 

judgments 

in 

Improved access to justice, 
increased legal certainty and 
predictability in international 
dealings 

An  improved  and  more  predictable  regime  for 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  European 
judgments in other Contracting States.  
Likewise,  the  current  system  will  improve  in 
many EU Member States.  

Non quantifiable 
Beneficiaries: EU businesses and citizens 
Businesses and citizens from outside the EU 
will  also  benefit  from  an  improved  system 
for 
of 
and 
third-country  judgments  in  many  Member 
States 

enforcement 

recognition 

Increase 
trade and investment 

in 

international 

Between 0.3% and 1.6% 

Indirect benefits 

For  the  reference  period  (2022-2026)  trade 
in  goods  and  services  as  well  as  foreign 
direct  investment  with  the  selected  third 
countries is expected to increase with figures 
of between 0.3% and 1.6%.  

62 

 
Beneficiaries: Mostly businesses engaged in 
in  international  trade  and  investment  but 
to  ultimately 
indirect  benefits  expected 
translate  in  improved  economic  growth  and 
job creation  

Non quantifiable 
Beneficiaries: EU businesses and citizens 

Judgments  from  outside  the 
EU  will  be  recognised  and 
enforced only where they are 
in line with EU fundamental 
principles  and  respect  the 
EU acquis 

As the recognition and enforcement of judgments 
under  the  Convention  is  subject  to  a  number  of 
refusal  grounds  and  depends  on  the  jurisdiction 
assumed  by  the  court  of  origin,  third-country 
judgments  will  only  gain 
recognition  and 
enforcement  if  in  line  with  EU  fundamental 
principles and acquis.  
The  declaration  excluding  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  third-country  judgments  that 
(tenancies)  of 
ruled  on  commercial 
immovable  property  situated  in  the  EU  ensures 
full  compliance  with  the  acquis  (the  Brussels  Ia 
Regulation) 

leases 

Table 8: Overview of costs – Preferred option 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Implemen-
tation of the 
Convention   

Direct costs 

Indirect costs 

Application 
of the 
Convention   

Direct costs 

Indirect costs 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Negligible 

Negligible 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Negligible 

Negligible 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

1. SOURCES, EVIDENCE & VALIDATION OF THE RESULTS 

To  conduct  this  impact  assessment  and  gather  evidence,  relevant  data  and  information 
were collected from the following sources: 

1.1. Study by an external contractor 

The  data  presented  in  the  Impact  Assessment  are  largely  based  on  a  study  by  an 
external contractor (“Study by an external contractor”, “Study”) commissioned by DG 
JUST141.  In  particular,  the  external  contractor  provided  the  calculations  and  qualitative 
and quantitative data and estimates used in the Impact Assessment.  

The Study by an external contractor used the following sources to inform the conclusions 
and calculations included in the Study:  

a.  Desk research at national, EU, and international level 

Among others, the following sources were consulted to collect relevant data: 

a.  Statistical sources; 

- 

e.g.  Eurostat  data;  DG  Trade  Statistical  Guide  2019;  WTO 
statistics on evolution of trade;  Economist  Intelligence Unit; Data 
by International Data Corporation; Forrester Research; “How big is 
the  EU  Economy?”  statistics;  The  EU  Justice  Scoreboard  (2013-
2019) and related factsheets. 

b.  National and EU-level legislation; 
c.  Relevant  international  conventions  and  explanatory  reports  thereto, 
preparatory  working  documents  from  the  negotiations,  minutes  of  the 
negotiations; 
d.  Academic sources; 
e.  Other documents 

- e.g. Multilaw: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Guide. 

b.  National reports on each Member State 
c.  Input  from  all  consultation  activities,  i.e.  online  survey,  national  authorities 

questionnaire and interviews at the EU level and the national level142  

d.  Validation workshops with EU and third-country legal experts  

Two validation workshops (one with EU stakeholders and one with third-country 
experts) have been organised to discuss, correct and validate key assumptions and 
estimates related to the impacts of the Convention which were developed on the 
basis of existing data143. 

Data  analysis  was  started  during  the  data  collection  phase,  combining  qualitative  and 
quantitative  methods.  Following  the  analysis  of  all  qualitative  and  quantitative  data 

141  Deloitte.  (2021).  Study  supporting  the  preparation  of  an  impact  assessment  on  the  potential  EU 
accession to the 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or 
Commercial Matters – Final Report. Relevant parts of the Study are included as Annex 7 of this Impact 
Assessment. 
142 As to which, see Annex 2 of this Impact Assessment.  
143 For details about the validation workshop, see Annex 2 of this Impact Assessment. 

64 

 
 
 
                                                           
collected, using a combination of methodologies, the evidence was systematically cross-
checked and triangulated to ensure the internal coherence of the Study. First, the impacts 
of the options were assessed, including costs and benefits.  

Figure 2: Overview of data collection tools used in the Study by external contractor 

Source: Study by an external contractor 

1.2. Additional sources of data  

The  conclusions  from  the  Study  by  an  external  contractor  were  then  enhanced  by  the 
results from the other consultation activities conducted by DG JUST – the open public 
consultation, workshop with the Member States and targeted consultations144. Moreover, 
the knowledge acquired and materials produced in the course of the negotiations of the 
Judgments Convention were utilized. 

As a result, the results of the impact assessment fed the comparison of the policy options 
via multi-criteria analysis. 

1.3. Validation of the results 

Apart from the validation workshops held by the contractor, the Impact Assessment with 
its  conclusions  has  been  validated  by  the  Inter-service  Group  of  the  European 
Commission consisting of 15 Commission’s Directorate-Generals and services. 

144 As to which, see Annex 2 of this Impact Assessment.  

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.  METHODOLOGY USED IN THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

2.1 Methodology  used  for  the  estimation  of  the  number  of  civil  and 

commercial judgments 

Since many countries do not systematically collect data on the number of proceedings for 
the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments with which their courts are seised, 
estimations  had  to  be  made.  The  current  number  of  judgments  circulating  between  the 
EU  and  third  states  was  estimated  based  on  the  desk  research,  national  databases, 
interviews with legal professionals, survey etc.  

1.  Baseline scenario: It was then forecasted that the number of cases under the baseline 
scenario  will  continue  growing  yearly  following  the  forecasted  growth  in  trade  in 
goods145. 

  The calculation: estimated number of yearly cases in 2020 times the yearly 
forecasted growth in trade in goods until 2026 in the baseline scenario; 

2.  Policy  option  1a:  estimated  number  of  yearly  cases  in  2020  times  the  yearly 

forecasted growth in trade in goods until 2026 in policy option 1a;  

3.  Policy  option  1b:  estimated  number  of  yearly  cases  in  2020  times  the  yearly 
forecasted growth in trade in goods until 2026 in policy option 1b, with a correction 
of an assumed -5% applied overall to account for cases falling outside of the scope 
of the Convention due to Article 18 declarations;  

4.  Policy  option  1c:  estimated  number  of  yearly  cases  in  2020  times  the  yearly 
forecasted growth in trade in goods until 2026 in policy option 1c, with a correction 
of an assumed -5% applied for Argentina and Brazil and -10% for China to account 
for  cases  falling  outside  of  the  scope  of  the  Convention  due  to  Article  19 
declarations; 

5.  Policy  option  1d:  estimated  number  of  yearly  cases  in  2020  times  the  yearly 
forecasted  growth  in  trade  in  goods  until  2026  in  policy  option  1d,  with  the 
combined corrections applied for policy options 1b and 1c.  

To consult the detailed estimates of the number of civil and commercial judgments, see 
Annex 7. 

2.2 Methodology  to  assess 

impacts  of  the  Convention  on  the 

legal 

environment of the Member States 

Based  on  the  impact  described  for  each  Member  State  in  the  National  Reports,  the 
national  legal  systems  were  assessed  as  to  their  openness  towards  third-country 
judgments.  This  has  been  done  by  comparing  the  grounds  for  recognition  and 
enforcement (Articles 5 and 6 of the Judgments Convention) and grounds for refusal of 
foreign  judgments  in  the  Convention  (Article  7)  with  those  under  national  law  of  each 
Member State.  

Based  on  number  of  instances  where  a  judgment  would  be  refused  under  national  law 
while  it  would  have  to  be  recognised  and  enforced  under  the  Convention,  the  Member 
States  were  divided  into  three  groups  -  those  with  liberal  approach  (the  most  open  to 

145 For the forecast of the trade growth see section 2.4 of this Annex. 

66 

 
 
                                                           
third-country judgments), those with less liberal and those with restrictive approach. See 
the Table 1 on p. 26146.  

To consult  the detailed results of the assessment  of impacts  that the Convention would 
have on the legal environment of the Member States, see Annex 7. 

2.3 Methodology used for the estimation of the length of the proceedings for 
the  recognition  and  enforcement  and  of  the  spending  and  savings  on 
cases 

The underlying assumption is that all cases create undue costs and delays that are partly 
solved by the Convention.  

The current average cost and length of procedure for the recognition and enforcement of 
foreign judgments differ per country and were estimated based on consultation activities 
and  desk  research.  For  countries  where  limited  data  was  available,  the  estimates  were 
extrapolated. 

For  the  details  about  the  length  of  the  recognition  and  enforcement  procedure  per 
country, see Annex 7. Notably, when assessing the average length of proceedings, it was 
distinguished  between  contested  and  uncontested  cases  since  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of contested cases may be more cumbersome and thus lengthier. 

With regard to the spending and saving on cases, the calculation was made using two 
main elements:  

- 

the estimated cost of proceedings, based on three main cost elements 

o  court fees; 
o 
lawyer fees; 
o  other fees.  

- 

the estimated number of cases (see above).  

For the cost of proceedings, the court fees were based on data collected (see  Annex 7). 
The lawyer fees were based on previous studies for EU countries147 and on desk research 
for  the  selected  third  countries  based  on  an  assumed  80  hours  of  lawyer’s  work  for  an 
average  case.  For  other  fees  a  flat  average  was  taken  based  on  previous  impact 
assessments148.  For  cases  related  to  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  third-country 
judgments in the EU, an EU-wide average was taken of these elements.  

The  estimated  total  spending  is  based  on  the  average  cost  of  proceedings  times  the 
number of cases in a given year under a given policy option. In the minimum scenario, a 
decrease in cost of proceedings of 10% is applied for those cases falling under the scope 
of  the  Convention,  whereas  under  the  maximum  scenario  a  decrease  in  cost  of 
proceedings of 20% is applied for those cases falling under the scope of the Convention.  

146  Table  1:  On  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  third-country  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial 
matters based on the current national rules of the Member States.  
147 European Commission. (2006). Study on the Transparency of Costs of Civil Judicial Proceedings in the 
European Union. Data on lawyer fees dates back to 2006, however these amounts were corrected on the 
basis of yearly and Member State-level inflation rates as well as exchange rates for those Member States 
that are not part of the Eurozone, or that have only acceded to the Eurozone after 2007. 
148 European Commission. (2010).  Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments 
in civil and commercial matters (Recast). 

67 

 
 
                                                           
For the detailed calculation of the estimated spending and saving on cases per country in 
both minimum and maximum scenario, see Annex 7. 

2.4 Methodology  behind 

the 

calculation  and 

estimates 

regarding 

macroeconomic impacts on trade and FDI 

The  macro-economic  perspective  refers 
the  EU 
(non-)accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention.  Hence,  the  macro-economic  perspective 
does not account for impacts on a Member State-level. 

the  EU-level 

impacts  of 

to 

2.4.1. Calculation of the baseline 

In  order  to  determine  the  relevant  (corrected)  baseline  for  the  impact  assessment,  the 
uncorrected baseline forecast for the years 2020-2026 was developed as a first step.  

The uncorrected baseline scenario uses official data from Eurostat as the primary source, 
complemented  by  the  databases  from  the  OECD,  the  International  Monetary  Fund  and 
the Economist Intelligence Unit in case no Eurostat data was available. The data for the 
years  2020-2026  was  extrapolated  by  using  a  compounded  average  growth  rate 
(“CAGR”) which was obtained from the growth rates of the previous years. This method 
accounts for path-dependent trends in data and the respective economic circumstances.  

For the previous years, the respective average yearly exchange rate from USD into EUR 
provided by OECD data was applied. For the years 2020-2026, a constant exchange rate 
of  0,896  EUR/USD  was  assumed,  which  is  the  average  exchange  for  the  year  2020  as 
forecasted by OECD statistics.  

For  the  baseline  scenario,  three  indicators  were  used  in  order  to  forecast  the  trade 
relations  of  the  European  Union  with  the  eight  selected  countries,  i.e.  Argentina, 
Australia,  Brazil,  Canada,  China,  Japan,  South  Korea  and  the  United  States.  Those 
indicators are: 

trade in goods (export and import);  
trade in services (export and import); and  

- 
- 
-  Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) (inward and outward stock). 

All  forecasts  refer  to  the  EU  Member  States,  meaning  that  the  share  of  the  United 
Kingdom was subtracted when calculating the extrapolations.  

a.  Calculation of the uncorrected baseline  

Box 4: Indicators used for the calculation of the baseline 

Trade in goods (both export and import) 
The  first  indicator,  trade  in  goods,  should  be  understood  as  a  measure  of  the  value  and 
quantity of goods traded by the EU Member States. “Goods” refers to all movable property 
including electricity and is defined as set out in the European legislation. The data source for 
the extrapolation are the figures provided by Eurostat149, which refer to the amount of goods’ 
imports and exports of the EU with a respective third country.  

Trade in services (both export and import) 

149 Eurostat. (2020). International trade in goods - Overview.  

68 

 
  
 
                                                           
The  second  indicator,  trade  in  services,  should  be  understood  as  the  value  of  services 
exchanged between residents and non-residents of an economy, including services provided 
through foreign affiliates established abroad. The data of the import and export of services of 
the EU in relation to its selected third countries were obtained from the OECD statistics150. 
As this indicator is measured in million USD, the OECD annual exchange rates were applied 
for  the  previous  years.  With  the  values  of  the  previous  years,  the  CAGR  was  determined 
which was then used for the extrapolation to the years 2020-2026.  

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) (both inward and outward) 
The third indicator, the inward and outward Foreign Direct Investment stocks, measures the 
total level of direct investment at a given point in time. According to the OECD definition151, 
the  outward  FDI  stock  is  the  value  of  the  resident  investors’  equity  in  and  net  loans  to 
enterprises  in  foreign  economies.  The  inward  FDI  stock  is  the  value  of  foreign  investors’ 
equity in and net loans to enterprises resident in the reporting economy.  

FDI statistics in the EU are collected in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 184/2005. The 
methodological framework used is that of the OECD benchmark definition of foreign direct 
investment which provides a detailed operational definition that is fully consistent with the 
standards  of  International  Monetary  Fund  (“IMF”).  Although  different  data  sets  have  been 
used due to lack of availability, the data themselves are consistent. OECD data is expressed 
in  millions  USD.  Therefore,  the  respective  average  annual  exchange  rate  USD/EUR  was 
applied to transpose the data.  

The data for the OECD states Australia, Canada, South Korea, Japan, and the United States 
were  mainly  collected  from  the  OECD  International  Direct  Investment  Statistics  report152. 
FDI  stock  data  for  Brazil  and  China  was  partly  available  in  a  report  published  by  the 
European  Commission153.  Data  for  FDI  stocks  between  EU  Member  States  and  Argentina 
were  only  available  for  2018.  Therefore,  the  data  was  complemented  with  Economist 
Intelligence  Unit  data  that  included  the  total  share  of  inward  and  outward  FDI  stocks  in 
Argentina. Using this data, the share of inward and outward FDI stocks of the EU Member 
States was determined.  

Based on the above methodology, baseline estimations for the trade and FDI between the 
EU  and  the  selected  third  countries  were  calculated.  The  detailed  calculations  are 
presented in Annex 7 of this Impact Assessment. 

b.  Calculation of the corrected baseline 

As  a  next  step,  the  following  three  corrections  were  introduced  into  the  baseline  to 
capture only the trade flows and investments which are relevant for the macro-economic 
analysis:  

  The share of intra-firm trade in goods and services was deducted;  
  The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on trade was considered; and  
  The share of phantom investment in foreign direct investment was deducted.  

150 OECD Data. (2020). Trade in services. 
151 OECD Data. (2020). FDI stocks.  
152 OECD. (2019). OECD International Direct Investment Statistics 2009-2018.  
153 European Commission. (2016). Foreign direct investment between the European Union and BRIC.  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
i.  Corrections for intra-firm trade in goods and services 

Given the topic of the impact  assessment, intra-firm  trade154 in  goods and services  was 
deducted from the overall trade volume. Indeed, companies are expected to resolve their 
disputes from intra-firm trade with their own internal conflict-resolution mechanisms. As 
a result, it is highly unlikely that such transactions would lead to international litigation. 
Therefore,  the  mechanism  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments 
provided by the Judgments  Convention would typically not  be used in  intra-firm  trade. 
Furthermore,  through  intra-firm  trade,  firms  are,  to  different  degrees,  vertically 
integrated. This vertical integration reduces uncertainty and supports a faster mitigation 
of adverse effects such as negative demand shocks or rising trade costs155. 

In  order  to  determine  the  degree  of  intra-firm  trade,  a  qualitative  analysis  of  relevant 
literature  (such  as  in-depth  studies  and  meta-studies  of  the  WTO  and  OECD)  was 
conducted.  In  addition,  quantitative  indicators  which  account  for  direct  investments 
between fellow enterprises were used156. To the extent that data is available, the literature 
suggests that on average 30% of exports and 25% of imports are intra-firm trade between 
OECD  countries157.  This  observation  is  consistent  with  the  finding  that  closer  trade 
relations induce a higher share of intra-firm trade. The goods that account for the largest 
share of intra-firm trade are chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and electronics 
– all intermediate products with a rather intensive margin158. Another observation is that 
trade costs reduce the propensity of firms to engage in intra-firm trade and trade costs are 
generally higher for more distant economies159.  

The main share of intra-firm trade is allocated between parties which operate mainly in 
the EU and the US160. Japan and South Korea have less intra-firm trade shares with the 
EU as these economies focus more on regional markets and mutual linguistic and cultural 
barriers exist. Intra-firm transactions are also more common among OECD countries than 
mong emerging economies161. The share of intra-firm trade in services is lower than the 
share of intra-firm trade of goods162. 

Given these findings and observations, it was assumed that the shares of the EU trade in 
goods and services with third countries were as follows: 

154  Trade  between  affiliated  firms,  subsidies  or  other  firms  which  are  legally  affiliated  and  based  in  two 
different countries. 
155 Lanz, R., Miroudot S. (2011). Intra-firm trade: Patterns, determinants and Policy implications. OECD 
Policy Papers, No. 114, OECD Publishing.  
156 The indicators are provided by the International Monetary Fund.  
157  Siedschlag,  I.,  Studnicka  Z.  (2017).  Determinants  of  Intra-firm  Trade:  Evidence  from  a  Small  Open 
European Economy.  
158 Ibid.  
159 Lanz, R., Miroudot S. Intra-firm trade: Patterns, determinants and Policy implications. Ibid. 
160 Ibid. 
161 Ibid. 
162 In the US, 22% of imports and 26% of exports in 2008 were related to intra-firm trade in services, but 
there  is  evidence  that  this  share  has  slightly  increased  until  2020.  See  Siedschlag,  I.,  Studnicka  Z.. 
Determinants of Intra-firm Trade: Evidence from a Small Open European Economy. Ibid. 

70 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 3: Shares of intra-firm trade in goods and services between the EU and third countries 

OECD / 
non-OECD 

Country 

EU goods 

EU services 

Import (%) 

Export (%) 

Import (%) 

Export (%) 

OECD 

Australia 

Canada 

Japan 

South Korea 

USA 

Non-OECD 

Argentina 

Brazil 

China 

25 

25 

15 

15 

30 

15 

15 

20 

Source: Study by an external contractor 

30 

30 

20 

20 

40 

20 

20 

25 

20 

22 

10 

10 

25 

15 

15 

15 

22 

25 

15 

15 

25 

20 

20 

20 

To achieve the corrected baseline on trade in goods and services, the above shares were 
subtracted from the statistics on trade in goods and services in both exports and imports 
with the respective third countries. 

ii.  Corrections related to the Covid-19 pandemic 

For the years 2020 and 2021, a correction relating to Covid-19 was added into the model. 
As  the  pandemic  is  still  ongoing,  this  correction  had  to  be  based  on  estimations  and 
forecasts of the economic impacts of the pandemic (as available in November 2020)163.  

The sources used for the estimations and forecasts expect a decline in trade with goods 
and services for the year 2020, a partial recovery with positive growth rates in 2021, and 
from  2022 until  2026, trade in  goods  and services is  expected to  return to their normal 
growth rates. The assumptions behind these transmission channels  are as follows: First, 
due to  the closures  of factories and the persisting uncertainty a negative demand shock 
takes  place.  Second,  this  negative  demand  shock  increases  international  trade  costs  of 
imports  and  exports.  The  cost  increase  depends,  among  others,  on  additional 
expectations,  the  share  of  reduced  working  hours,  border  closures  and  the  level  of 
increase  in  transport  costs164.  Third,  a  sharp  drop  in  international  tourism  takes  place, 
implying a consumption shock and a sharp drop in exports of tourism services of around 
20-32%  at  a  global  level165.  Fourth,  at  the  household  level,  fewer  services  that  require 
close  human  interaction  such  as  mass  transport,  domestic  tourism  or  restaurants  are 
requested.  This,  in  consequence,  implies  a  drop  and  reallocation  of  demand  across 
sectors.  

163  The  estimations  and  forecasts  are  taken  from  academic  literature  as  well  as  from  OECD,  Eurostat, 
WTO, IMF and World Bank. 
164  A  recent  World  Bank  Working  Paper  estimated  the  rise  in  average  trade  costs  in  both  imports  and 
exports to 25%. See: Maliszewska M., Mattoo A., can der Mensbrugghe D. (2020). The Potential Impact of 
COVID-19 on GDP and Trade – A Preliminary Assessment. Policy Research Working Paper 9211. World 
Bank Group. 
165 Ibid.  

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
For  the  purposes  of  this  Impact  Assessment  a  rather  realistic  scenario  was  used166 
whereby the drops in demand, the rise in trade costs, the reallocation of demand across 
sectors  and  the  loss  of  competitiveness  would  result  in  a  decline  of  total  exports  and 
imports in  2020, the decline would persist in 2020 and in  the first quarter of 2021  and 
would then convert into positive growth rates in 2021167. It was also assumed that a trade 
reduction would be less severe where stable and intense trade relations exist.  

The respective average export growth rates for the selected third countries were assumed 
to be the same as for the EU. This subtraction was made due to a lack of export growth 
data  with  the  EU,  and  generally  accounts  for  the  general  situation  in  trade  and  the 
percentage reductions of each third country.  

iii.  Corrections  for  phantom  investments  in  Foreign  Direct  Investment 

(FDI) 

Macro-economic  statistics  on  FDI  are  often  blurred  by  offshore  centres  which  have 
significant  inward  and  outward  investment  positions.  This  so-called  “phantom  FDI”  is 
not  about  real  economic  integration,  as  it  hardly  reflects  productive  assets  in  the 
respective economy. More likely, the main share of the investment passes through certain 
countries without being invested in these countries168.  

According  to  a  study  conducted  by  researchers  aligned  to  the  IMF169,  out  of  USD  40 
trillion total FDI in 2017, USD 15 trillion (37.5%) were phantom investments. This share 
of phantom FDI has been growing since in 2009 it accounted only for 30%.  

Based on  a methodology which estimates the decomposition  of total  FDI  into real  FDI 
and phantom FDI (thereby attributing the real FDI to the ultimate owner and the sources 
of  the  total  FDI  to  the  ultimate  investor  economy),  the  IMF  researchers  were  able  to 
disentangle  the  share  of  the  phantom  FDI  from  the  total  FDI  per  country170.  Ten  small 
economies  account  for  37.5%  of  global  FDI  although  their  combined  share  of  global 
GDP is only around 3%. These 10 economies are The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Hong 
Kong SAR, Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland, Bermuda, the British Virgin Island, and the 
Cayman Islands.  

166 Bekkers E., Keck A., Koopman R., Nee C., all from the Economic Research and Statistics Division of 
the World Trade Organization. (2020). Methodology for the WTO Trade Forecast of April 8 2020.  
167  The  growth  rates  for  2020  and  2021  follow  largely  the  recent  forecasts  (November  2020)  by  the 
Economist  Intelligence  Unit.  For  2022-2026,  the  growth  rates  between  the  EU  and  the  respective  third 
country refer to the forecasted bilateral growth rates in trade according to Eurostat and OECD. 
168 Moreover, it can be deduced that international civil and commercial litigation is rare when it comes to 
phantom FDI. 
169  Damgaard,  J.,  Elkjaer,  T.,  Johannesen  N.  (2019).  What  Is  Real  and  What  Is  Not  in  the  Global  FDI 
Network? Working Paper No. 19/274 of the International Monetary Fund. p. 4 ff. 
170 The conclusions in the study were based on official IMF CDIS statistics, OECD FDI Statistics and the 
global  firm  database  Orbis.  Further,  countries’  self-declarations  regarding  inward  and  outward  stocks  of 
FDI were considered. Ibid. p. 7 ff. 

72 

 
                                                           
Further, most phantom FDI is concentrated in economies involved in the tax planning of 
multinational  enterprises.171,172  Luxembourg  and  The  Netherlands  each  host  more  than 
USD 3 trillion of phantom investments173, whereas Hong Kong SAR, the British Virgin 
Islands, Bermuda, Singapore, the Cayman Islands, and Ireland each account for USD 0.5-
1 trillion. These 10 countries account for 85% of the phantom investment worldwide174. 

To calculate the corrected baseline, the share of phantom investment was deducted from 
the total FDI attributable to the EU and (if applicable) to the selected third countries. For 
the  EU,  this  is  the  phantom  investment  in  The  Netherlands  (USD  3.3  trillion), 
Luxembourg (USD 3.8 trillion) and Ireland (around USD 0.5-0.7 trillion) which amounts 
in total to about USD 7.7 trillion. This sum was subtracted from the total share of the EU 
FDI inward stock which leads to the amount of the real FDI inward stock in the EU.  

Since it is currently not possible to allocate the shares of phantom FDI to the countries of 
origin,  it  was  assumed  that  each  selected  third  country  has  the  same  share  of  phantom 
FDI in the EU inward stocks. This share is assumed to be equal to the share of phantom 
investments  in  the  EU  total  inward  FDI  stocks  and  amounts  to  40.88%.  Consequently, 
the share of real FDI of each of the third countries into the EU is 59.02%. Therefore, the 
inward  FDI  stocks  of  the  selected  third  countries  to  the  EU  were  adjusted  to  their 
baseline value multiplied with the factor 0.5902. 

According to the study, the eight selected third countries  - Australia, Argentina, Brazil, 
Canada,  China,  Japan,  South  Korea,  and  the  US  -  are  no  significant  destinations  of 
phantom investment because the ratio of real FDI and total FDI inward stocks is near to 
1175. Hence, it was assumed that the share of phantom investment is negligible in these 
eight countries and no corrections were thus applied. 

2.4.2. Calculation of the macroeconomic impacts of the policy options  

a.  General assumptions about the policy options as compared to 

the corrected baseline 

Regarding all policy options, it is assumed that the EU will accede to the Convention in 
2021 and that the Convention will become effective in 2022. It is also assumed that the 
third countries under consideration (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, 
South Korea and the United States) will also all join the Convention in 2021 which then 
will become effective in 2022 between the EU and these countries.  

As the Convention would have positive effect on enhancing legal certainty of companies 
by providing a clear legal framework for the enforcement of judgments, it is assumed that 

171 Jones,  C., Temouri Y. (2016).  The determinants of tax haven FDI. Journal of World Business. 51(2). 
p. 237-250. 
172  Gumpert,  A.,  Hines,  J.R.,  Schnitzer  M.  (2016).  Multinational  Firms  and  Tax  Havens.  Review  of 
Economics and Statistics. 98(4). p. 713-727.  
173 Luxembourg has around USD 3.8 trillion in FDI, Netherlands around USD 3.3 trillion. 
174  Damgaard,  J.,  Elkjaer, T.,  Johannesen  N.  (2019).  The  Rise  of  Phantom  Investments.  Empty  corporate 
shells in tax havens undermine tax collection in advanced, emerging market, and developing economies.  
175 Darmgaard J. et al. What Is Real and What Is Not in the Global FDI Network? (Ibid.), p. 35-50. 

73 

 
                                                           
its  application  would  result  in  attracting  more  trade  and  FDI  between  its  Contracting 
Parties. Moreover, general assumptions of international trade literature on bilateral trade 
patterns  were  applied,  namely:  the  effects  of  agreements  on  trade  are  weaker  for  more 
distant  economies  and  for  trade  partners  where  a  high  level  of  ex  ante  trade  frictions 
exist176.  Economies  with  already  high  trade  volumes  and  intense  and  stable  relations 
where substantial levels of legal certainty exist are also likely to be less impacted by such 
agreements177.  This  can  be  applied  by  analogy  to  the  Judgments  Convention  to  some 
extent  since  unlike  the  Judgments  Convention,  free  trade  agreements  also  include 
provisions on regulatory standards, health, safety rules, investment, banking and finance, 
intellectual property and many other subjects. They therefore have a substantially greater 
scope  and  macro-economic  impact  in  comparison  to  the  Convention.  Hence,  only  a 
fraction of these positive macro-economic impacts can be expected with the accession to 
the Judgments Convention.  

In order to determine these impacts, several estimates and projections from different free 
trade agreements were compared to determine a range of possible impacts under different 
scenarios. Then, the share on the macro-economic impact related to the improvement of 
regulations and enforcement and legal certainty was estimated and compared in terms of 
scope and characteristics to the Judgments Convention. With this procedure, the potential 
macro-economic impact of the different policy options could be projected as compared to 
the corrected baseline scenario. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  these  estimations  and  ranges  are  not  empirically  tested  and 
should therefore be interpreted with caution.  

b.  Policy option 1a: Accession to the Judgments Convention with 

no declarations 

Policy option 1a foresees the accession of the EU to the Judgments Convention without 
any  declaration.  The  macro-economic  effect  with  all  third  countries  is  expected  to  be 
positive  under  this  policy  option.  As  the  scope  of  the  Convention  would  be  fully 
applicable in this scenario, the highest macro-economic impact out of all policy options 
as compared to the baseline is expected to be achieved.  

The macro-economic impact is expected to be largest in EU exports to China, Brazil and 
Argentina as in these countries, the difference with the EU with regard to legal certainty 
was highest. The trade volume is also expected to increase with Australia. Here, due to 
clearer  regulations  regarding  foreign  judgments,  a  significant  improvement  in  reducing 
the complexity of the access to Australian courts can be achieved. Due to their distance 
to  the  EU,  the  exports  to  Japan  and  South  Korea  will  be  impacted  to  a  slightly  lesser 

176 See Baier, S.L., Yotov, Y.V., Zylkin T. (2019). On the widely differing effects of free trade agreements: 
Lessons from twenty years of trade integration. Journal of International Economics. Vol. 116. p. 206-226. 
See  Ludema,  R.D.,  Mayda  A.M.  (2011).  Do  terms-of-trade  effects  matter  for  trade  agreements?  Theory 
and evidence from WTO Countries.  
177  See  Ibid.  and  in:  Mattoo,  A.,  Mulabdic,  A.,  Ruta  M.  (2017).  Trade  Creation  and  Trade  Diversion  in 
Deep Agreements. Policy Research Working Paper No. 8206 of the World Bank. 

74 

 
                                                           
extent. As the US has the closest trade relations with the EU and legal certainty exists to 
a  higher  degree  in  mutual  relations,  only  a  slightly  positive  macro-economic  impact  is 
expected as compared to the baseline. 

In a general tendency, the macro-economic impact is expected to be larger when it comes 
to  the  trade  with  goods  as  compared  to  the  trade  in  services  since  most  litigation  is 
related to trade in goods. However, this difference is expected to be negligibly small (see 
Table 9: Total increases  (in %) in 2026 as compared to the corrected baseline). Further 
factors  such  as  the  particular  sector  of  trade,  the  general  economic  situation  and  other 
economic circumstances obviously also contribute to overall variation.  

Out  of  the  three  indicators,  FDI  will  be  the  least  impacted  under  policy  option  1a 
(percentagewise).  This  is  based  on  the  observation  above  that  FDI  stocks  are  generally 
less impacted by agreements concerning trade relations178.  

c.  Policy Option 1b: Accession to the Judgments Convention with 

declaration(s) under Article 18 

Under policy option 1b, no macro-economic effect is expected for the matters excluded 
by  the  declaration(s),  as  the  status  quo  remains  for  these  specific  matters.  The  general 
reasoning is that the greater the share of the matters under an Article 18 declaration, the 
smaller the macro-economic increase will be.  

According  to  statements  from  experts  during  validation  workshops,  the  matters  under 
Article  18  are  rarely  subjects  of  foreign  judgments  and  if  so,  they  are  judgments 
concerning trade in goods.  

Given the small number of judgments that would be affected by each declaration under 
Article 18, the costs and benefits of  the preferred option were not calculated separately 
from other declarations under Article 18. To differentiate the macro-economic impacts of 
each of the conceivable declarations under Article 18 would be challenging because the 
changes will be negligibly small. Instead, it was assumed that trade in goods will still be 
positively impacted as compared to the baseline, but to a slightly lesser extent (-0.1%) as 
compared to policy option 1a. For trade in services and FDI stocks, the macro-economic 
impact is expected to stay the same as under the policy option 1a (since trade in services 
and FDI stocks will generally not be affected by declarations under Article 18).  

In  fact,  the  occurrence  of  judgments  on  commercial  leases  (tenancies)  of  immovable 
property given in a state where the property is not situated is rather rare. Therefore, the 
number  of  judgments  excluded  from  scope  by  virtue  of  a  declaration  concerning 
commercial leases (tenancies) of immovable property situated in the EU would be very 
limited. The macroeconomic impacts of the preferred option would thus be more or less 
similar as those of policy option 1a.  

178  Petri,  P.A.,  Plummer  M.G.  (2016).  The  Economic  Effects  of  the  Trans-Pacific  Partnership:  New 
Estimates. Peterson Institute for International Economics. Working Paper Series 16-2.  

75 

 
                                                           
d.  Policy option 1c: Accession to the Judgments Convention with 

a declaration under Article 19 

Under  policy  option  1c,  the  macro-economic  impacts  would  depend  on  the  respective 
third country. EU trade and investment with third countries which have higher degrees of 
involvement of state entities in economic activities will be more affected by the possible 
declaration. This specifically applies for third countries with strict regulations regarding 
trade and/or little liberalization. Under this policy option, EU trade and investment with 
China  and  to  a  lower  extent  with  Brazil  and  Argentina  will  be  affected.  In  these 
countries, the state entities are more involved in civil and commercial matters and these 
activities would be excluded from the Convention under the policy option 1c.  

In macro-economic terms, this was still expressed in a positive impact as compared to the 
baseline,  but  lower  impact  as  compared  to  policy  option  1a,  in  particular  -0.3%  for 
Argentina, Brazil and China for trade in goods and services and -0.2% for FDI stocks. As 
policy option 1c is not relevant for the remaining five selected third countries, the macro-
economic impact under this option will be the same as for policy option 1a. 

e.  Policy option 1d: Accession to the Judgments Convention with 

declarations under Article 19 and Article 18 

It  is  foreseen  under  the  policy  option  1d  that  the  EU  would  accede  to  the  Judgments 
Convention with declarations both under Article 18 and 19. The effects of policy options 
1b  and  1c  will  therefore  add  up  for  EU  trade  and  investment  with  the  selected  third 
countries. 

2.4.3. Overview of the macroeconomic impacts of all policy options 

It was assumed that the effects of the Judgments Convention will evolve over years under 
all policy scenarios. Therefore, a linear percentage increase in the effect of the different 
policy  options  was  assumed.  In  2022,  the  first  year  after  the  EU  accession  to  the 
Convention, a 20% increase with regard to the overall increase is reached, in 2023 40%, 
in  2024  60%,  in  2025  80%  and  in  2026  100%  of  the  overall  increase  is  reached.  The 
increases as compared to the corrected baseline are as follows: 

Table 9: Total increases (in %) in 2026 as compared to the corrected baseline 

Policy options, total % increase (2022-2026) 

Policy option 1a  
(no declaration) 

Goods 
Services 
FDI 

Policy  option  1b  (declaration 
under Article 18) 

Goods 
Services 
FDI 

Policy  option  1c  (declaration 
under Article 19) 

Goods 
Services 
FDI 

AR 

1.5 
1.3 
0.4 

AR 

1.4 
1.3 
0.3 

AR 

1.2 
1.1 
0.2 

AU 

1.2. 
1.2 
0.4 

AU 

1.1 
1.2 
0.3 

AU 

1.2 
1.2 
0.4 

BR 

1.5 
1.6 
0.5 

BR 

1.4 
1.6 
0.4 

BR 

1.2 
1.3 
0.3 

76 

CA  

CN 

JP  

1.5 
1.1 
0.2 

CA 

1.4 
1.1 
0.15 

CA 

1.5 
1.1 
0.2 

1 
1.6 
0.5 

CN 

0.9 
1.6 
0.4 

CN 

0.7 
1.3 
0.3 

1 
1 
1 

JP 

0.9 
1 
0.9 

JP 

1 
1 
1 

KR 

1 
1 
0.2 

KR 

0.9 
1 
0.15 

KR 

1 
1 
0.2 

US 

1 
0.9 
0.3 

US 

0.9 
0.9 
0.2 

US 

1 
0.9 
0.3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy  option  1d  (declaration 
under both Article 18 and 19) 

Goods 
Services 
FDI 

AR 

1.2 
1 
0.2 

AU 

1.1 
1.2 
0.3 

BR 

1.2 
1.3 
0.3 

CA 

1.4 
1.1 
0.15 

CN 

0.7 
1.3 
0.3 

JP 

0.9 
1 
0.9 

KR 

0.9 
1 
0.15 

US 

0.9 
0.9 
0.2 

Source: Study by an external contractor 

2.5 Methodology behind the calculation of indirect impacts on businesses  

After  the  calculation  of  the  macroeconomic  impacts,  the  micro-economic  analysis 
measured sectoral and indirect impacts, such as impacts on companies and SMEs across 
the supply chain, which are affected indirectly by trade flows.  

Input-Output (“IO”) tables and models are widely used in the context of classic economic 
impact analysis179,  180. Using classic IO analysis or  IO models, it is possible to quantify 
the effects of economic activities along the value chain - upstream. With the help of the 
input-output analysis, the intermediate goods incorporated in the production process can 
be allocated between different sectors of the economy, i.e. the supply links between the 
individual sectors can be shown. 

The  basic  input-output  table/coefficients  aggregated  for  the  EU  used  are  provided  by 
Eurostat for the reference  year 2019. Data provided by Eurostat includes further output 
multipliers (the “Inverse matrix”) for domestic production. Applying these tables within 
a  simple  static  IO  model  for  comparative-static  impact  (scenario)  analysis  the  indirect 
impacts  were  calculated  with  regard  to  exports  of  goods  and  services,  which  constitute 
part of the final demand. This model allows to measure the economic activities related to 
the exports of goods and services, in terms of the demand created in supplier (upstream) 
industries. Inter-industry linkages reflected in the IO tables allow the basic calculation of 
how many resources and e.g. workers  are required in  upstream  industries to  generate  a 
specified  value  of  a  company’s  production.  With  the  help  of  this  input-output  model, 
statements can be made about direct and indirect effects based on exogenous changes in 
demand.  As  main  indicators,  production  value  and  gross  value  added  have  been 
considered.  The  following  methodological  steps  have  been  conducted  to  calculate  the 
impact on the indicators: 

-  As a first step, detailed sectoral statistical data provided by Eurostat on the trade 
of goods and services (exports) between the EU and the selected third countries 

179  Input-output  tables  in  general  describe  the  production  structure  of  an  economy  (covering  several 
economies/regions  in  the  case  of  a  multi-regional-input-output  table).  The  input-output  table  (matrix) 
represents  the  economic  activities  (output)  of  the  economy  with  production  sectors  (primary,  secondary 
and  tertiary  sectors)  and  categories  of  final  demand  (consumption,  investment)  in  columns.  The 
corresponding  intermediate  inputs  of  these  activities/sectors  and  their  primary  inputs  (values  added 
composed of wages and salaries, operating surplus) are reported in the rows of the matrix. Consequently, 
the  columns  of  the  input-output  table  represent  the  cost  structure  of  a  sector  (“input”)  and  the 
corresponding rows the composition of its revenues (“output”). 
180 This Input-Output model/analysis is not the central model within the analysis for the estimation of direct 
impacts, but only used as a complementary analysis for estimating the indirect impacts. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
has  been  collected.  Trade  data  is  provided  on  a  detailed  sectoral  product  level. 
This data has been mapped with the nomenclature of the input-output tables. 
-  A  primary  application  of  the  model  is  assigning  production  factors  to  the  final 
demand  of  goods.  In  the  context  of  our  impact  analysis,  the  change  in  final 
demand due to the exports is under consideration. Therefore, in the next step, the 
vector of final demand (exports) of each of the countries under consideration has 
been  multiplied  with  the  Input-Output  Leontief  inverse  to  calculate  the  entire 
production necessary for the production process  of these exports. The allocation 
of production factors to the final demand is calculated with the Leontief inverse, 
and gives the total production output involved in producing the output associated 
with the exports. As a result, output multipliers have been obtained. 

-  Then, linking the coefficients for gross value added to these output values enables 

the calculation of the impact of the exports in focus. 

The output multipliers and GVA-ratios (Gross value added) calculated  are presented in 
the table below. 

 Table 10: Output and gross value added multipliers 

Source: Study by an external contractor 

It  can  be  noticed,  that  the  output  multipliers  –  as  well  as  the  ratios  of  GVA  per 
production  value  –  differ  only  slightly  between  the  countries  in  focus,  but  show 
differences  between  the  export  of  goods  and  the  exports  of  services.  Based  on  the 
multipliers  and  GVA-ratios,  the  indirect  and  total  impact  has  been  calculated  for  all 
scenarios (the baseline and the different policy options).  

Since  the  static  IO  model,  used  here  to  determine  the  indirect  effects,  is  applied  and 
constant  technological  structure  over  time  is  assumed,  the  differences  over  time  and 
between  different  scenarios  follow  a  linear  relationship.  However,  the  simple  static 
model  to  assess  the  indirect  effects  was  chosen  in  order  to  estimate  and  compare  the 
magnitude of the impact, rather than to make a scientific forecast of future developments.  
The aim is to estimate a magnitude of indirect impacts (SMEs and production affected), 
but without presenting a sectoral breakdown. The IO model and analysis is only used to 
determine the indirect impacts.  

In  a  last  step,  structural  business  statistics  provided  by  Eurostat  were  analysed  with 
regard to the share of SMEs in the production along the supply chain. Unfortunately, this 
data  is  not  fully  available  on  a  corresponding  disaggregated  (sectoral)  level.  However, 
the share of SMEs with regard to the overall number of enterprises in the EU, as well as 
the  share  in  the  corresponding  production  value  and  gross  value  added  have  been 

78 

MultipliersIndicatorExport\ countryARAUBRCACNJPKRUSOutput multiplierGoods2.115     2.148     2.125     2.126     2.137     2.136     2.150     2.096     Services1.769     1.768     1.815     1.773     1.750     1.759     1.779     1.787     GVA directGoods33.1%   33.1%   32.6%   32.2%   33.1%   33.3%   32.9%   33.7%   Services50.0%   49.9%   47.0%   50.3%   51.4%   50.8%   50.2%   49.9%   GVA multiplierGoods2.393     2.443     2.427     2.450     2.422     2.425     2.447     2.358     Services1.705     1.720     1.793     1.717     1.676     1.710     1.720     1.746      
 
calculated. The ratios obtained have been used to estimate the share of SMEs included in 
the indirect impact of the exports in focus. The results with regard to the share of SMEs 
are presented in section 7 of Annex 7. 

Section  7  of  Annex  7  also  details  the  microeconomic  impacts  (quantitative  estimates 
concerning  the  indirectly  impacted  businesses  across  the  supply  chain)  of  each  of  the 
policy options. 

2.6 Methodology  behind  the  estimations  of  cost  savings  for  EU  businesses 

and consumers 

The  costs  and  benefits  for  EU  businesses  and  citizens  under  each  policy  option 
demonstrated  in  the  report  are  based  as  the  overall  savings  by  these  EU  parties  on 
recognition of European judgments in selected third countries over the reference period 
2022-2026. 

These overall savings by the EU parties were calculated by taking into account: 

- 

- 

the projected increase in international trade and thus the corresponding increase in 
the number of judgments (see the methodology above) and 
spending  on  recognition  and  enforcement  proceedings  per  case  in  each  of  the 
selected third countries (detailed data on this spending is included in Section 10 
of Annex 7). 

The  estimated  total  spending  on  judgments  over  the  reference  period  is  based  on  the 
average cost of recognition and enforcement proceedings in each third country times the 
number of cases in that country in a given year under each policy option. With regard to 
the  policy  option  1b  (declaration  under  Article  18),  the  costs  and  benefits  were 
considered for all the declarations under Article  18 together given the small number of 
judgments that would be affected by each of the declarations. 

In the minimum  scenario, a decrease in  cost  of  proceedings of 10% is  applied to  those 
cases falling within the scope of the Convention, whereas under the maximum scenario a 
decrease in  cost  of  proceedings of 20% is  applied. This  percentage of cost  reduction is 
based on the online survey  conducted by the contractor, as  corrected by  experts during 
the validation workshop. 

Section  11  of  Annex  7  includes  the  detailed  calculations  of  the  total  savings  by  EU 
companies and citizens under each of the policy options.  

However, it should be noted that the estimates of the outgoing European judgments may 
be undercounted in the report since statistics on the number of judgments recognised and 
enforced  in  third  countries  are  not  readily  available.  Therefore,  it  is  likely  that  the 
estimated benefits for EU business and citizens are also undercounted.  

Sensitivity analysis in  Annex 6 illustrates how these total savings would change should 
one of the selected third countries (the United States) not join the Judgments Convention.  

79 

 
ANNEX 5: ANALYSIS OF THE POSSIBLE DECLARATIONS  

UNDER ARTICLES 18 AND 19 OF THE CONVENTION 

AS TO THEIR DESIRABILITY AND THEIR LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 

Among others, the Convention allows its Contracting Parties to make a declaration excluding 
from the scope of the Convention judgments with respect to specific subject matters (Article 
18 of the Convention, policy option 1b) and judgments pertaining to a State (Article 19 of the 
Convention, policy option 1c).  

Notably,  these  declarations  under  Articles  18  and  19  apply  in  a  reciprocal  manner.  They 
allow  the  declaring  state  not  to  recognise  and  enforce  certain  judgments  under  the 
Convention but in turn, such judgments given in the declaring state would also not circulate 
in other Contracting States under the Convention.  

1. GENERAL APPROACH TO DECLARATIONS 

A  declaration  pursuant  to  Articles  18  and/or  19  should  only  be  made  where  a  state  has  a 
strong  interest  in  not  applying  the  Convention  to  a  specific  matter181  and  it  should  be  no 
broader  than  necessary182.  Indeed,  the  more  judgments  are  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the 
Convention  by  means  of  a  declaration,  the  less  added  value  the  Convention  will  bring  as 
compared to the current status quo.  

The EU has actively participated in the negotiations of the Judgments Convention for many 
years.  During  the  negotiations,  the  EU  has  advocated  for  a  Convention  with  the  widest 
possible  scope  which  would  make  a  difference  to  the  current  status  quo.  The  Judgments 
Convention as it currently stands reflects in most cases the EU’s policy interests.  

It should be also highlighted that many Member States currently have more liberal systems 
for the acceptance of foreign judgments as compared to most third countries assessed in this 
study. It is thus in the EU’s general interest that the Convention applies as widely as possible 
in order to improve the current acceptance of European judgments in third countries. 

Finally,  the  more  declarations  there  are,  the  more  complex  the  legal  framework  of  the 
Convention  becomes  for  legal  practitioners,  businesses,  and  individuals.  Moreover,  as  it 
would  ultimately  be  national  courts  to  interpret  the  declaration(s),  inconsistencies  may 
emerge  in  the  interpretation  since  there  is  no  supreme  judicial  authority  ensure  uniform 
interpretation183. 

Two  approaches  are  conceivable  when  a  declaration  is  considered.  The  declarations  can  be 
made  at  the  time  of  acceding  to  the  Convention  or  at  any  time  thereafter.  The  declaration 
could thus:  

181Article 18(1) of the Judgments Convention.  
182 Articles 18(1) and 19(1) of the Judgments Convention. 
183 Even though the Convention sets forth that uniform interpretation should be promoted (in Article 20). 

80 

 
 
                                                           
-  be made and later modified or withdrawn when it is no longer needed; or  
-  only be made when a need emerges from the practical application of the Convention. 

Given  the  reasons  above,  the  general  approach  to  declarations  should  be  that  the  EU  will 
make  a  declaration  only  where  it  is  deemed  strictly  necessary.  In  case  the  practical 
operation of the Convention would warrant additional declarations excluding certain types of 
judgments  from  the  scope  of  the  Convention,  these  declarations  could  be  made  at  a  later 
stage.  

2.  POLICY  OPTION  1B  -  THE  UNION  WOULD  ACCEDE  TO  THE  JUDGMENTS  CONVENTION 
WITH DECLARATION(S) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONVENTION 

Article 18 allows the Contracting States not to apply the Convention with respect to certain 
specific  matters,  and  thereby  to  extend  the  list  of  matters  already  excluded  from  scope  by 
Article 2 of the Convention.  

The following declarations excluding the following matters would be assessed:  

  Certain matters reflecting the EU’s policy objective of protecting weaker parties:  

o  consumers; and/or 
o  employees; and/or 
o 

in  matters  relating  to  insurance,  the  policyholder,  the  insured  or  the 
beneficiary;  

and/or 

  Judgments  relating  to  tenancies  or  commercial  leases  of  immovable  property,  a 

matter for which courts in the EU have exclusive jurisdiction. 

The reason behind the contemplated exclusions from the scope of the Convention is that the 
rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Convention differ from 
those in the Brussels Ia Regulation.  

Taking into consideration that both the Judgments Convention and the Brussels Ia Regulation 
have a different scope of application184, there is no direct overlap between these instruments 
with regard to the matters where the EU’s policy objective is to protect weaker parties. For 
these  matters,  the  contradiction  between  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  and  the  Judgments 
Convention  is  thus  limited  to  policy,  in  other  words  whether  judgments  given  in  a  third 
country,  where  jurisdiction  was  based  on  a  different  ground  than  what  is  considered 
acceptable in the EU, should be recognised and enforced in the EU under the Convention.  

184 The  Brussels Ia  Regulation  applies to the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments 
between  the  EU  Member  States  and  the  Judgments  Convention  applies  in  relation  to  third  countries.  If  the 
European  Union  accedes  to  the  Judgments  Convention,  the  Convention  will  not  affect  the  application  of  the 
internal  EU  rules  on  the recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  among  the  EU  Member  States,  nor  the 
application  of  the  Lugano  Convention  or  other  bilateral  Conventions  that  the  Member  States  may  have  with 
third countries. (See Article 23 (3) and (4) of the Judgments Convention).  

81 

 
 
                                                           
Therefore,  when  acceding  to  the  Judgments  Convention,  the  EU  could  use  the  declarations 
under Article 18 and exclude (some of) those matters from the application of the Convention.  

2.1 Declarations to protect the weaker party 

The  EU’s  policy  objective  to  protect  the  weaker  parties  in  certain  transactions  is  reflected, 
within  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  in  specific  jurisdiction  rules  that  aim  at  protecting  the 
weaker parties. Such specific jurisdiction rules are provided in Chapter 2, Sections 3-5 of the 
Brussels Ia Regulation, namely:  

- 
- 
- 

in Articles 10-16 with regard to matters of insurance; 
in Articles 17-19 with regard to consumer matters; and 
in Articles 20-23 with regard to individual employment contracts. 

Recognition  and  enforcement  may  be  refused  where  judgments  were  made  by  a  court  of  a 
Member State which lacked jurisdiction under the afore-mentioned provisions185. 

By  contrast,  the  Judgments  Convention  does  not  provide  any  special  protection  for  the 
weaker  party  in  insurance  matters  and  while  it  provides  protection  for  consumers  and 
employees  (Article  5(2)  of  the  Judgments  Convention),  these  protective  rules  differ 
somewhat from those included in the Brussels Ia Regulation.  

 By way of comparison, when acceding to the Choice of Court Convention, the EU made a 
declaration  on  insurance  matters  and  the  Choice  of  Court  Convention  generally  does  not 
apply to the choice of court agreements in consumer and employment matters186.  

2.1.1  Consumer matters  

The Judgments Convention provides specific protection for consumers insofar that it reduces 
the jurisdictional grounds otherwise available to the parties to a dispute187. Article 5(2) of the 
Convention provides that:  

- 

- 

if  jurisdiction  of  the  court  of  origin  of  the  judgment  was  based  on  consent  of  the 
weaker  party,  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  the  resulting  judgment  is  only 
granted  if  the  consent  was  given  expressly  and  addressed  to  the  court,  orally  or  in 
writing; 
several  indirect  bases  for  jurisdiction  under  the  Convention  are  not  available  in 
consumer cases, namely:  

o  where the consumer defended the case on the merits before the court of origin 
without contesting jurisdiction (Article 5(1)(f) of the Judgments Convention); 

185 See Article 45(1)(e)(i) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. 
186 They are excluded from the scope of the Convention by virtue of Article 2(1) (a) and (b). 
187  On  consumer  protection  under  the  Judgments  Convention  see:  De  Araujo,  N.,  De  Nardi,  M.,  Consumer 
protection under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 67, Issue 
1 (2020).  

82 

 
 
 
                                                           
o 

in  contractual  matters,  where  the  court  based  its  jurisdiction  on  the  place 
where the performance of an obligation took place or should have taken place 
(Article 5(1)(g) of the Judgments Convention); and 

o  where jurisdiction was based on the choice of court agreement. 

This  means  that  the  remaining  available  grounds  of  jurisdiction  are  mostly  those  that  are 
widely acceptable (such as habitual residence) or where there was express submission to the 
jurisdiction of the court of origin.  

Comparison of the Judgments Convention to the Brussels Ia Regulation  

The  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  provides  specific  protection  to  consumers  in  its  Section  4  on 
jurisdiction  over  consumer  matters.  Courts  cannot  base  their  jurisdiction  on  any  other 
grounds than those provided for in that Section.  

This protective regime for consumers as the weaker parties in consumer contracts includes:  

- 

-  As a rule, the consumer can be sued in the court of the place where the consumer is 
domiciled.  The  plaintiff  may  not  rely  on  any  special  jurisdictions  provided  for  in 
Article 7 and 8 of the Regulation (except for Article 7(5)). 
In principle, the Regulation provides to a consumer as the weaker party an alternative 
forum in the place of the consumer’s domicile. The consumers can thus sue not only 
at the domicile of the other party, but also at their own domicile (the so-called “forum 
actoris”). 

-  The  possibility  to  conclude  choice  of  court  agreements  is  limited.  From  the 
jurisdiction rules in consumer matters can generally only be departed by an agreement 
which is either made after the dispute has arisen or which allows the consumer (but 
not  the  other  party)  to  bring  proceedings  in  courts  other  than  those  indicated  in  the 
respective section.  

It is clear from the above that the Judgments Convention and the Brussels Ia Regulation have 
several  commonalities  in  how  they  protect  consumers  in  cross-border  litigation.  However, 
there is one key difference.  

Unlike the Brussels Ia Regulation, Article 5 of the Judgments Convention does not offer an 
alternative forum when consumers act as plaintiffs. If a consumer brings a case to the court, 
the resulting judgment will only be recognised and enforced under the Convention where the 
court of origin based its jurisdiction on one of the grounds in Article 5(1). Forum actoris in 
consumer  matters  is  not  one  of  these  grounds.  The  place  where  the  consumer-plaintiff  is 
domiciled is therefore not acknowledged as a valid ground of jurisdiction under Article 5 of 
the Judgments Convention. 

Of  course,  judgments  that  comply  with  any  other  indirect  jurisdictional  grounds  in  the 
Convention  would  have  to  be  recognised  and  enforced  under  the  Convention.  Remarkably, 
this includes judgments given in the place of performance of a contractual obligation (Article 
5(1)(g) of the Convention). Since the place of performance would very often be the country 

83 

 
 
where a consumer resides, the consumer would be able to sue at a court in a state which is 
also its habitual residence. This could thus partially substitute a forum actoris jurisdiction.  

Box 5: Example illustrating the forum actoris jurisdiction:  

An action for warranty of  a defective product  may be brought by a consumer 
domiciled in Germany against the French seller before the German courts and 
the German judgment has to be recognised and enforced in France under the 
Brussels Ia Regulation.  

By contrast, the German judgment will not be recognised and enforced under 
the  Judgments  Convention  if  the  seller  is  domiciled  in  a  Contracting  State  of 
the  Judgments  Convention  outside  the  European  Union.  Instead,  the  German 
consumer has to bring the action, for example, before the courts of the State of 
the  seller’s  habitual  residence  or  principal  place  of  business  under  Article 
5(1)(a) or (b) of the Convention.  

Aside from  the difference in  the treatment  of  consumers when they are  acting as plaintiffs, 
there  are  several  other  differences  between  the  Judgments  Convention  and  the  Brussels  Ia 
Regulation.  

For instance, the Convention also does not provide a special protection to consumers in tort 
matters. Therefore, judgments in proceedings against a consumer have to be recognised and 
enforced also if given in any of the jurisdictions under Article 5(1). For example, a judgment 
which  ruled  on  a  non-contractual  obligation  arising  from  damage  to  or  loss  of  tangible 
property  is  eligible  for  recognition  and  enforcement  under  the  Judgments  Convention  if 
brought  against  a  consumer  in  the  State  where  the  harm  occurred  (Article  5(1)(j)  of  the 
Convention)188. Under the Brussels Ia Regulation, if the non-contractual obligation is closely 
connected to the consumer contract, such a claim may only be brought by the other party in 
the  place  where  the  consumer  is  domiciled189.  In  general,  however,  this  ground  for 
jurisdiction is limited under the Convention to non-contractual obligations and, in any case, it 
has a restricted reach because it applies only to death, physical injury, damage to or loss of 
tangible property at the place where the act or omission occurred. 

When  it  comes  to  the  choice  of  court  agreements,  the  Judgments  Convention  protects 
consumers even stronger than Article 19 of the Brussel Ia Regulation. As Article 5(2)(b) of 
the  Judgments  Convention  excludes  Article  5(1)(m)  completely  from  the  application  if  the 
action is  brought  against a consumer, such an agreement is  not  a valid basis of jurisdiction 
even  if  it  is  concluded  after  the  dispute  has  arisen  or  if  it  allows  the  consumer  to  bring 
proceedings in courts other than those indicated in Article 5(1). On the other hand, Article 19 
of the Brussels  Ia Regulation considers a choice of courts agreement in these two instances 
acceptable. 

188 The same applies for the situations where the act of omission directly causing harm occurred. 
189 See the CJEU judgment of 13 March 2014, Brogsitter (Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes 
EURL and Karsten Fräßdorf, C-548/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:148). 

84 

 
 
 
                                                           
The  Convention  also  goes  beyond  the  protection  afforded  to  the  consumer  in  Brussels  Ia 
Regulation  in other respects. For example, arguing by the defendant on the merits before the 
court  of  origin  without  contesting  jurisdiction  is  not  a  valid  ground  of  jurisdiction  in 
consumer  cases  under  the  Judgments  Convention190.  Under  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  the 
Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) has adopted a more nuanced view191. 

The concept of “consumer” itself may also not be construed identically under the Judgments 
Convention  and  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation.  In  Article  5(2)  of  the  Judgments  Convention, 
consumer is defined as a “natural person acting primarily for personal, family or household 
purposes”.  By  contrast,  under  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the 
European  Union  has  developed  a  rather  broad  autonomous  concept  of  “consumer”192.  It  is 
thus  questionable  whether  the  concept  of  “consumer”  in  the  Judgments Convention  will  be 
construed in such a wide manner. A difference in the interpretation of the term “consumer” 
between  both  instruments  is  likely  unavoidable  but  it  might  lead  to  some  misconceptions 
among legal professionals when applying the Judgments Convention. 

The Judgments Convention, unlike the Brussels Ia Regulation, also does not specify that the 
other party must be acting in its trade or professional capacity. As the Explanatory Report to 
the  Convention  points  out193,  it  would  have  to  be  determined  by  courts  applying  the 
Convention whether consumer-to-consumer (C2C) contracts are included under Article 5(2). 

In  concluding,  the  Convention  provides  good  protection  for  consumers  in  most  cases. 
Moreover, it is unlikely that the differences listed above would impact a significant number 
of judgments. According to the interviewees, the Judgments Convention is considered mostly 
as  a  B2B  instrument194  with  only  limited  application  to  consumer  matters.  Where  the 
Convention  does  apply  to  consumer  matters,  the  instances  of  discrepancies  between  the 
Brussels Ia Regulation and the Judgments Convention are limited. 

On  the  contrary,  should  the  EU  enter  a  declaration  excluding  consumer  matters  from  the 
scope  of  the  Convention  altogether,  consumers  having  their  habitual  residence  in  the  EU 
would  not  be  able  to  benefit  from  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  under  the 
Convention e.g. in e-commerce cases.  

190 The application of Article 5(1)(f) is excluded in consumer matters by Article 5(2) of the Convention.  
191 See the CJEU judgment Bilas (Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas, 
C-111/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:290) that ruled that court had jurisdiction over a weaker party where the defendant 
entered  an  appearance  and  did  not  contest  that  court’s  jurisdiction  (since  entering  an  appearance  in  that  way 
amounts to a tacit prorogation of jurisdiction). 
192 For instance, it has been extended to investment contracts worth more than EUR 50 million. See the CJEU 
judgment Petruchová (Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Limited, C-208/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:825). 
193 Para. 222 of the Explanatory Report.  
194 Study by an external contractor. Data based on the interviews with legal professionals. 

85 

 
 
                                                           
2.1.2  Employment matters  

The Judgments Convention provides specific protection also  to  employees195 as  the weaker 
parties of the employment contacts (Article 5(2)).  

As  far  as  the  protection  of  weaker  parties  in  employment  matters  is  concerned,  the  legal 
situation corresponds to what has been said for consumer matters. In particular: 

- 

In employment matters, only the judgments given in compliance with Article 5(2) of 
the Judgments Convention will be recognised and enforced under the Convention. 
-  Article 5(2) of the Convention limits the jurisdictional grounds otherwise available to 
the parties to a dispute (e.g. jurisdiction through appearance, jurisdiction at the place 
of performance in contractual matters, consent to the jurisdiction and choice of court 
agreements). Similarly to the consumer matters, there is also no specific protection for 
employees in tort cases.  

-  As a rule, an employee shall be sued in the court of its habitual residence.  
-  On the other hand, the Convention does not allow the employee to sue at its habitual 

residence as is the case with the Brussels Ia Regulation (no forum actoris). 

-  When  it  comes  to  choice  of  court  agreements,  the  Judgments  Convention  protects 
consumers  even  stronger  than  the  Brussel  Ia  Regulation  since  choice  of  court  is 
completely excluded as a ground of jurisdiction. 

However,  while  most  of  the  analysis  made  above  on  the  consumer  matters  applies  also  to 
employment matters, employment matters also have some specificities:  

According  to  Article  45(1)(e)(i)  of  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  judgments  made  in 
proceedings  brought  by  the  employee  have  to  be  recognised  and  enforced  in  the  other 
Member States if jurisdiction is based on:  

- 

- 

the place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work or the last 
place where he did so; or 
if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in one country, on 
the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated. 

The  Judgments  Convention  does  not  include  these  two  specific  indirect  jurisdiction 
grounds  for  employment  matters.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  these  places  do 
often  coincide  with  other  indirect  grounds  for  jurisdiction  in  the  Judgments 
Convention  – e.g. with  the place of the employer’s seat  or habitual  residence of the 
employee, or in torts with the place of the occurrence of a harmful event. 

Moreover,  the  Judgments  Convention  applies  only  in  “matters  relating  to  the  employee’s 
contract  of  employment”.  Consequently,  the  disputes  arising  from  a  collective  bargaining 
agreement  between  the  parties  to  this  agreement  (typically  trade  unions,  or  employees’ 

195  Employment  contracts  are  not  defined  under  the  Convention  but  it  is  clear  from  the  phrase  “contract  of 
employment”  that  paragraph  2  is  intended  to  cover  salaried  workers  at  any  level  and  not  people  carrying  on 
independent professional activity. See para. 223 of the Explanatory Report. 

86 

 
                                                           
representatives on the one hand, and an employer or an association of employers on the other) 
are not covered by this paragraph.  

Further,  as follows from the consultation  activities undertaken in  the context  of this impact 
assessment, in foreign fora judgments may be given in breach of some EU principles and/or 
employees’ rights. According to three interviewees196, a social right that is not duly observed 
in foreign countries is the right to collective bargaining and action197. While this could well 
be  the  reality,  the  problem  is  certainly  less  pertinent  in  this  context  of  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of foreign judgments198.  

However,  the  interviewees  also  noted  that  the  impact  of  the  Convention  on  employment 
matters  would  not  be  significant  and  is  more  theoretical,  especially  when  it  comes  to 
international  disputes  arising  from  collective  bargaining  agreements.  The  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  that  are  manifestly  contrary  to  EU  fundamental  rights 
could be also refused under various refusal grounds in the Convention. 

In  concluding,  the  Convention  provides  good  protection  for  employees  in  most  cases.  It  is 
unlikely  that  the  differences  listed  above  would  impact  a  significant  number  of  judgments. 
According  to  the  interviewees,  the  Judgments  Convention  is  considered  mostly  a  B2B 
instrument199  with  only  limited  application  to  employment  matters.  Where  the  Convention 
does apply, the instances where its application differs from the rules on the recognition and 
enforcement of judgments in employment matters in the EU are limited.  

On the contrary, should the EU enter a declaration excluding the employment matters from 
the scope of the Convention altogether, employees and employers from the EU would not be 
able to benefit from the recognition and enforcement of judgments under the Convention.  

2.1.3 

Insurance matters  

While  the  Judgments  Convention  envisages  a  protective  regime  for  employees  and 
consumers  by  limiting  the  available  grounds  of  jurisdiction,  the  Convention  does  not 
envisage any such regime for the weaker parties in insurance matters - the policyholders, 
the insured or the beneficiaries. 

Should  the  EU  accede  to  the  Judgments  Convention  without  any  declaration  on  insurance 
matters, the circulation of judgments given in third states would be subject to less procedural 

196 Based on the interviews conducted by external contractor. 
197 See the Charter, Article 28: “Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance 
with Union law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at 
the  appropriate  levels  and,  in  cases  of  conflicts  of  interest,  to  take  collective  action  to  defend  their  interests, 
including strike action.” 
198 In case where a worker cannot acquire a title over a claim based on a collective agreement because such an 
agreement  is disregarded, there  will be  no judgment on the  matter to enforce in the EU. In case an employer 
does obtain a judgment against a worker that is based on a breach or denial of the worker’s fundamental right 
(e.g. right to collective bargaining, right to take collective action to defend their interests etc.), the public policy 
refusal ground may be invoked by the requested state.  
199 Based on the interviews conducted by external contractor. 

87 

 
 
                                                           
protection for the weaker parties in insurance matters than similar intra-EU judgments (where 
the Brussels Ia Regulation applies). 

Comparison of the Judgments Convention to the Brussels Ia Regulation  

The Brussels Ia Regulation lays down the jurisdictional grounds specific to insurance matters 
in  its  Section  3  of  the  Chapter  II.  In  matters  related  to  insurance,  it  introduces  specific 
exclusive  jurisdiction  which  derogates  from  the  general  jurisdictional  rules,  thereby 
protecting the weaker party in insurance matters (the insurance policyholder, the insured or a 
beneficiary  domiciled  in  the  EU).  The  special  protective  jurisdictional  regime  consists  of 
three main elements:  

-  (1)  when  insurance  policyholder,  the  insured  or  the  beneficiary  act  as  plaintiffs, 
additional and more favourable bases for jurisdiction are available to them (i.e. the place 
of the claimant’s domicile - the so-called “forum actoris”);  

- (2) when they  are in  the position of defendants,  they may only be sued in  the place of 
their domicile; and 

- (3) the possibility for the parties to enter an agreement on jurisdiction departing from the 
aforementioned  jurisdictional  regime  is  significantly  restricted.  This  applies  both  to  the 
exclusive and non-exclusive choice of court agreements.  

Apart from the matters of jurisdiction, the Brussels Ia Regulation stipulates rules concerning 
the recognition and enforcement of judgments. Pursuant to Article 45(1)(e) of the Regulation, 
the violation of the protective jurisdictional norms can, at the request of any interested party, 
result in a denial of the recognition of a given judgment. 

Conversely, the Judgments Convention does not include any special protection for the weaker 
parties  in  insurance  matters.  Where  the  Judgments  Convention  limits  the  available  grounds 
for jurisdiction in consumer and employment matters only to specific jurisdictional filters, all 
jurisdictional filters apply without limitation in the matters of insurance.  

-  Therefore,  the  weaker  parties  in  insurance  contracts  may  be  sued  abroad  at  the 
habitual  residence  of  the  insurance  company  in  a  third  country  and  the  resulting 
judgment would have to be recognised and enforced under the Judgments Convention.  
-  Moreover, should the weaker party in insurance matters acting as a claimant sue at its 
own  habitual  residence  (forum  actoris),  the  resulting  judgment  would  not  be 
recognised and enforced under the Judgments Convention, unless of course it would 
comply with any other bases in Article 5(1). 

-  Finally,  while  the  Brussels  Ia  limits  party  autonomy  as  regard  the  choice  of  court 
agreement in insurance contracts, under the Judgments Convention, judgments given 
as a result of non-exclusive choice of court agreements are recognised and enforced in 
compliance with Article 5(1)(m) of the Convention without any restriction200. There is 

200 The Judgments Convention applies only in cases of non-exclusive choice of court agreements. The exclusive 
choice of court agreements are excluded from the scope of the Convention since these are governed by another 
instrument - the Choice of Court Convention.  

88 

 
                                                           
thus  no  protection  of  the  weaker  parties  in  insurance  matters  against  the  choice  of 
court agreements made in favour of foreign fora.  

As a consequence, the Member States would be obliged under the Convention to recognise 
and  enforce  judgments  from  third  states  where  the  insurance  policyholder,  the  insured  or 
beneficiary may have been less protected than if the same proceedings happened in the EU. 

However, it should be noted that the weaker parties in insurance matters could enjoy special 
protection under the Judgments Convention if they qualified as consumers (Article 5(2) of the 
Convention  and  the  explanations  in  2.1.1.  above).  Indeed,  even  though  the  Brussels  Ia 
Regulation  affords  special  protection  to  all  insurance  policyholders,  the  insured  and 
beneficiaries  (even  if  they  are  the  largest  corporations),  the  “real”  weak  parties  are  often 
consumers201.  Since  the  Judgments  Convention  has  specific  indirect  jurisdiction  rules  for 
consumers in Article 5(2), the lack of protection under the Convention applies only to non-
consumers. 

Moreover,  foreign  insurance  companies  have  to  comply  with  EU  and  national  rules  to 
provide their services in the EU market. To comply with these rules, they are often obliged to 
establish  a  branch  or  permanent  presence  in  an  EU  Member  State.  The  regulation  of 
insurance sector may thus decrease the likelihood that a litigation from an insurance contract 
concluded with an EU weaker party would happen in a third country. 

Box  6:  Example  illustrating  the  difference  between  the  Judgments  Convention 
and EU acquis:  

If  a  Dutch  insurer  brings  an  action  against  a  policyholder  domiciled  in 
Germany  before  the  Dutch  courts  relying  on  a  choice  of  court  agreement 
inserted in the insurance contract and establishing the jurisdiction of the Dutch 
courts, these courts will not accept their jurisdiction because the choice of court 
agreement is invalid according to Article 15 Brussels Ia Regulation. And if the 
Dutch  court  would  not  respect  Article  15  of  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  and 
nevertheless  made  a  decision  it  would  not  be  recognised  and  enforced  in 
Germany under Article 45(1)(e)(i) Brussels Ia Regulation.  

By  contrast,  the  decision  has  to  be  recognised  and  enforced  under  the 
Judgments  Convention  if  the  action  has  been  brought  against  a  German 
policyholder before the court of a Contracting State outside the EU, because the 
choice of court agreement is a valid basis of jurisdiction under the Convention 
even  if  it  is  made  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  policyholder  (unless  the 
policyholder is also a consumer). 

Declaration on insurance matters in the Choice of Court Convention 

The Choice of Court Convention, similarly to the Judgments Convention, does not include a 
special protection for the weaker party in insurance matters. The Choice of Court Convention 

201 The specific jurisdictional rules for insurance matters in the Brussels Ia Regulation come from its predecessor 
– the Brussels Convention. This Convention however did not feature specific rules protecting consumers.  

89 

 
 
                                                           
applies in relation to other Contracting Parties of that Convention in cases  where exclusive 
choice of court agreement was made202. 

When  acceding  to  the  Choice  of  Court  Convention,  the  EU  made  a  declaration  whereby  it 
excluded the application of the Choice of Court Convention to  some judgments concerning 
insurance matters203. These cases include the instances where parallelism with the Brussels Ia 
Regulation could not be ensured and where it was deemed necessary to protect policyholders, 
the insured and beneficiaries as the weaker party to the dispute.  

Since  the  Choice  of  Court  Convention  and  the  Judgments  Convention  are  perceived  as 
complementary  instruments,  the  existence  of  the  declaration  under  the  Choice  of  Court 
Convention  could  be  another  reason  to  consider  similar  declaration  under  the  Judgments 
Convention to ensure consistency.  

On the other hand, when it comes to the Choice of Court Convention, the conflict between 
that Convention and the Brussels Ia Regulation is not limited only to policy considerations (in 
other words to the consideration whether it should be accepted that the policyholders, insured 
or beneficiaries domiciled in the EU would have lower protection under the Convention than 
what is considered acceptable in the EU). Indeed, there is also a  legal overlap between the 
two  instruments.  The  Choice  of  Court  Convention  provides  in  its  Article  26(6),  that  the 
Convention shall not affect the application of the EU rules only where none of the parties is 
resident in a Contracting State that is not a Member State of the European Union. Therefore, 
where one of the parties to the dispute in insurance matters has its residence in the EU and 
other party has its residence in another Contracting Party, the Convention would apply. The 
Brussels Ia Regulation applies in this case as well (e.g. when the insured is domiciled in the 
EU  and  the  insurance  company  in  a  third  state  but  has  its  branch,  agency  or  other 
establishment  in  the  EU204).  Since  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  provides  different  rules  for 
protecting the weaker parties by limiting the possibility to choose a court, the rules applicable 
under the Convention and the Brussels Ia may contradict one another. Therefore, to prevent 
discrepancy between the two instruments,  a declaration was made when  the EU acceded to 
the Choice of Court Convention.  

However,  since  the  Judgments  Convention  does  not  include  direct  rules  on  jurisdiction 
(unlike the Choice of Court Convention), no such direct legal overlap would materialize if 
the  EU  would  accede  to  the  Judgments  Convention  without  any  declaration  on  insurance 
matters. This  difference  is  crucial for the  assessment whether to  make a similar declaration 
when acceding to the Judgments Convention.  

enumerated 

202 The Choice of Court Convention lays down rules on jurisdiction in cases involving exclusive choice of court 
agreements and the rules governing the recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgments.  
203  When  it  comes  to  insurance  matters,  the  EU  applies  the  Choice  of  Court  Convention  only  in  cases 
specifically 
consult: 
https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/notifications/?csid=1044&disp=resdn  or  see  fn. 
205. 
204 Cf. Article 11(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation stipulating that “an insurer who is not domiciled in a Member 
State but has a branch, agency or other establishment in one of the Member States shall, in disputes arising out 
of the operations of the branch, agency or establishment, be deemed to be domiciled in that Member State.” 

declaration. 

declaration, 

please 

see 

the 

the 

To 

in 

90 

 
                                                           
Moreover, as follows from the consultation activities undertaken in the context of this Impact 
Assessment,  it  is  considered  highly  desirable  that  any  possible  declaration  on  insurance 
matters under the Judgments Convention would not be a facsimile to the one made under the 
Choice  of  Court  Convention.  This  is  because  some  interviewees  consider  that  declaration 
incomprehensible205.  

It  can  thus  be  concluded  that  a  declaration  similar  to  the  one  in  the  Choice  of  Court 
Convention is not only unnecessary given the different context but it may also be undesirable 
should it mirror the one in the Choice of Court Convention. Moreover, as explained above, 
the  weaker  parties  in  insurance  matters  that  are  also  consumer  can  rely  on  the  protection 
afforded to consumers by means of Article 5(2) of the Judgments Convention. 

2.2 Declaration to respect rules of EU exclusive jurisdiction  

In its Article 24, the Brussels Ia Regulation affords exclusive jurisdiction to specific courts, 
regardless  of  the  domicile  of  the  parties.  If  any  other  court  is  seised  with  a  claim  that  falls 
within the exclusive jurisdiction of another court, it shall declare of its own motion that it has 

205 The EU declaration made when joining the Choice of Court Convention: 

The objective of this declaration which excludes certain types of insurance contracts from the scope of the Convention is to protect 
certain policyholders, insured parties and beneficiaries who, according to internal EU law, receive special protection. 
1. The European Union declares, in accordance with Article 21 of the Convention, that it will not apply the Convention to insurance 
contracts, except as provided for in paragraph 2 below. 
2. The European Union will apply the Convention to insurance contracts in the following cases: 
(a) where the contract is a reinsurance contract; 
(b) where the choice of court agreement is entered into after the dispute has arisen; 
(c) where, without prejudice to Article 1 (2) of the Convention, the choice of court agreement is concluded between a policyholder 
and an insurer, both of whom are, at the time of the conclusion of the contract of insurance, domiciled or habitually resident in the 
same Contracting State, and that agreement has the effect of conferring jurisdiction on the courts of that State, even if the harmful 
event were to occur abroad, provided that such an agreement is not contrary to the law of that State; 
(d) where the choice of court agreement relates to a contract of insurance which covers one or more of the following risks 
considered to be large risks: 

(i) any loss or damage arising from perils which relate to their use for commercial purposes, of, or to: 

(a) seagoing ships, installations situated offshore or on the high seas or river, canal and lake vessels; 
(b) aircraft; 
(c) railway rolling stock; 

(ii) any loss of or damage to goods in transit or baggage other than passengers' baggage, irrespective of the form of transport; 
(iii) any liability, other than for bodily injury to passengers or loss of or damage to their baggage, arising out of the use or 
operation of: 

(a) ships, installations or vessels as referred to in point (i)(a); 
(b) aircraft, in so far as the law of the Contracting State in which such aircraft are registered does not prohibit choice of 
court agreements regarding the insurance of such risks; 
(c) railway rolling stock; 

(iv) any liability, other than for bodily injury to passengers or loss of or damage to their baggage, for loss or damage caused by 
goods in transit or baggage as referred to in point (ii); 
(v) any financial loss connected with the use or operation of ships, installations, vessels, aircraft or railway rolling stock as 
referred to in point (i), in particular loss of freight or charter-hire; 
(vi) any risk or interest connected with any of the risks referred to in points (i) to (v); 
(vii) any credit risk or suretyship risk where the policy holder is engaged professionally in an industrial or commercial activity or 
in one of the liberal professions and the risk relates to such activity; 
(viii) any other risks where the policy holder carries on a business of a size which exceeds the limits of at least two of the 
following criteria: 

(a) a balance-sheet total of EUR 6,2 million; 
(b) a net turnover of EUR 12,8 million; 
(c) an average number of 250 employees during the financial year. 

91 

 
 
                                                           
 
no jurisdiction. Judgments given in breach of the rules on exclusive jurisdiction should not be 
recognised and enforced between the Member States206.  

2.2.1  Commercial tenancies of immovable property 

In some disputes concerning immovable property, the Judgments Convention recognises that 
the  courts  in  the  State  where  such  immovable  property  is  located  should  have  exclusive 
jurisdiction  to  rule  on  the  matter.  The  obligation  under  the  Convention  to  recognise  and 
enforce judgments thus only materializes in cases where the judgment was given by a court 
having such exclusive jurisdiction.  

However,  with  regard  to  tenancies  of  immovable  property,  the  Convention  affords  such  a 
special  regime  only  where  the  immovable  property  concerned  was  leased  for  residential 
purposes (Article 5(3) of the Judgments Convention)207. 

Comparison of the Judgments Convention to the Brussels Ia Regulation  

In contrast, the Brussels Ia Regulation does not distinguish between tenancies based on their 
purpose  (i.e.  as  residential  tenancies,  commercial  etc.).  According  to  Article  24(1)  of  the 
Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  in  proceedings  which  have  as  their  object  tenancies  of  immovable 
property,  the  courts  of  the  Member  State208  in  which  the  property  is  situated  shall  have 
exclusive jurisdiction (regardless of the domicile of the parties)209.   

There is one exception to this rule. Only in proceedings which have as their object tenancies 
of immovable property concluded for temporary private use for a maximum period of 
six  consecutive  months  (“short-term  tenancies”),  the  courts  of  the  Member  State  in  which 
the  defendant  is  domiciled  shall  also  have  jurisdiction,  provided  that  a  tenant  is  a  natural 
person  and  that  the  landlord  and  the  tenant  are  domiciled  in  the  same  Member  State. 
However,  this  exception  applies  mainly  to  short-term  holiday  rentals  that  are  by  definition 
residential as opposed to commercial tenancies. 

206 Article 45(1)(e)(ii) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. 
207 Residential lease refers to a contract for the use of living accommodation for personal, family or household 
purposes in exchange for rent. See para. 189 of the Explanatory Report.  
208 For the exclusive jurisdiction of Article 24 of Brussels Ia Regulation to apply, the immovable property must 
also be located in one of the EU Member States. This follows from the wording of the Article 24 referring to the 
“courts  of  a  Member  State”.  For  details,  see  also:  Paulus  D.,  Article  24  in:  Europäische  Gerichtsstands-  und 
Vollstreckungsverordnung (Brüssel Ia): Kommentar zur Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1215/2012 (EuGVVO), para. 10, 
p.  431  or  Rauscher  T.,  Europäisches  Zivilprozess-  und  Kollisionsrecht  EuZPR/EuIPIR,  Band  I  (2016) 
Ottoschmidt KG, 4. ed. Art. 24, para. 6 et seq. 
209 As for the reasoning behind this exclusive jurisdiction, see Report by Mr P. Jenard on the Convention of 27 
September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, No C-59/35: 
“The  adoption  of  this  provision  was  dictated  by  the  fact  that  tenancies  of  immovable  property  are  usually 
governed by special legislation which, in view of its complexity, should preferably be applied only by the courts 
of  the  country  in  which  it  is  in  force.  Moreover,  several  States  provide  for  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  such 
proceedings, which is usually conferred on special tribunals.” 

92 

 
 
 
                                                           
According to Article 45(1)(e)(ii) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, judgments given in the other 
Member  States  in  violation  of  the  jurisdiction  rules  in  Article  24  of  the  Regulation  are 
excluded  from  recognition  and  enforcement  if  the  party  against  whom  recognition  or 
enforcement is sought raises this matter. 

The  rules  of  the  Judgments  Convention  on  the  lease  or  tenancy  of  immovable  property 
display  some  similarities  with  Article  24(1)  of  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation.  Under  the 
Convention,  residential  tenancies  also  enjoy  exclusive  jurisdiction  at  the  place  where  the 
immovable property is situated, the level of protection is thus comparable. This includes all 
residential tenancies, irrespective of their length 210,211. 

However,  unlike  Article  24(1)  par.  2  of  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  the  Judgments 
Convention  does  not  distinguish  between  tenancies  based  on  their  duration  (longer  and 
shorter than six months).  

More importantly, under the Convention in matters of  non-residential lease of immovable 
property, a judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement even if it was given in other 
State than solely the State where the immovable property is located. Under the Convention, a 
judgment  on  commercial  tenancy  has  to  be  recognised  and  enforced  also  if  it  was  given  in 
any  other  jurisdiction  based  on  the  other  grounds  of  jurisdiction  listed in  Article  5(1).  This 
may include for instance the state of the habitual residence, the principal place of business or 
the place of a branch, agency or other establishments of the defendant party (Article 5(1) lit. 
a, b or d). Therefore, different from Article 24(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, jurisdiction 
in  matters  of  non-residential  leases  of  immovable  property  is  not  exclusive  under  the 
Judgments Convention.  

The  fact  that  the  Convention  does  to  afford  exclusive  jurisdiction  to  a  state  where  the 
immovable  property  is  located  when  it  comes  to  commercial  tenancies  is  in  a  clear 
contradiction to the policy objective sought by the EU legislator in the Brussels Ia Regulation 
– i.e. the policy objective to attribute exclusive jurisdiction to courts in the EU for disputes 
related to immovable property located in the EU.  

Because of this legal overlap, the  European Union should make a declaration excluding 
from the scope of the Convention the judgments on commercial tenancies of immovable 
property  in  the  instances  where  the  rules  in  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  and  the  Judgments 
Convention  differ.  Under  such  declaration,  the  EU  could  avoid  the  obligation  to  recognise 
and  enforce  third-country  judgments  on  commercial  tenancies  of  immovable  property 
situated in the Union. 

210  As  is  however  pointed  out  in  the  Explanatory  Report,  even  though  the  Convention  commands  uniform 
interpretation, it might be justified not to apply this protective regime to temporary vacation rentals. This is in 
line with a usual distinction in the majority of states that have exclusive jurisdiction on tenancies. See s. 158 of 
the Explanatory Report.   
211  Unlike  Article  24(1)  par.  2  of  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  the  Judgments  Convention  does  not  distinguish 
between  residential  tenancies  based  on  their  duration  (tenancies  longer  and  shorter  than  six  months).  This 
difference however would not be of relevance in practice since the Regulation has specific jurisdictional rules 
on short-term tenancies only where the tenant and landlord are domiciled in the same country. It is unlikely that 
such scenario would come up under the Convention. Moreover, this jurisdictional ground is only an alternative 
to the general one in Article 24(1) par. 1. (see the wording “may”). 

93 

 
                                                           
The  declaration  should  be  limited  in  scope  and  strictly  related  only  to  commercial  leases 
(tenancies) of immovable property located in the EU. This targeted declaration would avoid 
discrepancies  with  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation.  Notably,  such  a 
limited declaration would also not affect a significant portion of judgments circulating under 
the  Convention.  Therefore,  this  approach  would  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  general 
restrictive approach to declarations. 

3.  POLICY  OPTION  1C  -  THE  UNION  WOULD  ACCEDE  TO  THE  JUDGMENTS  CONVENTION 
WITH DECLARATION(S) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION 

Article 19 permits a Contracting State not to apply the Convention to judgments arising from 
proceedings  involving  a  State  or  a  government  agency  thereof,  or  a  natural  person 
representing that State (“State”), and to do so even for the cases where they acted in the civil 
and commercial context.  

In  general,  the  Judgments  Convention  does  not  exclude  judgments  from  its  scope  merely 
because a State was a party to the proceedings212. By contrast, it distinguishes where the State 
acted  in  civil  or  commercial  context  as  opposed  to  where  it  exercised  governmental  or 
sovereign powers. In the latter case, the matter falls outside the scope of “civil or commercial 
matters”213 and thus outside the scope of the Judgments Convention. On the other hand, if a 
State acted in civil and commercial context, the Convention applies. 

However,  some  states  wished  to  exclude  from  the  circulation  under  the  Convention  all 
judgments where a State was  a party to the proceedings, even those  where a State acted in 
civil  and  commercial  matters214.  Article  19  allows  such  an  option  by  permitting  States  to 
make a declaration excluding the application of the Convention to judgments that arose from 
proceedings to which such a State was a party. 

This  declaration  could  cover  the  State  itself  and  a  governmental  agency  of  that  State  or  a 
natural  person  acting  for  either  of  them.  On  the  other  hand,  the  declaration  cannot  include 
legal persons acting for the State, unless they qualify as governmental agencies. This includes 
legal  persons,  irrespective  of  their  ownership  –  i.e.  commercial  enterprises  owned  by  the 
State or privately owned. In particular, the declaration cannot cover state-owned enterprises 
which  often  act  on  a  narrow  border  between  private  and  public  sectors215.  In  any  case,  the 
declaration should be as narrow in scope as possible216. 

212 Article 2(4) of the Convention.  
213  Examples  of  situations  where  the  State  acts  outside  of  the  “civil  and  commercial”  remit  are  criminal, 
constitutional,  revenue,  customs  or  administrative  matters.  A  key  element  distinguishing  public  law  matters 
from civil or commercial matters is whether one of the parties is exercising governmental or sovereign powers 
that are  not enjoyed by ordinary persons. If the  action derives  from the exercise of public powers  – acta iure 
imperii  (including  regulatory  powers  or  duties),  the  Convention  does  not  apply.  See  paras.  33-37  of  the 
Explanatory Report.  
214 Based on the arguments e.g. to preserve state immunities or to avoid interpretation difficulties with respect to 
whether a State party was exercising sovereign powers. See para. 344 of the Explanatory Report. 
215 Including these types of entities in the declaration would mean that they could gain an unfair advantage in 
comparison to foreign private enterprises that operate on the same markets. 
216 The declaring state may also make a more limited declaration – e.g. to exclude only judgments pertaining to 
certain governmental agencies. The reach of the declaration can also be further narrowed down in substance  – 
e.g. only covering certain types of remedies. 

94 

 
 
                                                           
Similarly to Article 18, the application of a declaration under Article 19 is reciprocal. When a 
declaration  is  made  under  Article  19(1)  another  State  may  refuse  to  recognise  or  enforce  a 
judgment given by a court of the State that made the declaration and arising from proceedings 
to which a State is a party217.  

Comparison of the Judgments Convention to the Brussels Ia Regulation  

In its Article 1(1), the Brussels Ia Regulation includes the principle that acta iure imperii are 
excluded from the scope of the Regulation: 

This Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court 
or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters 
or to the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority (acta 
iure imperii). 

It follows that the mere fact that one of the parties might be a State or public authority does 
not exclude the case from the scope of the Brussels Ia Regulation  – decisive is whether the 
party exercised public powers (acta iure imperii). 

A notion of act iure imperii is interpreted autonomously by the CJEU218. The basic principle 
is that a matter does not constitute such an act simply because a State is party to a dispute; in 
addition, the State must have acted by virtue of its prerogative powers. The interpretation of 
what  constitutes  acta  iure  imperii  has  been  evolving  over  time  in  the  CJEU  case  law219. 
Notably, the CJEU makes a distinction between situations where a State made use of “special 
powers that go beyond those arising from the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships 
between private individuals” and where it did not220. Only the latter then fall in the scope of 
“civil and commercial matters” under Article 1(1) of the Regulation. 

This  also  applies  in  situations  where  a  State  delegates  certain  tasks  to  private  bodies.  The 
Court held that it is irrelevant that certain activities were carried out upon delegation from a 
State221. Even though such bodies may have public powers or powers introduced by a law and 
even have a general immunity, it is decisive whether they had recourse to these powers in a 
particular case222.  

the  State  has  used 

217  For  details  on  Article  19  of  the  Judgments  Convention,  see:  Beaumont,  P.R.  Judgments  Convention: 
Application to Governments. Neth Int Law Rev 67, 121–137 (2020). 
218 See the judgment in Supreme Site Services and Others, C-186/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:638, para 69: “in so far 
as that action is not pursued under public powers, within the meaning of EU law.”. 
219  Contrast  Nikiforidis,  C-135/13,  ECLI:EU:C:2015:774  (an  action  brought  by  a  teacher  claiming  back  his 
contractual pay against the State which employs him does not cease to be a civil and commercial matter simply 
because 
law-making  powers  to  reduce  the  wages)  with  Kuhn,  C-308/17, 
ECLI:EU:C:2018:911 (where a State issues bonds in order to borrow money it enters a contractual relationship, 
where  it breaches  the contract by the enactment of legislation, it acts  iure imperii and hence an action by  the 
bondholder to recover the due amount is not a civil and commercial matter). 
220 See Movic, C-73/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:568, para. 62. In Movic, the Court also specified that neither the fact 
that a certain power was introduced by a law nor the pursuit of the general interest are in themselves decisive in 
order to conclude that the State acted in the exercise of State authority (paras 52 and 53).  
221 See Rina, C-641/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:349, para. 39 - with a reference to previous CJEU case-law. 
222 See the judgments in Rina (above) and Supreme Site Services and Others (above). 

its 

95 

 
 
                                                           
Finally, in Supreme Site Services and Others, the CJEU held that the purpose of the contract 
is also not decisive in itself. The public purpose of certain activities does not, in itself, 
constitute sufficient evidence to classify them as being carried out iure imperii223. 

Overall,  it  could  be  safely  concluded  that  the  CJEU  looks  into  the  facts  of  the  case  to 
determine whether a State, a public body or anyone acting on their behalf exercises special 
powers that go beyond those between private parties.  There is thus no general exemption 
from civil jurisdiction for State or governmental agencies in EU law in case they acted 
in a civil and commercial context.  

While  there  is  a  rich  case  law  on  the  notion  of  “civil  and  commercial  matters”  under  the 
Brussels Ia Regulation, the Judgments Convention still waits to be interpreted by the courts 
of its Contracting Parties. The notion of “civil or commercial matters” under the Convention 
as  described  in  the  Explanatory  Report  does  not  seem  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  notion  of 
“civil  and  commercial  matters”  in  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation.  While  the  concepts  may 
eventually  differ  in  their  nuances  as  both  the  Convention  and  the  Regulation  command 
autonomous  interpretation,  the  notion  of  “civil  or  commercial  matters”  in  the  Convention 
does not seem to be less protective than the one in EU acquis224.  

Since  EU  law  does  not  envisage  any  general  exemption/immunity  for  States  from  the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  where  a  State  was  a  party  to  the 
proceedings, the declaration 19 would not sit well with the existing EU acquis.  

Moreover, it should be pointed out that the EU actively advocated against the inclusion of the 
declaration 19 during the negotiations of the Judgments Convention. The low appetite for this 
declaration was also showed in the consultation activities conducted in the framework of this 
impact  assessment  – while there were some stakeholders  (a minority), which supported the 
declaration, none of the Member States was in favour of this declaration during a workshop 
where preliminary views were debated225. 

4. CONCLUSION ON THE DESIRABILITY OF DECLARATIONS  

This Annex provided details about each of the declarations contemplated in the context of the 
present impact assessment.  

223 See Supreme Site Services and Others (above), para. 66. In this case, the purpose of the contract concerned 
the supply of fuel to support the military campaign in Afghanistan. 
224 The exclusion from the scope of Brussels Ia Regulation for acte iure imperii, as interpreted by the CJEU, is 
not  as  broad  as  it  is  under  the  law  of  many  other  countries  worldwide.  Therefore,  it  may  be  expected  that 
national courts in other Contracting Parties to the Convention could tend to adopt an interpretation rather more 
protective of the state prerogatives than the one in EU acquis.  
225 For details, see Annex 2 on consultation activities. One of the consulted stakeholders pointed out that there is 
“a high risk that the principle of fair trial and equality of arms is not observed in proceedings involving States”.  
In this regard, it can be noted that the Convention includes a refusal ground in Article 7 that allows a requested 
state  to  refuse  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  a  judgment  that  is  manifestly  incompatible  with  the  public 
policy  of  the  requested  State,  its  fundamental  principles  of  procedural  fairness  of  that  State  and  situations 
involving  infringements  of  security  or  sovereignty  of  that  State  (see  Article  7(1)(c)  of  the  Judgments 
Convention). 

96 

 
 
                                                           
The areas where the declarations are conceivable were compared to the rules that are included 
in the EU acquis - the Brussels Ia Regulation. While in the absence of the declarations, the 
EU internal acquis would not be affected226, the declarations have been considered in cases 
where  the  EU  law  has  adopted  a  different  (or  more  nuanced)  approach  to  judgments  in  a 
specific area.  

As a general approach, it was concluded that  declarations should be avoided, unless they 
are strictly necessary.  

First, declarations under Article 18 of the Convention excluding consumer and employment 
matters  were  considered.  In  these  matters,  the  Convention  provides  a  special  protection  for 
the weaker parties. Even though the level  of protection for the weaker parties differs under 
both instruments, it can be concluded that the protection is present where it is needed as the 
Convention is based on the logic that consumers and employees should be sued at the place 
of their habitual residence when acting as defendants (and not elsewhere). Given this existent 
protection and the desire to include consumer and employment contracts in the scope of the 
Convention so that the parties to these contracts can benefit from the Convention, it has been 
concluded that no declaration should be made for consumer and employment matters.  

Second,  declaration  under  Article  18  of  the  Convention  excluding  insurance  matters  was 
considered.  The  weaker  party  in  insurance  matters  is  protected  in  the  EU  acquis  just  as 
consumers and employees are. In EU law, this protection covers the policyholder, the insured 
and  the  beneficiary  even  if  they  are  not  factually  a  weaker  party  (e.g.  the  largest 
corporations).  As  compared  to  the  rules  in  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  there  is  no  such 
specific  protection  under  the  Convention.  It  was  nevertheless  concluded  that  the  weaker 
parties  in  insurance  matters  will  often  be  also  consumers  and  could  thus  benefit  from  the 
protection for consumers in Article 5(2) of the Convention. Therefore, the Convention does 
provide  protection  for  the  “real”  weaker  parties  to  the  insurance  contracts.  It  was  thus 
concluded that no declaration should be made for insurance matters.  

Third,  declaration  under  Article  18  of  the  Convention  excluding  commercial  leases 
(tenancies)  of  immovable  property  was  considered.  The  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  affords 
exclusive  jurisdiction  in  the  Member  State  where  an  immovable  property  is  located  to  all 
tenancies227  irrespective  whether  they  are  residential  or  commercial.  The  Judgments 
Convention however includes specific jurisdictional rules only for residential tenancies. As a 
result, under the Convention the Member States would be obliged to recognise and enforce 
third-country judgments on commercial lease of immovable property that is situated in their 
territory.  This  would  be  in  a  clear  contradiction  to  the  policy  objective  sought  by  the  EU 
legislator in the Brussels Ia Regulation to attribute exclusive jurisdiction to courts in the EU 
for  disputes  related  to  immovable  property  located  in  the  EU.  It  was  thus  concluded  that  a 
targeted declarations on commercial tenancies should be made. It should be limited to 

226 See Article 23(4) of the Judgments Convention. 
227  With  a  possible  exception  for  tenancies  of  immovable  property  concluded  for  temporary  private  use  for  a 
maximum period of six consecutive months (mostly residential short-term holiday rentals). 

97 

 
                                                           
the  instances  where  the  third-country  judgment  was  given  on  commercial  lease  of  an 
immovable property located in the EU.  

Finally,  declaration  under  Article  19  of  the  Convention  excluding  from  the  scope  of  the 
Convention judgments pertaining to the State was considered. The comparison of the rules in 
the Brussels  Ia Regulation and the Convention showed that both instruments have a similar 
notion of “civil and commercial matters” and situations where the acts of public entities are 
excluded from this notion and thus from their scope. It was concluded that no declaration 
under Article 19 should be made.  

In  conclusion,  the  legal  analysis  above  showed  that  the  EU  should  make  a  narrow 
declaration  under  Article  18  excluding  commercial  tenancies  of  immovable  property 
from the scope of the Convention.  

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 

The assessment of impacts of the EU accession to the Judgments Convention is based on the 
assumption  that  the  selected  third  countries228  -  Australia,  Argentina,  Brazil,  Canada, 
China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States of America – join the Convention in 2022 
(“assumption”). The Convention will thus be effective in 2022 both in these countries and in 
the EU. 

In the absence of any certainty about and influence on the future uptake of the Convention by 
third  countries,  such  an  assumption  had  to  be  made  to  allow  informed  assessment  of  the 
future impacts should the EU accede to the Judgments Convention.  

However, it should be acknowledged that the assumption has the following limitations:  

-  1. some of the selected third countries may not join the Judgments Convention; 
-  2.  some  of  the  selected  third  countries  may  not  join  the  Judgments  Convention  by 

2022; 

-  3. other third countries may join the Convention thereby influencing the parameters of 

the impact assessment.  

It  should  be  noted  that  the  representatives  of  all  selected  third  countries  have  actively 
engaged in the negotiations of the Convention. Some have already indicated their interest in 
the  Convention  (Brazil).  Furthermore,  some  countries’  representatives  indicated  informally 
during  the  negotiations  of  the  Judgments  Convention  that  they  consider  adopting  both  the 
Judgments Convention and the Choice of Court Convention as a package (the United States), 
while  others  expressed  general  interest  (China).  Notably,  it  should  also  be  considered  that 
none of the selected third countries has ratified the Choice of Court Convention of 2005, a 
sister instrument  of the  Judgments  Convention229. It should also  not  be underestimated that 
also  the  EU’s  accession  to  the  Convention  could  encourage  third  countries  to  join  the 
Convention.  

Aside  from  the  third  countries  selected  as  a  reference  for  the  present  Impact  Assessment, 
other  third  countries  may  also  join  the  Convention.  The  impacts  of  the  Convention  as 
compared to the status quo would thereby be amplified. Three countries, Israel, Ukraine and 
Uruguay, have already signed the Convention thereby indicating their intention to ratify it230. 
Moreover,  several  other  countries  also  expressed  their  interest  in  the  Convention  or  their 
intention to join the Convention. For example, Russia’s Justice Ministry, acting jointly with 
the  Foreign  Ministry  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Russian  Federation,  proposed  to 

228  These  third  countries  belong  to  key  European  trading  partners  –  together  they  represent  38.5%  of  all  the 
volume  of  EU  trade  with  third  countries.  China  and  United  States  are  the  two  main  trade  partners  of  the  EU 
according  to  Eurostat  data:  Main  Trading  Partners  –  EU  table  in:  December  2020,  Euro  area  international 
trade in goods surplus €29.2 bn, news release published by Eurostat.  
The Convention can bring a significant added value in relations to the United States and China as currently there 
is no international convention or bilateral agreement with the United States and with China there are 10 bilateral 
agreements, which are, however, of a limited practical significance.  
229 Notably, it should be differentiated in this case between signature of a convention and its ratification. While 
the Choice of Court Convention was signed by many states, none of the selected third countries ratified it. (By 
signing a convention a signatory state signals its interest in the convention and its intention to comply with it. A 
convention  however only becomes applicable once the internal act of ratification is  finalized by the signatory 
state. Unratified treaties are not binding on signatory states, even though a signature of a convention does create 
a legal obligation not to undermine the spirit of the treaty.) 
230 See the Status Table available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=137.  

99 

 
                                                           
Government  that  Russia  should  accede  to  the  Judgments  Convention  in  October  2020231. 
Given  the  fact  that  Russia  is  the  fifth  major  trading  partner  of  the  Union232,  this  accession 
could  have  substantial  effects.  The  accession  of  important  trading  partners  would  indeed 
boost  the  practical  importance  of  the  EU  accession  to  the  Convention.  The  practical 
importance of the accession would also be boosted if the Convention applied vis-à-vis other 
strategically important countries, e.g. the EU Neighbourhood Policy partner countries.  

Nevertheless, despite any indications of interest by any country in the Judgments Convention, 
their  accession  cannot  be  taken  for  granted.  It  is  thus  uncertain  whether  the  assumption  on 
which this Impact Assessment is based – that the selected third countries would accede to the 
Convention  by  2022  –  would  materialize.  Therefore,  to  illustrate  how  the  impacts  would 
change if some trading partners do not join the Judgments Convention, a differentiation case 
study of economic impacts is added below for the case in which the US would not accede to 
the Convention.  

Case study: the United States do not join the Judgments Convention 

In the case the US did not join the Convention, two effects would arise:  

2  No additional trade benefits in trade with the US are expected as compared to status quo. 

Hence, the status quo continues.  

3  When it comes to total spending for EU businesses and consumers on the recognition and 
enforcement  of  cases,  no  decrease  in  costs  would  materialise  -  neither  for  European 
judgments in the US nor for US judgments in the EU. Therefore, the calculations of the 
total  savings  for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  cases  (see  Methodology  for  the 
calculation in Annex 4 and the calculations in section 11 of Annex 7) would have to be 
adjusted to reflect that there would be no decrease of costs with regard to the US.  

Should  the  US  not  join  the  Judgments  Convention,  the  decrease  in  savings  of  between 
EUR  1.6  mil.  and  6.3  mil.  in  total  would  not  materialize  compared  to  the  situation  in 
which the US accedes to the Convention. This impact is considerably high because of the 
importance of the trading relationship between the US and the EU. 

Table 11: Comparison of savings in the EU under  policy option 1a in case the US accedes to the Convention 
and if it does not (for the reference period 2022 – 2026)  

Difference in savings on 
third-country judgments 
in the EU 

-3 531 216 EUR 

Difference in savings 
on European 
judgments in USA 
-525 457 EUR 

Total 

-4 056 673 EUR 

-7 062 433 EUR 

-1 210 664 EUR 

- 8 273 096 EUR 

Min. cost reduction 
scenario 
Max. cost reduction 
scenario 

to 

the 

231  According 
http://www.rapsinews.com/judicial_news/20201020/306406942.html (last consulted on 19 February 2021).  
232 Ibid.: Main Trading Partners – EU table in: December 2020, Euro area international trade in goods surplus 
€29.2 bn. 

the  Russian  Legal  Information  Agency: 

information  shared  by 

following 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
Difference in savings on 
third-country judgments 
(originating in the 
selected third countries) 
in the EU 

Difference in savings 
on European 
judgments in USA 

Total 

-1 070 550 EUR 

-525 457 EUR 

-1 596007 EUR 

-5 041 353 EUR 

-1 210 664 EUR 

- 8 273 096 EUR 

Min. cost reduction 
scenario 
Max. cost reduction 
scenario 

Table 12: Comparison of savings in the EU under  policy option 1b in case the US accedes to the Convention 
and if it does not (for the reference period 2022 – 2026)  

Difference in savings on  
third-country judgments 
in the EU 

-3 532 531 EUR 

Difference in savings 
on European 
judgments in USA 
-518 747 EUR 

Total 

-4 051 279 EUR 

-7 068 350 EUR 

-1 197 245 EUR 

- 8 265 594 EUR 

Difference in savings on 
third-country judgments 
(originating in the 
selected third countries) 
in the EU 

Difference in savings 
on European 
judgments in USA 

Total 

-2 620 676 EUR 

-518 747 EUR 

-3 139 424 EUR 

- 6 386 388 EUR 

-1 197 245 EUR 

- 7 583 633 EUR 

Min. cost reduction 
scenario 
Max. cost reduction 
scenario 

Min. cost reduction 
scenario 
Max. cost reduction 
scenario 

Table 13: Comparison of savings in the EU under  policy option 1c in case the US accedes to the Convention 
and if it does not (for the reference period 2022 – 2026)  

Difference in savings on  
third-country judgments 
in the EU 

-3 531 951 EUR 

Difference in savings 
on European 
judgments in USA 
-525 457 EUR 

Total 

-4 057 408 EUR 

-7 065 739 EUR 

-1 210 664 EUR 

- 8 276 403 EUR 

Difference in savings on 
third-country judgments 
(originating in the 
selected third countries) 
in the EU 

Difference in savings 
on European 
judgments in USA 

Total 

-2 633 723 EUR 

-525 457 EUR 

- 3 159 179 EUR 

-6 412 480 EUR 

-1 210 664 EUR 

- 7 623 144 EUR 

Min. cost reduction 
scenario 
Max. cost reduction 
scenario 

Min. cost reduction 
scenario 
Max. cost reduction 
scenario 

101 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 14: Comparison of savings in the EU under  policy option 1d in case the US accedes to the Convention 
and if it does not (for the reference period 2022 – 2026) 

Difference in savings on  
third-country judgments 
in the EU 

-3 533 089 EUR 

Difference in savings 
on European 
judgments in USA 
-518 747 EUR 

Total 

-4 051 836 EUR 

-7 070 859 EUR 

-1 197 245 EUR 

- 8 268 104 EUR 

Difference in savings on 
third-country judgments 
(originating in the 
selected third countries) 
in the EU 

Difference in savings 
on European 
judgments in USA 

Total 

-2 608 135 EUR 

-518 747 EUR 

- 3 126 882 EUR 

-6 361 304 EUR 

-1 197 245 EUR 

- 7 558 549 EUR 

Min. cost reduction 
scenario 
Max. cost reduction 
scenario 

Min. cost reduction 
scenario 
Max. cost reduction 
scenario 

In conclusion, it could be inferred that in case the United States (or any of the third countries 
selected for the purposes of this Impact Assessment) does not accede to the Convention, the 
impacts would have to be slightly adjusted to display that reality.  

However,  even  in  such  a  scenario  it  is  highly  likely  that  the  general  and  the  specific 
objectives  described  in  section  4  will  be  achieved,  albeit  the  impacts  will  be  more  limited 
than in the “best-case” scenario. Moreover, this  effect can be offset by the accession of the 
Convention by other third countries.  

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7: STUDY SUPPORTING THE PREPARATION OF THE IMPACT 

ASSESSMENT – EXCERPTS FROM THE FINAL REPORT BY 
DELOITTE  

This  Annex  reproduces  certain  parts  of  the  Study  supporting  the  preparation  of  an  impact 
assessment  on  the  potential  EU  accession  to  the  2019  Convention  on  the  Recognition  and 
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters - Final Report that was 
drawn up by an external contractor – Deloitte (“Study by an external contractor” / “Study”). 

This  document  has  been  prepared  to  gather  data  and  quantitative  estimates  for  the  impact 
assessment. However it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be 
held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

This Annex contains the following sections:  

1.  Policy objectives  

2.  Intervention logic  

3.  The policy options to be assessed  

4.  Quantitative  estimates  of  trade  and  FDI  under  the  baseline  scenario  and  each 

policy option 

5.  Overview  of  the  total  %  increases  in  foreign  trade  and  FDI  under  all  policy 

options 

6.  Detailed quantitative estimation of baseline and policy options 

7.  Quantitative estimates  concerning the indirectly  impacted businesses across  the 

supply chain under the baseline scenario and each policy option 

8.  Estimated number of civil and commercial judgments 

9.  Impact of the Convention on the legal environment of the Member States 

10. Estimates of the average cost and length of procedure  

11. Estimated spending and savings on cases  

12. Environmental impacts of the accession to the Judgments Convention 

Consultation activities by the contractor: 

13. Online survey responses and inputs from interviews 

14. Summary of responses to Member States’ authorities questionnaire 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  Policy objectives  

Figure 4: Policy objectives 

104 

 
 
 
 
2.  Intervention logic  

Figure 5: Intervention Logic for the potential EU accession to the Judgments Convention 

105 

 
3.  The policy options to be assessed  

Table 15: Overview of the options to be assessed 

Option 

Description 

Option 1: Status Quo 

No comprehensive international 
convention allowing the 
recognition and enforcement of 
foreign judgments in civil and 
commercial matters.  

Mode of 
implementation 

None 

Option 1a: EU accession without 
any declaration 

Full ratification of the 
Convention. 

Legislative / Proposal 
for a Council Decision 

Option 1b: EU accession with 
declaration under Article 18 
concerning: 
- 

insurance matters 
and/or 
consumer matters 
and/or 
employment matters 
and/or 
immovable property 

- 

- 

- 

Legislative / Proposal 
for a Council Decision 

Accession to the Judgments 
Convention making a 
declaration under Article 18, 
excluding insurance and/or 
consumer and/or employment 
matters and or commercial 
tenancies of immovable 
property  

Option 1c: EU accession with 
declaration under Article 19 

Accession to the Judgments 
Convention making a 
declaration under Article 19 
excluding State entities from the 
application of the Convention 

Legislative / Proposal 
for a Council Decision 

Option 1d: Combination of 
sub-options under 1a and 1b 
options  

As above 

Stakeholders impacted 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

Legal professionals 
Businesses 
Citizens 

Legal professionals 
Businesses 
Citizens 
National authorities 

Legal professionals 
Businesses 
Citizens 
National authorities 

Legal professionals 
Businesses 
Citizens 
National authorities 

Notably,  the  Study  used  different  numbering  of  the  policy  options  that  the  Impact 
Assessment itself. Some of the Tables and Figures in this Annex have not been adjusted to 
the numbering in the Impact Assessment.  

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  Quantitative estimates of trade and FDI under the baseline scenario 

and each policy option 

Table 16: EU trade with the selected third countries - according to volume of trade with the EU (2019) 

Ranking233 

EU trade partner 

Trade in goods with the 
EU (million EUR) 

Share of the volume of EU 
trade with third countries 

1 

2 

7 

9 

12 

13 

21 

40 

USA 

China 

Japan 

South Korea 

Canada 

Brazil 

Australia 

Argentina 

616 386 

560 146 

123 983 

90 686 

59 044 

59 009 

39 088 

14 105 

a.  Baseline scenario  

15.2% 

13.8% 

3.0% 

2.2% 

1.5% 

1.5% 

1.0% 

0.3% 

Table 17: Macroeconomic estimations for uncorrected baseline scenario for the years 2022-2026 

233 According to volume of trade with the EU. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                           
108 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 18: Macroeconomic estimations for corrected baseline scenario for the years 2022-2026 

109 

 
 
b.  Policy option 1a – accession without making any declarations 

Table 19: Macroeconomic estimations for policy option 1a for the years 2022-2026 

110 

 
   
 
 
  
 
 
111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
c.  Policy option 1b – accession while making declaration(s) under Article 18 

Table 20: Macroeconomic estimations for policy option 1b for the years 2022-2026 

112 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
d.  Policy option 1c – accession while making declaration under Article 19 

Table 21: Macroeconomic estimations for policy option 1c for the years 2022-2026 

113 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
e.  Policy option 1d – accession while making declaration under Articles 18 

and 19 

Table 22: Macroeconomic estimations for policy option 1d for the years 2022-2026 

114 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
5.  Overview of the total % increases in foreign trade and FDI under all 

policy options 

Table 23: Total increases (in %) in 2026 as compared to the corrected baseline 

Policy options, total % increase (2022-2026) 

Policy option 1a  
(no declaration) 

Goods 
Services 
FDI 

Policy  option  1b  (declaration 
under Article 18) 

Goods 
Services 
FDI 

Policy  option  1c  (declaration 
under Article 19) 

Goods 
Services 
FDI 

Policy  option  1d  (declaration 
under both Article 18 and 19) 

AR 

1.5 
1.3 
0.4 

AR 

1.4 
1.3 
0.3 

AR 

1.2 
1.1 
0.2 

AR 

Goods 
Services 
FDI 
Source: Study by an external contractor 

1.2 
1 
0.2 

AU 

1.2. 
1.2 
0.4 

AU 

1.1 
1.2 
0.3 

AU 

1.2 
1.2 
0.4 

AU 

1.1 
1.2 
0.3 

BR 

1.5 
1.6 
0.5 

BR 

1.4 
1.6 
0.4 

BR 

1.2 
1.3 
0.3 

BR 

1.2 
1.3 
0.3 

CA  

CN 

JP  

1.5 
1.1 
0.2 

CA 

1.4 
1.1 
0.15 

CA 

1.5 
1.1 
0.2 

CA 

1.4 
1.1 
0.15 

1 
1.6 
0.5 

CN 

0.9 
1.6 
0.4 

CN 

0.7 
1.3 
0.3 

CN 

0.7 
1.3 
0.3 

1 
1 
1 

JP 

0.9 
1 
0.9 

JP 

1 
1 
1 

JP 

0.9 
1 
0.9 

KR 

1 
1 
0.2 

KR 

0.9 
1 
0.15 

KR 

1 
1 
0.2 

KR 

0.9 
1 
0.15 

US 

1 
0.9 
0.3 

US 

0.9 
0.9 
0.2 

US 

1 
0.9 
0.3 

US 

0.9 
0.9 
0.2 

115 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.  Detailed quantitative estimation of baseline and policy options 

a.  Policy option 0: Corrected baseline 

Table 24: Direct and indirect impacts of policy option 0 (corrected baseline) 

116 

 
 
117 

 
 
118 

 
 
 
 
b.  Policy option 1a: Accession without making any declaration 

Table 25: Direct and indirect impacts of policy option 1a 

119 

 
 
 
 
120 

 
 
121 

 
 
 
 
c.  Policy option 1b: Accession while making a declaration(s) under Article 18 

Table 26: Direct and indirect impacts of policy option 1b 

122 

 
 
 
123 

 
 
124 

 
 
 
 
d.  Policy option 1c: Accession while making a declaration under Article 19 

Table 27: Direct and indirect impacts of policy option 1c 

125 

 
 
 
126 

 
 
127 

 
 
 
 
e.  Policy option 1d: Accession while making a declarations under both Articles 18 and 19 

Table 28: Direct and indirect impacts of policy option 1d 

128 

 
  
 
129 

 
 
130 

 
 
 
7.  Quantitative estimates concerning the indirectly impacted businesses 
across the supply chain under the baseline scenario and each policy 
option 

The sectoral and indirect impacts on companies and SMEs across the supply chain, which are 
affected indirectly by trade flows, were measured. In order to quantify these upstream effects 
(economic activities along the value chain), an Input-Output-Model was used. (see Annex 4 
on analytical methods). 

Table 29: Output and gross value-added multipliers for exports from the EU27 to selected third countries 

It can be noticed that  the output  multipliers as  well as the ratios of GVA per production value differ 
only slightly between the countries in focus but show differences between the export of goods and the 
exports of services. 

a.  Policy option 0 – baseline scenario – no accession to the Judgments 

Convention 

The following table provides the corrected baseline estimations of the number of enterprises 
that  will  be  affected  indirectly  in  the  baseline  scenario.  In  2026,  681  312  enterprises  are 
estimated to be affected indirectly regarding EU export in goods and 227 457 enterprises will 
be affected regarding the EU export in services. These numbers increase by around 25% in 
the  observation  period  (2022-2026).  As  compared  to  directly  affected  SMEs  indirectly 
affected  SMEs  are  expected  to  be  affected  –  due  to  their  potentially  lower  involvement  in 
trade relations – to a lesser extent. 

Table 30: Corrected baseline estimations of sectoral and indirect impacts on companies and SMEs 

131 

MultipliersIndicatorExport\ countryARAUBRCACNJPKRUSOutput multiplierGoods2.115     2.148     2.125     2.126     2.137     2.136     2.150     2.096     Services1.769     1.768     1.815     1.773     1.750     1.759     1.779     1.787     GVA directGoods33.1%   33.1%   32.6%   32.2%   33.1%   33.3%   32.9%   33.7%   Services50.0%   49.9%   47.0%   50.3%   51.4%   50.8%   50.2%   49.9%   GVA multiplierGoods2.393     2.443     2.427     2.450     2.422     2.425     2.447     2.358     Services1.705     1.720     1.793     1.717     1.676     1.710     1.720     1.746      
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b.  Policy option 1a – accession without making any declarations  

Table 31: Estimation of sectoral and indirect impact on companies and SMEs under policy option 1a 

c.  Policy option 1b – accession while making declaration(s) under Article 18 

Table 32: Estimation of sectoral and indirect impact on companies and SMEs under policy option 1b 

d.  Policy option 1c – accession while making declaration under Article 19 

Table 33: Estimation of sectoral and indirect impact on companies and SMEs under policy option 1c 

e.  Policy option 1d – accession while making declarations under both Article 

18 and 19 

Table 34: Estimation of sectoral and indirect impact on companies and SMEs under policy option 1b 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8.  Estimated number of civil and commercial judgments 

The estimations below are based on:  

  For the estimated increase by 2026 under the baseline scenario: estimated number of 
yearly cases in 2020 times the yearly forecasted growth in trade in goods until 2026 in 
the baseline scenario;  

  For the estimated change by 2026 vs. baseline:  

o  Policy  option  1a:  estimated  number  of  yearly  cases  in  2020  times  the  yearly 

forecasted growth in trade in goods until 2026 in policy option 1a;  

o 

o 

 Policy option 1b: estimated number of yearly cases in 2020 times the yearly 
forecasted  growth  in  trade  in  goods  until  2026  in  policy  option  1b,  with  a 
correction  of  an  assumed  -5%  applied  overall  to  account  for  cases  falling 
outside of the scope of the Convention due to Article 18 declarations;  

 Policy option 1c: estimated number of yearly cases in 2020 times the  yearly 
forecasted  growth  in  trade  in  goods  until  2026  in  policy  option  1c,  with  a 
correction of an assumed -5% applied for Argentina and Brazil and -10% for 
China to account for cases falling outside of the scope of the Convention due 
to Article 18 declarations; 

o  Policy option 1d:  estimated number of  yearly cases in  2020 times the  yearly 
forecasted  growth  in  trade  in  goods  until  2026  in  policy  option  1d,  with  the 
combined corrections applied for policy options 1b and 1c.  

133 

 
 
 
Table 35: Estimated number of yearly cases in 2020 and increase by 2026 under the different policy options 

Est. number 
of current 
yearly cases 
(2020) 

Est. increase 
by 2026 
under 
baseline 
scenario234 

Est. change by 2026 vs. baseline under given policy option 

Policy option 
0 

Policy option 
1a 

Policy option 
1b 

Policy option 
1c 

Policy option 
1d 

Foreign judgments in EU 

2 000235 
(770 originating 
from the countries 
below) 

+179 
(originating from 
the countries 
below) 

+47 
(originating from 
the countries 
below) 

+35 
(originating from 
the countries 
below) 

+40 
(originating from 
the countries 
below) 

+30 
(originating from 
the countries 
below) 

European 
judgments in 
third 
countries 

Australia 

Argentina 

Brazil 

Canada 

China 

Japan 

South 
Korea 

USA 

20236 

10237 

14238 

11239 

13240 

17241 

11242 

60243 

-3 

+3 

+2 

+4 

+5 

+5 

+1 

+22 

+2 

+1 

+1 

+1 

+1 

+1 

+1 

+3 

+1 

- 

+1 

+1 

- 

+1 

- 

+2 

+1 

+1 

+1 

+1 

- 

+1 

+1 

+3 

+1 

- 

+1 

+1 

- 

+1 

- 

+2 

234 Quantitative estimates based on forecasted growth in trade in goods.  
235  Quantitative  estimates  based  on  the  answers  received  in  the  Member  States’  questionnaire.  Original 
estimation  was  2500  cases  in  the  entire  EU,  however  this  number  was  corrected  with  -20%  based  on  the 
validation  workshop  in  which  experts  expressed  that  this  original  estimated  was  inflated.  Notably,  it  was 
estimated based on the trade shares with the EU that 770 of these cases relate to foreign judgments originating 
from the selected third countries under consideration. 
236 Qualitative estimate based on interviews with national legal experts. 
237  Quantitative  estimates  based  on  interviews  with  national  legal  experts,  Multilaw  Enforcement  of  Foreign 
Judgments Project and the Study Team’s Legal network national report. 
238 Ibid. 
239 Ibid. 
240 Qualitative estimate based on interview with national legal experts. 
241 Ibid. 
242 Ibid. 
243 Ibid. 

134 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
9.  Impact of the Convention on the legal environment of the Member States 

Table 36: Impact of the Convention on the legal environment of the Member States 

EU Member States - Grounds for recognition and enforcement / refusals of foreign judgments provided under national law (Yes or No) 

AT 

BE  BG  CY  CZ  DE  EE  EL  ES  FI 

FR  HR  HU 

IE 

IT  LT 

LU 

LV  MT  NL 

PL  PT  RO  SE  SI 

SK 

a
i
r
e
t
i
r
C

Grounds for recognition 
and enforcement under 
the Judgments 
Convention (Article 5):  - 
Number of No 
A judgment is eligible for 
recognition and 
enforcement if one of the 
following requirements is 
met: 

 (1.(a) the person against 
whom recognition or 
enforcement is sought was 
habitually resident in the 
State of origin at the time 
that person became a 
party to the proceedings 
in the court of origin; 

(1.(b) the natural person 
against whom recognition 
or enforcement is sought 
had their principal place 
of business in the State of 
origin at the time that 

15 

15 

4 

8 

15 

15 

5 

8 

15 

15 

6 

13 

3 

13 

5 

15 

15 

3 

7 

3 

15 

0 

15 

15 

15 

14 

No 

No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  No  No 

Yes  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

No 

No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  No  No  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  No 

No  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

135 

 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
person became a party to 
the proceedings in the 
court of origin and the 
claim on which the 
judgment is based arose 
out of the activities of that 
business; 

(1.(c) the person against 
whom recognition or 
enforcement is sought is 
the person that brought 
the claim, other than a 
counterclaim, on which 
the judgment is based; 

(1.(d) the defendant 
maintained a branch, 
agency, or other 
establishment without 
separate legal personality 
in the State of origin at 
the time that person 
became a party to the 
proceedings in the court 
of origin, and the claim on 
which the judgment is 
based arose out of the 
activities of that branch, 
agency, or establishment; 

(1.(e) the defendant 
expressly consented to the 
jurisdiction of the court of 
origin in the course of the 
proceedings in which the 
judgment was given. 

No 

No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No 

Yes  No  No 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

No 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  No  No 

Yes  No  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

No 

No  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  Yes  No  No  No  No  No  Yes  Yes  No  No 

No  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

136 

 
(1.(f) the defendant 
argued on the merits 
before the court of origin 
without contesting 
jurisdiction within the 
timeframe provided in the 
law of the State of origin, 
unless it is evident that an 
objection to jurisdiction or 
to the exercise of 
jurisdiction would not 
have succeeded under that 
law; 

(1.(g) the judgment ruled 
on a contractual 
obligation and it was 
given by a court of the 
State in which 
performance of that 
obligation took place, or 
should have taken place, 
in accordance with 
(i) the agreement of the 
parties, or 
(ii) the law applicable to 
the contract, in the 
absence of an agreed 
place of performance, 
unless the activities of the 
defendant in relation to 
the transaction clearly did 
not constitute a purposeful 
and substantial connection 
to that State; 

(1.(h) the judgment ruled 

No 

No  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  Yes  No  No  No  No  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No 

Yes  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

No 

No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  No 

No  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

No 

No  No  No  No  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  No 

Yes  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

137 

 
on a lease of immovable 
property (tenancy) and it 
was given by a court of 
the State in which the 
property is situated; 

(1.(i) the judgment ruled 
against the defendant on a 
contractual obligation 
secured by a right in rem 
in immovable property 
located in the State of 
origin, if the contractual 
claim was brought 
together with a claim 
against the same 
defendant relating to that 
right in rem; 

(1.(j) the judgment ruled 
on a non-contractual 
obligation arising from 
death, physical injury, 
damage to or loss of 
tangible property, and the 
act or omission directly 
causing such harm 
occurred in the State of 
origin, irrespective of 
where that harm occurred; 

(1.(k) the judgment 
concerns the validity, 
construction, effects, 
administration or 
variation of a trust created 
voluntarily  

No 

No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  No  No  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  No 

Yes  No  No 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

No 

No  Yes  No  No  No  Yes  No  No  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  No 

Yes  No  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

No 

No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No 

Yes  No  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

138 

 
(1.(l) the judgment ruled 
on a counterclaim – 

(1.(m) the judgment was 
given by a court 
designated in an 
agreement concluded or 
documented in writing or 
by any other means of 
communication which 
renders information 
accessible so as to be 
usable for subsequent 
reference, other than an 
exclusive choice of court 
agreement. 

3.the judgment ruled on a 
residential lease of 
immovable property 
(tenancy) and given by a 
court of the State where 
the property is situated. 

3.the judgment ruled on 
the registration of 
immovable property and 
given by a court of the 
State where the property 
is situated. 

Exclusive ground of 
recognition and 
enforcement under the 
Judgments Convention 
(Article 6)  - Number of 
No 

No 

No  Yes  No  No  No  Yes  No  No  No  No  No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

Yes  No  No 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

No 

No  Yes  No  No  No  Yes  No  No  No  No  No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

Yes  No  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  Yes 

No 

No  No  No  No  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  No 

Yes  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

No 

No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

139 

 
  
a judgment ruled on rights 
in rem in immovable 
property shall be 
recognised and enforced if 
and only if the property is 
situated in the State of 
origin. " 

Grounds of refusal of the 
Judgments Convention 
(Article 7):  - Number of 
No 
Recognition or 
enforcement may be 
refused if: 

7.1.(a) the document 
which instituted the 
proceedings or an 
equivalent document, 
including a statement of 
the essential elements of 
the claim 
(i) was not notified to the 
defendant in sufficient 
time and in such a way as 
to enable them to arrange 
for their defence, unless 
the defendant entered an 
appearance and presented 
their case without 
contesting notification in 
the court of origin, 
provided that the law of 
the State of origin 
permitted notification to 
be contested; 

No 

No  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  Yes  No  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  No 

Yes  No 

No  Yes  No  No  Yes  No 

6 

5 

2 

7 

3 

4 

7 

7 

3 

9 

4 

3 

2 

2 

8 

4 

3 

8 

4 

1 

8 

0 

6 

9 

4 

4 

Yes 

No  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  Yes 

140 

 
  
7.1. (a) the document 
which instituted the 
proceedings or an 
equivalent document, 
including a statement of 
the essential elements of 
the claim: 
(ii) was notified to the 
defendant in the requested 
State in a manner that is 
incompatible with 
fundamental principles of 
the requested State 
concerning service of 
documents; 

7.1. (b) the judgment was 
obtained by fraud. 

7.1. (c) recognition or 
enforcement would be 
manifestly incompatible 
with the public policy of 
the requested State, 
including situations where 
the specific proceedings 
leading to the judgment 
were incompatible with 
fundamental principles of 
procedural fairness of that 
State and situations 
involving infringements 
of security or sovereignty 
of that State; 

7.1. (d) the proceedings in 
the court of origin were 
contrary to an agreement, 

Yes 

No  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  Yes 

No  No  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  Yes  Yes 

No 

Yes  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  No  No  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  No  No  Yes 

No  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

Yes 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  Yes 

No 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  Yes  No 

No  No 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

141 

 
  
or a designation in a trust 
instrument, under which 
the dispute in question 
was to be determined in a 
court of a State other than 
the State of origin.  

7.1. (e) the judgment is 
inconsistent with a 
judgment given by a court 
of the requested State in a 
dispute between the same 
parties; 

7.1. (f) the judgment is 
inconsistent with an 
earlier judgment given by 
a court of another State 
between the same parties 
on the same subject 
matter, provided that the 
earlier judgment fulfils 
the conditions necessary 
for its recognition in the 
requested State. 

7.2. Recognition or 
enforcement may be 
postponed or refused if 
proceedings between the 
same parties on the same 
subject matter are pending 
before a court of the 
requested State, where: 
(a) the court of the 
requested State was seised 
before the court of origin; 
and 

No 

Yes  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  Yes 

No  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  Yes 

No 

Yes  No  No  No  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  No  No  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes 

Yes  Yes  No 

No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes 

No 

No  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes  No  No  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No 

No  No  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  Yes  No 

142 

 
(b) there is a close 
connection between the 
dispute and the requested 
State. 

10.1. Recognition or 
enforcement of a 
judgment may be refused 
if, and to the extent that, 
the judgment awards 
damages, including 
exemplary or punitive 
damages, that do not 
compensate a party for 
actual loss or harm 
suffered. 

Score and groupe attribution 

N° of No's 

Group  

No 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No  No  No  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

No  No  Yes 

No  Yes  No  No  No  No 

22 

21 

6 

15 

19 

20 

13 

15 

19 

25 

10 

17 

5 

16 

13 

20 

19 

11 

12 

4 

24 

0 

22 

25 

19 

19 

C 

C 

A 

B 

C 

C 

B 

B 

C 

C 

B 

C  A 

B 

B 

C 

C 

B 

B  A 

C  A 

C 

C 

C 

C 

0 - 8 

9 - 16 

Group A 

Liberal approach to Foreign Judgments 

Group B 

Less liberal approach to Foreign Judgments 

17 - 25 

Group C 

Restrictive approach to Foreign Judgments 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  37:  Overview  of  the  Member  States’  national  systems  for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign 
judgments  (based  on  grounds  for  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments  and  grounds  for  refusal 
provided under national law) 

Liberal approach to foreign 
judgments 

(Little to no improvement in the 
acceptance of third-country judgments 
under the Convention as compared to 
national law) 

Less liberal approach to foreign 
judgments 
(Moderate impact of the Convention 
on the acceptance of third-country 
judgments as compared to national 
law) 

Restrictive approach to foreign 
judgments 
(Considerable increase in acceptance 
of third-country judgments under the 
Convention as compared to national 
law) 

Bulgaria 

Hungary 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

Cyprus 

Estonia 

Greece 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Malta 

Austria 

Belgium 

Czech Republic 

Germany 

Spain 

Finland 

Croatia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Poland 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10. 

Estimates of the average cost and length of procedure  

The following tables provide the detailed estimates of the average cost and the average length 
of the procedure of enforcement of foreign judgments.  

Table 38: European judgments in selected third countries 

Country 

Estimated number of 
cases for procedure 
of enforcement of 
foreign judgments 
per year 

Cost and expenses that a 
claimant expect in this 
recognition and 
enforcement procedure?   
(Court fees involving 
foreign judgments) 

What is the average length of time for procedure 
of enforcement of foreign judgments? (Average 
duration of recognition and enforcement 
procedure involving foreign judgments) 

Uncontested case 

Contested case 

Australia 

20 

Argentina 

Brazil 

Canada 

China 

Japan 

10 

14 

11 

13 

17 

South Korea  11 

Filling fees: 600 – 800 
EUR for individual 
1800 – 2400 EUR for 
corporations 

Need application 
registration: 2-4 
weeks, then several 
months 

More than a year 

3% of the value of claim  N/A 

N/A 

Equivalent of 30 EUR 

Ratification: 1 year 
Enforcement: 1 year 

Ratification: 2 or more 
Enforcement 2 or more 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Approx. 20 EUR 

6 months 

One year to two 

The amount of which is 
determined based on the 
amount of claim sought 
0,5% of the value of 
claim 

N/A 

N/A 

4-6 months 

A year or more 

USA 

60 

Hundreds of EUR 

2-6 months 

6 months to 2 years 

Source: Quantitative estimates based on interviews with national legal experts and the Multilaw Enforcement of 
Foreign Judgments Project. 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 39: Third-country judgments in the EU 

Country 

Austria244 

Belgium245 
Bulgaria246 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic247 

Estonia 
Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Cost and expenses can a 
claimant expect in this 
recognition and enforcement 
procedure?   
(Court fees involving third-
country judgments) 

What is the average length of time for procedure 
of litigious civil and commercial cases involving 
foreign judgments? (Average duration of 
recognition and enforcement procedure involving 
third-country judgments) 
Uncontested case 

Contested case 

3 months 

Up to 6 months 

4 months or more 
6 months or more 
N/A 

More than 1 year 
More than 1 year 
N/A 

Up to 3 months 

Up to 6 months 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 
N/A 
Two years 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 
N/A 
6 months 

N/A 

Enforcement order to be 
issued in 6 months 
Enforcement procedure to 
be concluded: Additional 2 
months to a year 

The application for the 
declaration of enforceability/ 
recognition does not trigger 
any court fees. 
20 EUR   
25,56 EUR 
General fees are applicable. 
No specific fees are required 
for the recognition and 
enforcement of a foreign 
judgment. 
The court fees depend on the 
value of the claim. 
- In case of a judicial 
enforcement, a court fee 
amounting to approx. 5% of 
the claim value is charged. 

N/A 
N/A 
There is no specific provision 
regarding the fees payable for 
recognition and enforcement. 
The court fees depend on the 
value of the claim are 
calculated in accordance with 
the Court Expenses Act. 
Application for recognition 
and enforcement: 130 EUR 
Appearance of the attorney 
before court: 126 EUR 
Submission of required legal 
arguments: 150 EUR 

The above prices include the 
minor fees and 24% VAT 
charged by the state. Amount 
to 300 EUR248 

244 National Reports.  
245 Ibid. 
246 Ibid. 
247 Ibid. 
248 Based on National Reports and an interview with a Greek legal professional. 

146 

 
 
 
                                                           
What is the average length of time for procedure 
of litigious civil and commercial cases involving 
foreign judgments? (Average duration of 
recognition and enforcement procedure involving 
third-country judgments) 
6 months 

12-18 months 

Weeks 
4 months 

months 
10 months 

N/A 
N/A 

N/A 
N/A 

Three weeks to 6 months  Up to 1 year 

N/A 

N/A 

One year and a half 

Up to 3 years 

One year on average 

1-2 years 

More than two months 

Over a year 

One year 

Two years 

3 – 9 months 
N/A 
4 months 

9 to 15 months 
N/A 
9 months 

Country 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia249 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

The Netherlands 

Poland250 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia251 
Slovenia 

Spain 

249 National Reports. 
250 Ibid. 
251 Ibid. 

Cost and expenses can a 
claimant expect in this 
recognition and enforcement 
procedure?   
(Court fees involving third-
country judgments) 
Stamp duties range of 1% to 
3% of the value of the claim 
There is no specific fee for 
recognition and enforcement. 
NA 
No specific fees are required 
for the recognition and 
enforcement of a foreign 
judgment. 
30 EUR 
There is no specific fees 
payable for recognition and 
enforcement. 
The fees payable in general 
are administrative fees 
These costs will vary 
according to what is being 
requested and depending on 
the amount which is claimed. 
Vary according to the value of 
the claim  
- fee for determination of 
recognition or non-
recognition: approx. 67 EUR 
- fee for declaration of 
enforceability:   approx. 67 
EUR 
- fee for an appeal against a 
ruling on any of these 
applications approx. 22 EUR 
- Fee for cassation approx. 22 
EUR 
Vary according to the value of 
the claim 
Yes, the applicant will have to 
pay the stamp duty 
66 EUR 
N/A 
Pursuant to Article 18 LCJI 
(para 1), the costs related to 
the processing of requests for 
recognition and enforcement 
will be paid, where applicable, 

147 

 
                                                           
Country 

Cost and expenses can a 
claimant expect in this 
recognition and enforcement 
procedure?   
(Court fees involving third-
country judgments) 
by the applicant. The rules do 
not mention specific fees 
30 – 60 EUR 

What is the average length of time for procedure 
of litigious civil and commercial cases involving 
foreign judgments? (Average duration of 
recognition and enforcement procedure involving 
third-country judgments) 

Sweden 
Source:  Quantitative  estimates  based  on  interviews  with  national  legal  experts,  Multilaw  Enforcement  of 
Foreign Judgments Project and National Reports.  

4 or more months 

2 months 

Illustration: Two examples of what some of these costs of proceedings can amount to are 
shown in the below tables. 

Table 40:  Illustration of possible fees in The Netherlands 

The Netherlands 

Court fees252 

Bailiff fee 

From 79 EUR to 3 946 EUR 

98.01 EUR 

Lawyer fees (hourly rates)253 

From 100 EUR to 400 EUR 

Table 41: Illustration of possible fees in Australia 

Australia254 

Professional costs 255 

Court fees256 

Filling fees257 

Hearing fees 

Max. 540 EUR 

Individual: 680 EUR 

Individual: 860 EUR 

Individual: 400 EUR 

Business: min. 1 900 EUR 

Business: min. 2 500 EUR 

Business: 1 000 EUR 

Lawyer fees (hourly rates)258 

From 125 EUR to 370 EUR 

Imagining a case on which an average lawyer spends 80 hours, such a case could amount to more than 
24 040 EUR in The Netherlands, whereas in Australia it would amount to more than 25 740 EUR for 

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-costs-can-you-expect-if-you-want-to-take-legal-action-in-the-

252 
netherlands-49791  
253 https://www.consumentenbond.nl/juridisch-advies/juridische-procedure/wat-kost-een-advocaat.  
254 https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/registry/fees/Fee_Table-Filing-Hearing-July20-2.pdf. 
255  Professional  costs  in  an  application  for  recognition  under  common  law  will,  in  part,  depend  on  the 
complexity of the matter and number of days allocated for hear, i.e. on a case by case basis.  
256  Court  filing  fees  involved  in  applications  for  registration  and  recognition  of  foreign  judgments.  Under  the 
FJA, an application for registration must be made to the Supreme Court of a State. 
257 The filing fee for an originating process in the Federal Court of Australia.  
258https://legalvision.com.au/how-much-lawyer-cost-fixed-fees-hourly-
rates/#:~:text=Lawyer%20Hourly%20Rates%20in%20Australia&text=In%20Australia%2C%20hourly%20rates
%20for,partner%3A%20%24400%20%E2%80%93%20%24600%20per%20hour 

148 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                           
businesses. A majority of interviewees indicated that for larger businesses, these amounts would run 
up to hundreds of thousands of euros.  

149 

 
 
11. 

Estimated spending and savings on cases  

The overall cost  of proceedings related to  the recognition  and enforcement  of third-country 
judgments in the EU and European judgments in the selected third countries were calculated 
based on two main elements:  

  The estimated cost of proceedings, based on three main cost elements:  

o  Court fees;  
o  Lawyer fees;  
o  Other fees.  

  The estimated number of cases (see Table 35: Estimated number of yearly cases in 

2020 and increase by 2026 under the different policy options) 

For the cost of proceedings, the court fees were based on data collected for the purpose of this 
study (see section 6 of this Annex). The lawyer fees were based on previous studies for EU 
countries259 and desk research for selected third countries based on  an assumed 80 hours of 
lawyer’s work for an average case. For other fees a flat average was taken based on previous 
impact assessments260. For cases related to the recognition and enforcement of third-country 
judgments in the EU, an EU-wide average was taken of these elements.  
These fee elements are shown below.  

Table 42: Estimated fees per EU Member State (in EUR) 

Member State 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czechia 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 

Lawyer fee 
(hourly) 
          377,06  
          220,47  
            31,45  
          212,06  
          199,20  
            90,57  
          252,36  
          366,71  
          354,03  
          357,25  
          199,35  
          252,19  
          446,68  

Court fees 

Other fees 

No data 
         20 
         25,56 
No data 
No data 
No data 
No data 
No data 
No data 
No data 
         406 
No data 
No data 

850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 

259  European  Commission  (2006).  Study  on  the  Transparency  of  Costs  of  Civil  Judicial  Proceedings  in  the 
European Union. Data on lawyer fees dates back to 2006, however these amounts were corrected on the basis of 
yearly and Member State-level inflation rates as well as exchange rates for those Member States that are not part 
of the Eurozone, or that have only acceded to the Eurozone since 2007. 
260  European  Commission.  (2010).  Impact  assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  regulation  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in 
civil and commercial matters (Recast).  

150 

 
 
  
                                                           
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
The Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 

Average: 

          503,16  
          411,02  
          103,59  
          216,99  
            30,69  
          354,75  
            92,74  
          202,17  
          113,08  
            90,98  
          212,49  
          354,52  
          377,87  
         247,00 

No data 
         30 
No data 
No data 
No data 
No data 
         134 
No data 
No data 
         66 
No data 
No data 
         45 
         103,79 

850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 
850 

Table 43: Estimated fees per key third country (in EUR) 

Key third 
country 
Australia 
Argentina 
Brazil 
Canada 
China 
Japan 
South Korea 
USA 

Lawyer fee 
(hourly) 
          312,00261  
            82,00262  
            48,00263  
          193,00264  
          246,00265  
            80,00266  
          375,00267  
           205,00  

Court fees 

Other fees 

            1.500,00  
No data 
                  30,00  
No data 
                  20,00  
No data 
No data 
            500,00  

               850,00  
               850,00  
               850,00  
               850,00  
               850,00  
               850,00  
               850,00  
               850,00  

https://www.cronista.com/legales/Cuanto-cuesta-un-abogado-en-Argentina-y-uno-en-EE.UU-20170301-

261https://legalvision.com.au/how-much-lawyer-cost-fixed-fees-hourly-
rates/#:~:text=Lawyer%20Hourly%20Rates%20in%20Australia&text=In%20Australia%2C%20hourly%20rates
%20for,partner%3A%20%24400%20%E2%80%93%20%24600%20per%20hour 
262 
0007.html  
263 Based on expert interviews.  
264 https://www.nationalmagazine.ca/fr-ca/articles/law/access-to-justice/2019/why-legal-advice-is-so-expensive  
265 http://www.chinalegalexpress.com/info/understand-how-china-lawyer-charges-1785325.html  
266 https://sumikawa.net/fee/  
267 https://www.thekoreanlawblog.com/2011/08/how-to-select-attorney-in-korea-by-tom.html  

151 

 
 
 
  
                                                           
The estimated total spending is based on the average cost of proceedings times the number of cases in a given year under a given policy option. 
In  the  minimum  scenario,  a  decrease  in  cost  of  proceedings  of  10%  is  applied  for  those  cases  falling  under  the  scope  of  the  Convention, 
whereas  under  the  maximum  scenario  a  decrease  in  cost  of  proceedings  of  20%  is  applied  for  those  cases  falling  under  the  scope  of  the 
Convention.  
For 2021, no decrease is applied.  

Estimated spending in the minimum scenario  

Table  44:  Estimated  spending  (minimum  scenario)  by  businesses  and  citizens  on  proceedings  related  to  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  third-country  judgments 
(originating in the selected third countries) in the EU and European judgments in the selected third countries under the different policy options 

152 

202120222023202420252026TotalPolicy option 1 (baseline)17 139 111   EUR17 641 423   EUR18 143 735   EUR18 646 047   EUR19 148 360   EUR19 650 672   EUR110 369 349   EURArgentina 165 163   EUR 157 605   EUR 150 047   EUR 142 489   EUR 134 931   EUR 127 372   EUR 877 608   EURAustralia 300 159   EUR 310 810   EUR 321 461   EUR 332 112   EUR 342 763   EUR 353 414   EUR1 960 719   EURBrazil 72 349   EUR 72 679   EUR 73 010   EUR 73 340   EUR 73 671   EUR 74 001   EUR 439 050   EURCanada 194 405   EUR 205 873   EUR 217 341   EUR 228 810   EUR 240 278   EUR 251 746   EUR1 338 453   EURChina 272 750   EUR 294 122   EUR 315 494   EUR 336 866   EUR 358 238   EUR 379 610   EUR1 957 079   EURJapan 127 139   EUR 133 055   EUR 138 971   EUR 144 887   EUR 150 803   EUR 156 719   EUR 851 575   EURSouth-Korea 359 961   EUR 364 033   EUR 368 105   EUR 372 178   EUR 376 250   EUR 380 322   EUR2 220 849   EURUSA1 162 739   EUR1 221 314   EUR1 279 889   EUR1 338 464   EUR1 397 039   EUR1 455 614   EUR7 855 059   EURPolicy option 2 (no declaration)17 139 111   EUR16 051 296   EUR16 677 392   EUR17 303 488   EUR17 929 584   EUR18 555 681   EUR103 656 554   EURArgentina 165 163   EUR 143 845   EUR 139 044   EUR 134 242   EUR 129 440   EUR 124 639   EUR 836 374   EURAustralia 300 159   EUR 282 679   EUR 295 214   EUR 307 749   EUR 320 284   EUR 332 820   EUR1 838 905   EURBrazil 72 349   EUR 66 304   EUR 67 493   EUR 68 682   EUR 69 872   EUR 71 061   EUR 415 761   EURCanada 194 405   EUR 187 705   EUR 200 445   EUR 213 186   EUR 225 926   EUR 238 667   EUR1 260 334   EURChina 272 750   EUR 267 114   EUR 288 753   EUR 310 392   EUR 332 031   EUR 353 671   EUR1 824 712   EURJapan 127 139   EUR 120 859   EUR 127 293   EUR 133 726   EUR 140 160   EUR 146 594   EUR 795 771   EURSouth-Korea 359 961   EUR 330 684   EUR 337 403   EUR 344 122   EUR 350 841   EUR 357 560   EUR2 080 572   EURUSA1 162 739   EUR1 108 768   EUR1 171 070   EUR1 233 373   EUR1 295 675   EUR1 357 978   EUR7 329 602   EURMinimum scenarioSpending on EU judgments inSpending on EU judgments inSpending on key third country foreign judgments in the EUSpending on key third country foreign judgments in the EU 
 
 
153 

202120222023202420252026TotalSpending on foreign judgments in the EU42 611 953   EUR43 114 265   EUR43 616 577   EUR44 118 889   EUR44 621 201   EUR45 123 513   EUR220 594 447   EURArgentina 165 163   EUR 157 605   EUR 150 047   EUR 142 489   EUR 134 931   EUR 127 372   EUR 712 444   EURAustralia 300 159   EUR 310 810   EUR 321 461   EUR 332 112   EUR 342 763   EUR 353 414   EUR1 660 560   EURBrazil 72 349   EUR 72 679   EUR 73 010   EUR 73 340   EUR 73 671   EUR 74 001   EUR 366 701   EURCanada 194 405   EUR 205 873   EUR 217 341   EUR 228 810   EUR 240 278   EUR 251 746   EUR1 144 048   EURChina 272 750   EUR 294 122   EUR 315 494   EUR 336 866   EUR 358 238   EUR 379 610   EUR1 684 329   EURJapan 127 139   EUR 133 055   EUR 138 971   EUR 144 887   EUR 150 803   EUR 156 719   EUR 724 436   EURSouth-Korea 359 961   EUR 364 033   EUR 368 105   EUR 372 178   EUR 376 250   EUR 380 322   EUR1 860 888   EURUSA1 162 739   EUR1 221 314   EUR1 279 889   EUR1 338 464   EUR1 397 039   EUR1 455 614   EUR6 692 320   EURSpending on foreign judgments in the EU42 611 953   EUR38 976 854   EUR39 602 950   EUR40 229 046   EUR40 855 142   EUR41 481 238   EUR201 145 231   EURArgentina 165 163   EUR 143 845   EUR 139 044   EUR 134 242   EUR 129 440   EUR 124 639   EUR 671 210   EURAustralia 300 159   EUR 282 679   EUR 295 214   EUR 307 749   EUR 320 284   EUR 332 820   EUR1 538 746   EURBrazil 72 349   EUR 66 304   EUR 67 493   EUR 68 682   EUR 69 872   EUR 71 061   EUR 343 412   EURCanada 194 405   EUR 187 705   EUR 200 445   EUR 213 186   EUR 225 926   EUR 238 667   EUR1 065 929   EURChina 272 750   EUR 267 114   EUR 288 753   EUR 310 392   EUR 332 031   EUR 353 671   EUR1 551 962   EURJapan 127 139   EUR 120 859   EUR 127 293   EUR 133 726   EUR 140 160   EUR 146 594   EUR 668 631   EURSouth-Korea 359 961   EUR 330 684   EUR 337 403   EUR 344 122   EUR 350 841   EUR 357 560   EUR1 720 611   EURUSA1 162 739   EUR1 108 768   EUR1 171 070   EUR1 233 373   EUR1 295 675   EUR1 357 978   EUR6 166 863   EURMinimum scenarioPolicy option 2 (no declaration)Policy option 1 (baseline)Spending on EU judgments inSpending on EU judgments in 
 
154 

202120222023202420252026TotalPolicy option 2 (declaration under article 18)17 139 111   EUR16 056 290   EUR16 687 379   EUR17 318 468   EUR17 949 557   EUR18 580 647   EUR103 731 452   EURArgentina 165 163   EUR 143 853   EUR 139 059   EUR 134 264   EUR 129 470   EUR 124 676   EUR 836 485   EURAustralia 300 159   EUR 282 774   EUR 295 405   EUR 308 036   EUR 320 667   EUR 333 298   EUR1 840 339   EURBrazil 72 349   EUR 66 316   EUR 67 519   EUR 68 721   EUR 69 923   EUR 71 126   EUR 415 954   EURCanada 194 405   EUR 187 793   EUR 200 621   EUR 213 449   EUR 226 277   EUR 239 106   EUR1 261 651   EURChina 272 750   EUR 267 260   EUR 289 044   EUR 310 829   EUR 332 614   EUR 354 399   EUR1 826 896   EURJapan 127 139   EUR 120 906   EUR 127 388   EUR 133 869   EUR 140 350   EUR 146 831   EUR 796 482   EURSouth-Korea 359 961   EUR 330 754   EUR 337 542   EUR 344 331   EUR 351 120   EUR 357 908   EUR2 081 616   EURUSA1 162 739   EUR1 109 215   EUR1 171 965   EUR1 234 714   EUR1 297 464   EUR1 360 214   EUR7 336 311   EURPolicy option 2 (declaration under article 19)17 139 111   EUR16 054 087   EUR16 682 973   EUR17 311 859   EUR17 940 745   EUR18 569 632   EUR103 698 407   EURArgentina 165 163   EUR 143 861   EUR 139 075   EUR 134 289   EUR 129 503   EUR 124 717   EUR 836 607   EURAustralia 300 159   EUR 282 679   EUR 295 214   EUR 307 749   EUR 320 284   EUR 332 820   EUR1 838 905   EURBrazil 72 349   EUR 66 329   EUR 67 544   EUR 68 759   EUR 69 974   EUR 71 189   EUR 416 143   EURCanada 194 405   EUR 187 705   EUR 200 445   EUR 213 186   EUR 225 926   EUR 238 667   EUR1 260 334   EURChina 272 750   EUR 267 427   EUR 289 378   EUR 311 330   EUR 333 282   EUR 355 233   EUR1 829 400   EURJapan 127 139   EUR 120 859   EUR 127 293   EUR 133 726   EUR 140 160   EUR 146 594   EUR 795 771   EURSouth-Korea 359 961   EUR 330 684   EUR 337 403   EUR 344 122   EUR 350 841   EUR 357 560   EUR2 080 572   EURUSA1 162 739   EUR1 108 768   EUR1 171 070   EUR1 233 373   EUR1 295 675   EUR1 357 978   EUR7 329 602   EURPolicy option 3 (declaration under article 18 and 19)17 139 111   EUR16 058 407   EUR16 691 614   EUR17 324 821   EUR17 958 029   EUR18 591 236   EUR103 763 219   EURArgentina 165 163   EUR 143 861   EUR 139 075   EUR 134 289   EUR 129 503   EUR 124 717   EUR 836 607   EURAustralia 300 159   EUR 282 774   EUR 295 405   EUR 308 036   EUR 320 667   EUR 333 298   EUR1 840 339   EURBrazil 72 349   EUR 66 335   EUR 67 555   EUR 68 776   EUR 69 996   EUR 71 217   EUR 416 227   EURCanada 194 405   EUR 187 793   EUR 200 621   EUR 213 449   EUR 226 277   EUR 239 106   EUR1 261 651   EURChina 272 750   EUR 267 543   EUR 289 611   EUR 311 679   EUR 333 747   EUR 355 815   EUR1 831 143   EURJapan 127 139   EUR 120 906   EUR 127 388   EUR 133 869   EUR 140 350   EUR 146 831   EUR 796 482   EURSouth-Korea 359 961   EUR 330 754   EUR 337 542   EUR 344 331   EUR 351 120   EUR 357 908   EUR2 081 616   EURUSA1 162 739   EUR1 109 215   EUR1 171 965   EUR1 234 714   EUR1 297 464   EUR1 360 214   EUR7 336 311   EURSpending on key third country foreign judgments in the EUSpending on EU judgments inSpending on EU judgments inSpending on EU judgments inMinimum scenarioSpending on key third country foreign judgments in the EUSpending on key third country foreign judgments in the EU 
 
 
Estimated spending in the maximum scenario 

Table  45:  Estimated  spending  (maximum  scenario)  by  businesses  and  citizens  on  proceedings  related  to  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  third-country  judgments 
(originating in the selected third countries) in the EU and European judgments in the selected third countries under the different policy options 

155 

202120222023202420252026TotalPolicy option 1 (baseline)17 139 111   EUR17 641 423   EUR18 143 735   EUR18 646 047   EUR19 148 360   EUR19 650 672   EUR110 369 349   EURArgentina 165 163   EUR 157 605   EUR 150 047   EUR 142 489   EUR 134 931   EUR 127 372   EUR 877 608   EURAustralia 300 159   EUR 310 810   EUR 321 461   EUR 332 112   EUR 342 763   EUR 353 414   EUR1 960 719   EURBrazil 72 349   EUR 72 679   EUR 73 010   EUR 73 340   EUR 73 671   EUR 74 001   EUR 439 050   EURCanada 194 405   EUR 205 873   EUR 217 341   EUR 228 810   EUR 240 278   EUR 251 746   EUR1 338 453   EURChina 272 750   EUR 294 122   EUR 315 494   EUR 336 866   EUR 358 238   EUR 379 610   EUR1 957 079   EURJapan 127 139   EUR 133 055   EUR 138 971   EUR 144 887   EUR 150 803   EUR 156 719   EUR 851 575   EURSouth-Korea 359 961   EUR 364 033   EUR 368 105   EUR 372 178   EUR 376 250   EUR 380 322   EUR2 220 849   EURUSA1 162 739   EUR1 221 314   EUR1 279 889   EUR1 338 464   EUR1 397 039   EUR1 455 614   EUR7 855 059   EURPolicy option 2 (no declaration)17 139 111   EUR14 267 819   EUR14 824 349   EUR15 380 879   EUR15 937 408   EUR16 493 938   EUR94 043 505   EURArgentina 165 163   EUR 127 863   EUR 123 594   EUR 119 326   EUR 115 058   EUR 110 790   EUR 761 795   EURAustralia 300 159   EUR 251 270   EUR 262 412   EUR 273 555   EUR 284 697   EUR 295 840   EUR1 667 933   EURBrazil 72 349   EUR 58 936   EUR 59 994   EUR 61 051   EUR 62 108   EUR 63 166   EUR 377 604   EURCanada 194 405   EUR 166 849   EUR 178 174   EUR 189 499   EUR 200 823   EUR 212 148   EUR1 141 898   EURChina 272 750   EUR 237 435   EUR 256 670   EUR 275 904   EUR 295 139   EUR 314 374   EUR1 652 271   EURJapan 127 139   EUR 107 430   EUR 113 149   EUR 118 868   EUR 124 587   EUR 130 305   EUR 721 478   EURSouth-Korea 359 961   EUR 293 941   EUR 299 914   EUR 305 886   EUR 311 859   EUR 317 832   EUR1 889 393   EURUSA1 162 739   EUR 985 571   EUR1 040 951   EUR1 096 331   EUR1 151 711   EUR1 207 091   EUR6 644 395   EURPolicy option 2 (declaration under article 18)17 139 111   EUR14 277 805   EUR14 844 322   EUR15 410 838   EUR15 977 354   EUR16 543 870   EUR94 193 301   EURArgentina 165 163   EUR 127 877   EUR 123 624   EUR 119 371   EUR 115 117   EUR 110 864   EUR 762 017   EURAustralia 300 159   EUR 251 461   EUR 262 795   EUR 274 128   EUR 285 462   EUR 296 796   EUR1 670 801   EURBrazil 72 349   EUR 58 962   EUR 60 045   EUR 61 128   EUR 62 211   EUR 63 294   EUR 377 991   EURCanada 194 405   EUR 167 025   EUR 178 525   EUR 190 025   EUR 201 526   EUR 213 026   EUR1 144 532   EURChina 272 750   EUR 237 726   EUR 257 252   EUR 276 778   EUR 296 304   EUR 315 830   EUR1 656 639   EURJapan 127 139   EUR 107 525   EUR 113 339   EUR 119 152   EUR 124 966   EUR 130 780   EUR 722 902   EURSouth-Korea 359 961   EUR 294 080   EUR 300 192   EUR 306 304   EUR 312 416   EUR 318 527   EUR1 891 480   EURUSA1 162 739   EUR 986 466   EUR1 042 740   EUR1 099 015   EUR1 155 290   EUR1 211 564   EUR6 657 814   EURSpending on EU judgments inMaximum scenarioSpending on EU judgments inSpending on EU judgments inSpending on key third country foreign judgments in the EUSpending on key third country foreign judgments in the EUSpending on key third country foreign judgments in the EU 
  
 
156 

202120222023202420252026TotalPolicy option 2 (declaration under article 19)17 139 111   EUR14 273 399   EUR14 835 510   EUR15 397 620   EUR15 959 730   EUR16 521 841   EUR94 127 211   EURArgentina 165 163   EUR 127 894   EUR 123 657   EUR 119 420   EUR 115 183   EUR 110 946   EUR 762 262   EURAustralia 300 159   EUR 251 270   EUR 262 412   EUR 273 555   EUR 284 697   EUR 295 840   EUR1 667 933   EURBrazil 72 349   EUR 58 987   EUR 60 096   EUR 61 204   EUR 62 312   EUR 63 420   EUR 378 367   EURCanada 194 405   EUR 166 849   EUR 178 174   EUR 189 499   EUR 200 823   EUR 212 148   EUR1 141 898   EURChina 272 750   EUR 238 060   EUR 257 920   EUR 277 780   EUR 297 640   EUR 317 500   EUR1 661 648   EURJapan 127 139   EUR 107 430   EUR 113 149   EUR 118 868   EUR 124 587   EUR 130 305   EUR 721 478   EURSouth-Korea 359 961   EUR 293 941   EUR 299 914   EUR 305 886   EUR 311 859   EUR 317 832   EUR1 889 393   EURUSA1 162 739   EUR 985 571   EUR1 040 951   EUR1 096 331   EUR1 151 711   EUR1 207 091   EUR6 644 395   EURPolicy option 3 (declaration under article 18 and 19)17 139 111   EUR14 282 041   EUR14 852 793   EUR15 423 545   EUR15 994 296   EUR16 565 048   EUR94 256 835   EURArgentina 165 163   EUR 127 894   EUR 123 657   EUR 119 420   EUR 115 183   EUR 110 946   EUR 762 262   EURAustralia 300 159   EUR 251 461   EUR 262 795   EUR 274 128   EUR 285 462   EUR 296 796   EUR1 670 801   EURBrazil 72 349   EUR 58 999   EUR 60 118   EUR 61 237   EUR 62 357   EUR 63 476   EUR 378 536   EURCanada 194 405   EUR 167 025   EUR 178 525   EUR 190 025   EUR 201 526   EUR 213 026   EUR1 144 532   EURChina 272 750   EUR 238 292   EUR 258 385   EUR 278 477   EUR 298 569   EUR 318 662   EUR1 665 135   EURJapan 127 139   EUR 107 525   EUR 113 339   EUR 119 152   EUR 124 966   EUR 130 780   EUR 722 902   EURSouth-Korea 359 961   EUR 294 080   EUR 300 192   EUR 306 304   EUR 312 416   EUR 318 527   EUR1 891 480   EURUSA1 162 739   EUR 986 466   EUR1 042 740   EUR1 099 015   EUR1 155 290   EUR1 211 564   EUR6 657 814   EURSpending on key third country foreign judgments in the EUSpending on EU judgments inSpending on EU judgments inMaximum scenarioSpending on key third country foreign judgments in the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estimated savings  

Table 46: Estimated savings on proceedings (minimum and maximum scenario) related to the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments in the EU (originating 
in the selected third countries) and European judgments in the selected third countries as compared to the baseline under the policy options 

157 

ArgentinaAustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaJapanSouth-KoreaUSAMin. cost reduction scenario -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EURMax. cost reduction scenario -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EURMin. cost reduction scenario6 712 795   EUR 41 234   EUR 121 814   EUR 23 289   EUR 78 119   EUR 132 368   EUR 55 805   EUR 140 277   EUR 525 457   EUR7 831 157   EURMax. cost reduction scenario16 325 844   EUR 115 813   EUR 292 786   EUR 61 446   EUR 196 555   EUR 304 808   EUR 130 097   EUR 331 456   EUR1 210 664   EUR18 969 469   EURMin. cost reduction scenario6 637 897   EUR 41 123   EUR 120 380   EUR 23 096   EUR 76 802   EUR 130 184   EUR 55 093   EUR 139 233   EUR 518 747   EUR7 742 554   EURMax. cost reduction scenario16 176 048   EUR 115 591   EUR 289 918   EUR 61 059   EUR 193 921   EUR 300 440   EUR 128 674   EUR 329 369   EUR1 197 245   EUR18 792 264   EURMin. cost reduction scenario6 670 942   EUR 41 001   EUR 121 814   EUR 22 907   EUR 78 119   EUR 127 679   EUR 55 805   EUR 140 277   EUR 525 457   EUR7 784 000   EURMax. cost reduction scenario16 242 138   EUR 115 346   EUR 292 786   EUR 60 683   EUR 196 555   EUR 295 431   EUR 130 097   EUR 331 456   EUR1 210 664   EUR18 875 155   EURMin. cost reduction scenario6 606 130   EUR 41 001   EUR 120 380   EUR 22 823   EUR 76 802   EUR 125 936   EUR 55 093   EUR 139 233   EUR 518 747   EUR7 706 145   EURMax. cost reduction scenario16 112 514   EUR 115 346   EUR 289 918   EUR 60 514   EUR 193 921   EUR 291 945   EUR 128 674   EUR 329 369   EUR1 197 245   EUR18 719 445   EURSavings on key third country foreign judgments in the EUSavings on EU judgments in third countriesTotal 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Upper and lower values of savings due to decrease in costs  

  Policy option 1a 

Table 47: Upper and lower values of savings due to decrease in costs in the EU and key third countries under policy option 1a for the entire reference period (2022-2026) 

  Policy option 1b 

Table 48: Upper and lower values of savings due to decrease in costs in the EU and key third countries under policy option 1b for the entire reference period (2022 – 2026) 

Table 49: Difference in upper and lower value savings due to decrease in costs in the EU and key third countries under policy option 1b compared to policy option 2a over the 
entire reference period (2022 – 2026) 

158 

ArgentinaAustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaJapanSouth-KoreaUSAMin. cost reduction scenario6 712 795   EUR 41 234   EUR 121 814   EUR 23 289   EUR 78 119   EUR 132 368   EUR 55 805   EUR 140 277   EUR 525 457   EUR7 831 157   EURMax. cost reduction scenario16 325 844   EUR 115 813   EUR 292 786   EUR 61 446   EUR 196 555   EUR 304 808   EUR 130 097   EUR 331 456   EUR1 210 664   EUR18 969 469   EURSavings on key third country foreign judgments in the EUSavings on EU judgments in third countriesTotalArgentinaAustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaJapanSouth-KoreaUSAMin. cost reduction scenario6 637 897   EUR 41 123   EUR 120 380   EUR 23 096   EUR 76 802   EUR 130 184   EUR 55 093   EUR 139 233   EUR 518 747   EUR7 742 554   EURMax. cost reduction scenario16 176 048   EUR 115 591   EUR 289 918   EUR 61 059   EUR 193 921   EUR 300 440   EUR 128 674   EUR 329 369   EUR1 197 245   EUR18 792 264   EURSavings on key third country foreign judgments in the EUSavings on EU judgments in third countriesTotalArgentinaAustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaJapanSouth-KoreaUSAMin. cost reduction scenario - 74 898   EUR -  111   EUR - 1 434   EUR -  193   EUR - 1 317   EUR - 2 184   EUR -  712   EUR - 1 044   EUR - 6 709   EUR - 88 602   EURMax. cost reduction scenario - 149 797   EUR -  222   EUR - 2 868   EUR -  387   EUR - 2 634   EUR - 4 368   EUR - 1 424   EUR - 2 087   EUR - 13 419   EUR - 177 205   EURSavings on foreign judgments in the EUSavings on EU judgments in third countriesTotal 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  Policy option 1c 

Table 50: Upper and lower values of savings due to decrease in costs in the EU and key third countries under policy option 1c for the entire reference period (2022 – 2026) 

Table 51: Difference in upper and lower value savings due to decrease in costs in the EU and key third countries under policy option 1c compared to policy option 2a over the 
entire reference period (2022 - 2026) 

  Policy option 1d 

Table 52: Upper and lower values of savings due to decrease in costs in the EU and key third countries under policy option 1d for the entire reference period (2022 – 2026)  

159 

ArgentinaAustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaJapanSouth-KoreaUSAMin. cost reduction scenario6 670 942   EUR 41 001   EUR 121 814   EUR 22 907   EUR 78 119   EUR 127 679   EUR 55 805   EUR 140 277   EUR 525 457   EUR7 784 000   EURMax. cost reduction scenario16 242 138   EUR 115 346   EUR 292 786   EUR 60 683   EUR 196 555   EUR 295 431   EUR 130 097   EUR 331 456   EUR1 210 664   EUR18 875 155   EURSavings on key third country foreign judgments in the EUSavings on EU judgments in third countriesTotalArgentinaAustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaJapanSouth-KoreaUSAMin. cost reduction scenario - 41 853   EUR -  233   EUR -   EUR -  382   EUR -   EUR - 4 688   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR - 47 157   EURMax. cost reduction scenario - 83 707   EUR -  467   EUR -   EUR -  763   EUR -   EUR - 9 377   EUR -   EUR -   EUR -   EUR - 94 314   EURSavings on foreign judgments in the EUSavings on EU judgments in third countriesTotalArgentinaAustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaJapanSouth-KoreaUSAMin. cost reduction scenario6 606 130   EUR 41 001   EUR 120 380   EUR 22 823   EUR 76 802   EUR 125 936   EUR 55 093   EUR 139 233   EUR 518 747   EUR7 706 145   EURMax. cost reduction scenario16 112 514   EUR 115 346   EUR 289 918   EUR 60 514   EUR 193 921   EUR 291 945   EUR 128 674   EUR 329 369   EUR1 197 245   EUR18 719 445   EURSavings on key third country foreign judgments in the EUSavings on EU judgments in third countriesTotal 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 53: Difference in upper and lower value savings due to decrease in costs in the EU and key third countries under policy option 1d compared to policy option 2a for the 
entire reference period (2022 – 2026) 

160 

ArgentinaAustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaJapanSouth-KoreaUSAMin. cost reduction scenario - 106 665   EUR -  233   EUR - 1 434   EUR -  466   EUR - 1 317   EUR - 6 432   EUR -  712   EUR - 1 044   EUR - 6 709   EUR - 125 012   EURMax. cost reduction scenario - 213 330   EUR -  467   EUR - 2 868   EUR -  932   EUR - 2 634   EUR - 12 863   EUR - 1 424   EUR - 2 087   EUR - 13 419   EUR - 250 023   EURSavings on foreign judgments in the EUSavings on EU judgments in third countriesTotal 
 
12. 

Environmental impacts of the accession to the Judgments 

Convention 

Baseline scenario 

Under the baseline scenario, the main environmental impacts concern the continued use 
of  (non-)renewable  resources  due  to  mostly  paper-based  communication  and  the 
transport  of  persons  complying  with  a  court  summons  or  necessary  travel.  The 
environmental  impacts  of  both  elements  are  expected  to  increase  under  the  baseline 
scenario in line with the projected increase of international proceedings. 

Presently,  official  documents  are  often  printed  on  paper  whose  production  requires 
renewable  resources  (such  as  wood),  consumes  water  and  involve  chemicals  (e.g. 
brightening  agents).  Likewise,  the  production  of  toner  requires  (non-renewable)  raw 
materials, e.g. plastic particles and other chemical products produced using mineral oil. 
Both paper and toner need to be packaged and shipped to end-users, leading to emissions 
from  transport  and  handling.  Both  the  production  and  use  of  these  materials  produce 
waste which may only be partially recycled (again requiring energy).  

The environmental impact of international travel is expected to remain stable, or slightly 
increase, under the baseline scenario as well. Currently, persons involved in international 
proceedings  may  have  to  travel  to  enable  the  taking  of  evidence.  For  instance,  a 
competent  court  may  summon  a  person  (e.g.  witnesses  or  experts)  directly  to  the  trial. 
Moreover, and in the absence of the Convention, arbitration remains the preferred option 
chosen by businesses and citizens, to the extent possible, in the context of international 
civil  or  commercial  proceedings.  Under  this  situation,  the  persons  or  arbitral  team  in 
question have to travel across the border or internationally, e.g. by using a plane. While 
the  distance  to  be  covered  and  the  environmental  impact  of  different  modes  of  travel 
varies, they are a direct result of the pending arbitral proceedings.  

The digitalisation of the judiciary following the COVID-19 crisis could help offset these 
environmental impacts, decreasing the paper-based communication and the international 
travels  to  a  certain  extent.  A  recent  survey  found  that  19%  of  executives  stated  that 
reducing the  amount of  air travel  and discouraging use of private jets are some actions 
that their organisation has undertaken so far268. According to interviewees, there seems to 
be a quicker shift towards digital hearings in arbitration, and it is expected to continue in 
the future as well.  

Accession to the Judgments Convention  

Under policy options 1a-1d, the environmental impacts are considered similar.  

268 Deloitte (2020). Climate check: Business’ views on environmental sustainability report. 

161 

 
 
                                                           
If the EU accedes to the Judgments Convention, the environmental impacts are expected 
to increase compared to the baseline scenario. This is mainly due to the relation of trade 
and its (in)compatibility with environmental sustainability. Whilst sustainable trade and 
investment  could  become  more  impactful  in  the  future,  and  generate  both  balanced 
economic  growth  and  promote  environmental  stewardship269,  its  development  is 
hampered  by  the  recent  economic  downturns.  The  economic  distress  caused  by  the 
pandemic  led  to  governments  across  the  world  focusing  primarily  on  restarting  their 
economies rather than improving its sustainability270. 

The  accession  and  implementation  of  the  Judgments  Convention  are  expected  to  bring 
benefits such as: 

-  A  decrease,  to  a  certain  extent,  in  the  use  of  paper  and  other  non-renewable 

materials due to the more efficient system;  

-  A decrease in international travel. 

The  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention  would  lead  to  the  decreased  use  of  paper-
based communication. The simplification of the procedures linked to the recognition and 
enforcement of foreign judgments internationally is  expected to  reduce the paper-based 
documentation around it. Combined with the increased digitalisation of the judiciary, also 
due  to  the  COVID-19  crisis,  the  decrease  in  the  use  of  paper  and  other  non-renewable 
materials is expected to be considerable. 

Furthermore, the environmental impact of international travel is expected to decrease to a 
certain  extent as well.  Fewer persons involved in such international  proceedings would 
have  to  travel  in  persons,  reducing  the  use  of  plane  or  other  international  and  cross-
border  means  of  travel.  On  the  other  hand,  economic  growth  resulting  from  increased 
(international) trade directly impacts the environment by increasing pollution due to the 
rising  number  of  interactions271.  Thus,  the  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention  is 
expected to: 

-  Further  increase  the  impact  on  the  environment  by  increasing  pollution  or 
degrading  natural  resources  due  to  pollution-intensive  activities  (e.g. 
increasing  number  of 
to  additional 
international  dealings 
international transport of goods, impacts on maritime shipping or air travel). 

leading 

269 As the EU for example,  who has included trade and sustainable development chapters in all its FTAs 
since 2009. 
270 DMC. (2020). The changing nature of global trade.  
271 https://www.oecd.org/trade/topics/trade-and-the-environment/.  

162 

 
 
 
                                                           
Consultation activities by the contractor 

13. 

Online survey responses and inputs from interviews 

Below we present an overview of responses to our online survey and the inputs from the 
confidential interviews performed by our study team. 

Geographical representation 

Survey responses 

•  The  online  survey  had  a  total  of  52  respondents  out  of  which  45  were  legal 
professionals.  The  analysis  below  exclusively  concerns  data  related  to  the 
responses from legal professionals. 

•  91% of the responses to the online survey from legal professionals were from EU 

Member States. Out of those, 78% were from Portugal.  

•  Only  9%  of  the  responses  were  from  non-EU  Member  States,  those  including 
Brazil and the Russian  Federation.  3  responses  from  Brazil, 1 from the  Russian 
Federation.   

•  Lack  of  geographical  representation  within  EU  Member  States.  Only  Belgium, 
Croatia,  the  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Portugal,  and  Slovenia 
were  represented.  Portugal  was  overrepresented.  Lack  of  responses  representing 
non-EU Member States (only 4 responses). 

Interviews 

• 

In total, 28 interviews were conducted with stakeholders across the EU and 6 with 
stakeholders in third countries. 

•  Out of the 28 interviews that were conducted with stakeholders across the EU, 6 
were  stakeholders  at  the  European  level,  representing  organisations  and/or 
businesses. 

•  The EU members covered by the interviews included: Germany, the Netherlands, 
Portugal, France, Cyprus, Hungary, Finland, Austria, Luxembourg, and Greece. 

163 

 
 
 
 
Profile of the respondents 

Figure 6: Typology of legal professionals’ respondent of the survey 

24% 

16% 

56% 

4% 

Bailiff

Judge

Lawyer

Other

Online survey 

•  56% of the legal professionals who answered the online survey were bailiffs, 16% 
lawyers, and 4% judges. The rest (24%), were other legal professionals including 
legal academics, court registers, and court staff among others.  

5% 

15% 

10% 

10% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

10% 

5% 

5% 

15% 

10% 

Interviews 

Germany

the Netherlands

Portugal

Finland

Hungary

Austria

France

Luxembourg

Greece

Cyprus

Multinational businesses

SME representative

• 

Interviewees were mainly legal professionals from their respective countries, with 
the  exception  of  two  multinational  companies,  multinational  insurer,  and  one 
SME representative. 

164 

 
 
 
 
International cases 

Figure 7: Number of international civil or commercial cases per year respondents were involved in 

0% 4% 

4% 

36% 

56% 

None

1 to 10

11 to 25

26 to 49

> 50

Online survey 

•  56%  of  the  respondents  had  never  been  involved  in  international  civil  or 
commercial  cases  at  the  time  of  answering  the  online  survey.  44%  of  the 
respondents  had  been  involved  in  international  civil  or  commercial  cases  to 
different  extent.  However,  most  of  them  (36%  of  the  total)  had  only  been 
involved from 1 to 10 cases.  

Figure 8: Average length of international civil or commercial proceedings respondents have been involved 
in 

3% 

13% 

17% 

67% 

1 month to 3
months

3 months to 6
months

6 months to 1
year

> 1 year

Online survey and Interviews 

•  According to the responses to the online survey from legal professionals, and the 
input  gathered  via  interviews,  80%  estimated  that  the  average  length  of 
proceedings of international civil or commercial cases was of 6 months to a year, 
or more than a year. 

165 

 
 
 
 
•  The  costs  of  the  proceedings  of  international  civil  or  commercial  cases  seem  to 
vary  from  country  to  country.  This  is  related  to  the  different  fees  related  to 
lawyers and courts, and the complexity of the cases. 

Foreign judgments recognition in the European Union 

Figure 9: Request for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the EU 

28% 

Yes

No

72% 

Online survey 

•  When applicable, only 28% of the respondents to the online survey had requested 

the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in the EU. 

•  77% of the respondents estimate that the length  of the proceeding is long and it 
represents  the  main  challenge  in  the  process  of  requesting  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of a foreign judgment in the EU. For 23% the main challenge is the 
cost of the type of proceeding. 

Interviews 

•  According to interviewees, whilst the average length of proceedings varies from 
country to country and depending on its complexity, they estimate that it usually 
takes at least six months to one year. Costs also change from country to country 
but  on  average  it  seems  to  cost  2.000  EUR.  In  more  complex  cases,  often 
concerning  businesses,  this  quickly  amounts  to  more  than  10.000  EUR.  It 
depends on the amount of the dispute as there is in most cases no fixed charge for 
enforcement of foreign judgments. 

166 

 
 
 
Procedural requirements 

Figure 10: Survey respondents facing challenges in complying with different requirements and procedures 
of specific third countries 

27% 

14% 

14% 

45% 

Not at all
Not really
To some extent
To a great extent

Online survey 

•  When  applicable,  72%  of  the  legal  professionals  that  answered  to  the  online 
survey  have  experienced  to  some  extent,  or  a  great  extent,  challenges  in 
complying with different requirements and procedures of specific third countries. 
Only 28% have barely  experienced, or not  experienced  at  all,  challenges  in  this 
regard.  

Interviews 

•  According to the great majority of interviewees, it is indeed challenging to a great 
extent  to  comply  with  different  requirements  and  procedures  of  specific  third 
countries.  This  is  even  more,  the  case  for  consumers  or  SMEs  as  they  do  not 
possess the financial and economic capacity of larger businesses (multinational) 
that can deal with (legal advice for) these requirements and procedures. 

167 

 
 
 
Re-litigation in EU 

Figure  11:  Re-litigation  (when  EU  Member  States  refuses  to  recognise  and  enforce  a  third  country 
judgment) 

50% 

13% 

14% 

23% 

Not at all

Not really

To some
extent

To a great
extent

Online survey 

•  When  applicable,  73%  of  the  responses  to  the  online  survey  from  legal 
professionals  consider  that  if  an  EU  Member  State  refuses  to  recognise  and 
enforce  a  third  country  judgment,  either  to  some  extent,  or  to  a  great  extent, 
having to re-litigate the same dispute presents a problem.  

•  Only around 9% of the respondents have expressed further challenges in relation 
to the process of having third country judgments recognised and enforced in the 
EU. 

Refusal in EU 

Online survey 

•  According to most of the responses to the online survey from legal professionals, 
96%  acknowledge  that  EU  countries  recognise  and  enforced  third  country 
judgments.  

Requesting recognition of European judgments in third countries 

Online survey 

•  When  applicable,  according  to  73%  of  the  responses  to  the  online  survey  from 
legal  professionals,  they  have  not  requested  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
an EU judgment for their client in a third country 

Interviews 

•  According to interviewees, whilst the average length of proceedings varies from 
country to country and depends on the complexity of the case, they estimate that 
it usually takes more than six months in non-EU Member States. With regard to 
the cost of EU judgments’ enforcement in third countries, it is also defined on a 
case  by  case  basis.  However,  the  average  cost  for  requesting  recognition  and 

168 

 
 
 
enforcement of EU judgments in third countries is deemed to be greater due to the 
more  complex  legislative  framework  in  place  in  third  countries  but  also  due  to 
lengthier  proceedings.  Still  according  to  interviewees,  Australia  and  the  United 
States  of  America  are  considered  very  expensive,  with  basic  cases  costing 
thousand dollars or more. 

Figure 12: Average length of proceedings according to survey respondents’ experience 

42% 

33% 

5% 

20% 

<1 month

1 month - 3
months

3 months - 6
months

6 months - 1
year

Online survey 

•  42% of the average length of proceedings take from 6 months to one year, 20% 
from 3 months to 6 months, 5% from 1 to 3 months, and 33% less than 1 month.    

Figure 13: Length of proceedings according to survey respondents’ experience 

18% 

31% 

18% 

33% 

Reasonable

Slightly lengthy

Excessive

No opinion

Online survey 

•  According to 51% of the responses to the online survey from legal professionals, 
the length of the recognition and enforcement proceedings were either excessive 
or  slightly  lengthy.  Only  18%  of  the  respondents  considered  that  the  length  of 

169 

 
 
 
proceedings  was  reasonable.  Another  18%  of  the  respondents  did  not  have  an 
opinion in relation to the subject.  

•  The  assessment  of  the  length  of  proceedings  is  highly  subjective  within  and 

across countries.  

Complying with requirements and procedures 

Figure 14: Challenges for respondents of complying with different requirements and procedures depending 
on a third country 

46% 

9% 

9% 

36% 

Not at all

Not really

To some extent

To a great
extent

Online survey 

•  When  applicable,  according  to  the  experience  of  the  respondents  to  the  online 
survey  from  legal  professionals,  82%  have  faced  either  to  some  extent  or  to  a 
great  extent  challenges  complying  with  different  requirements  and  procedures 
depending on a third country.    

Re-litigation in third countries 

Figure 15: Re-litigation (the third country refuses to recognise and accept the EU judgment) of the same 
dispute presenting a problem for respondents 

17% 

53% 

18% 

12% 

Not at all
problematic

Not really
problematic

To some extent
problematic

To a great extent
problematic

170 

 
 
 
Online survey 

•  When applicable, according to 65% of the respondents to the online survey from 
legal  professionals  having  to  re-litigate  the  same  dispute  if  the  third  country 
refuses  to  recognise  and  accept  the  EU  judgment  is  to  a  great  extent,  or  some 
extent, regarded as problematic. The remaining 35% were of the opinion that this 
does not really problematic, or not at all problematic.   

The positive impact from EU’s accession to the Convention 

Online survey 

•  51% of the respondents to the online survey from legal professionals believed that 
the  potential  benefits  from  the  EU's  accession  to  the  Judgments  Convention 
would  outweigh  the  possible  disadvantages.  Only  7%  thought  that  the  possible 
disadvantages would outweigh the potential benefits.  

•  A  substantial  percentage,  42%,  did  not  know  how  to  assess  it.  40%  of  the 
respondents  to  the open consultation  from  legal  professionals  were of the views 
that  the  accession  to  the  Convention  will  decrease  the  length  of  the  judicial 
proceedings. 32% believed that it would have a positive impact on the decrease in 
the number of instances a third country judgement is not recognised or enforced. 
25% were of the opinion that it would reduce the costs of proceedings. 

•  From  those  convinced  that  the  accession  to  the  Convention  would  reduce  the 
costs of proceedings, 41% believed that the reduction should be between 10 to 30 
per cent. 29% were of the views that the reduction should oscillate between 30 to 
50  per  cent.  18%  thought  that  the  reduction  would  be  of  less  than  10  per  cent. 
Finally, 12% believed that the reduction would be of more than 50 per cent.  
•  From  those  convinced  that  the  accession  to  the  Convention  would  decrease  the 
length of proceedings, 41% believed the length of proceedings would decrease by 
three to six month; 37% were of the opinion that those would decrease by one to 
three  months;  15%  thought  those  would  decrease  by  six  months  to  a  year;  only 
7% were of the views that the lengths of proceedings would decrease by less than 
a month 

Interviews 

•  The majority  of interviewees agree that it is  difficult  to  assess and judge at  this 
point the impact of possible accession to the Convention. However, they all tend 
to  agree  that  there  will  be  positive  impacts  from  the  EU’s  accession  to  the 
Convention  and  that  they  expect  these  to  outweigh  possible  disadvantages.  The 
main impact expected by interviewees is that the Convention would provide more 
legal certainty, mostly in terms of countries currently not being party to a bilateral 
agreement,  and  the  Convention  will  serve  as  an  additional  tool  and  offer  more 
flexibility to the judiciary. Secondly, interviewees consider that there should be a 
positive impact  on international  transactions and trade  as the Convention would 
increase certainty in doing business abroad. This will indirectly benefit consumers 
by the increase of competition. Concerning the level and quality of employment, 

171 

 
 
interviewees tend to believe that employment creation will happen as a result of 
the potential increase in business. 

•  With  regard  to  the  cost  and  length  of  the  proceeding,  interviewees  are  divided, 
with half of them considering that the Convention would not directly improve and 
decrease such burdens. The other half believe that the Convention will positively 
decrease  the  length  of  proceedings  and  thus  ultimately  decrease  their  cost,  as  it 
was the case with the Brussels Ia. 

Negative impact from EU’s accession to the Convention 

Online survey 

•  47% of survey respondents, including those that also saw the positive impact of 
the convention of the legal professionals survey believed that the accession to the 
Convention  could  have  a  potentially  negative  impact  in  creating  confusion  as 
some matter covered in the Convention fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of EU 
courts. 29% of the respondents were of the opinion that weaker parties might not 
be  properly  protected.  24%  thought  that  accessing  the  Convention  could  create 
more administrative burden.  

• 

In  total,  the  above  negative  impacts  were  mentioned  51  times  (vis-à-vis  the  66 
times when positive impacts were underlined). 

Interviews 

•  According  to  the  majority  of  interviewees,  the  possible  negative  impacts  would 
not outweigh the possible positive impacts. Yet, and with regard to fundamental 
rights, the necessity of a “safety valve” ensuring the minimum standards imposed 
by all parties to the Convention is often cited. 

•  Based  on  the  majority  of  the  interviews,  EU  employment  standards  could,  in 
theory,  be  endangered  due  to  the  enforcement  of  a  foreign  judgment  providing 
fewer standards than the one established in the EU. 

172 

 
 
Impacts the Convention would bring to third countries 

Figure  16:  Impacts  respondents  expect  the  accession  to  the  Convention  would  bring  for  EU  parties 
litigating in third countries 

10% 

32% 

34% 

24% 

It could create less
admin. burden

Decrese the length of
judicial proceedings

Reduce costs of
proceedings

Don't know

Online survey 

•  The respondents to the online survey believe that the accession to the Convention 
would  bring  for  EU  parties  litigating  in  third  countries  the  following  impacts: 
34% a decrease in the length of judicial proceedings; 24% a reduction in the costs 
of  proceedings;  10%  the  potential  creation  of  less  administrative  burden;  32% 
were not aware of the potential impacts. 

Interviews 

•  Based on the five interviews with third country legal professionals, the accession 
to the Convention would lead to a decrease in the length of judicial proceedings 
and decrease the administrative burden. Regarding the costs of proceedings, two 
interviewees  (from  Brazil  and  Australia)  specified  that  the  decrease  in  the  costs 
would only be linked to the reduction of the length of proceedings. 

173 

 
 
 
Figure 17: Possible decrease of the length of judicial proceedings as estimated by respondents 

10% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

Decrease by less
than a month

Decrease by one to
three months

Decrease by three to
six months

Decrease by six
months to a year

Online survey 

•  40%  of  the  respondents  believed  that  the  decrease  of  the  length  of  judicial 
proceedings would be by one to three months; 30% decrease by six months to a 
year; 20% decrease by three to six months; 10% decrease by less than a month.  

Figure 18: Possible reduction of the costs of proceedings as estimated by respondents 

7% 

Reduction by less
than 10%

43% 

50% 

Reduction by between
10% and 30%

Reduction by between
30% and 50%

Online survey 

•  50% of the respondents believe that the reduction would be by between 10 and 30 
percent.  43%  between  30  to  50  percent.  The  remaining  7%  was  of  the  opinion 
that the reduction would be by less than 10%. 

Employment matters 

Online survey 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  According to 88% of the responses to the online survey from legal professionals, 
the  European  Union,  in  order  to  better  protect  weaker  parties,  should  accede  to 
the Convention without making a declaration to exclude employment disputes. 

Insurance matters 

Online survey 

•  According to 85% of the responses to the online survey from legal professionals, 
the  European  Union,  in  order  to  better  protect  weaker  parties,  should  accede  to 
the  Convention  without  making  a  declaration  to  exclude  insurance  matters  to 
better protect insurance policyholders. 

Interviews 

•  According  to  a  multinational  insurer,  there  is  not  enough  knowledge  and 
oversight up until now to sufficiently assess this, but they seem to believe that it 
would be better to accede without making a declaration.  

Consumers’ matters 

Online survey 

•  According to 88% of the responses to the online survey from legal professionals, 
the  European  Union,  in  order  to  better  protect  weaker  parties,  should  accede  to 
the Convention without making a declaration to exclude consumer matters. 

Interviews 

•  Moreover, and according to the majority of interviewees, they see the Convention 
as a more business to business (B2B) instrument, with the majority of consumer 
matters already excluded from the scope. 

•  Yet,  for  several  interviewees,  and  because  consumer  matters  are  regulated  in 

detail in the EU, there should be a declaration related to consumer matters. 

Tenancies of immovable property situated in the EU Member States 

Online survey 

•  According to 88% of the responses to the online survey from legal professionals, 
the  European  Union  should  accede  to  the  Convention  without  making  a 
declaration to  exclude judgments involving  commercial tenancies of immovable 
property situated in EU Member States. 

Interviews 

•  On contrary, and according to interviewees, immovable property rights are often 
excluded  from  international  conventions  and  thus  it  is  an  expected  exclusion. 
Moreover,  local  courts  are  deemed  as  better  equipped  to  deal  with  and  resolve 
such disputes more efficiently. 

175 

 
 
 
 
Making a declaration regarding the proceedings concerned with the enforcement of 
judgments in a civil or commercial matter or based on Article 19 of the Convention 

Online survey 

•  According to 83% of the responses to the online survey from legal professionals, 
the  European  Union  should  accede  to  the  Convention  without  making  a 
declaration to exclude proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments 
in  civil  or  commercial  matters,  as  described  in  Article  24(5)  of  the  Regulation 
(EU) No 1215/2012 (known as Brussels I). 

•  According to 88% of the responses to the online survey from legal professionals, 
the  European  Union  should  accede  to  the  Convention  without  making  a 
declaration with respect to judgments involving a State or a State entity. 

Interviews 

•  According  to  the  majority  of  interviewees,  the  EU  should  not  proceed  to  a 
declaration with regard to Article 19 as it would be detrimental to the purpose of 
the Convention if too many states were to make such a declaration. 

•  However, certain interviewees agree on the fact that there should be declarations, 
under  Article  29,  towards  certain  states  of  the  world  where  fundamental  rights, 
due process and independence of the judiciary are not fully guaranteed. 

176 

 
 
 
14. 

Summary of responses to Member States’ authorities 

questionnaire 

The  below  represents  a  summary  of  the  responses  to  our  Member  States’  authorities 
questionnaire.  There  are  17  EU  Member  States  who  participated  to  the  national 
questionnaire, namely: 

 

 Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  the  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  France, 
Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Malta,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia, 
Slovenia, and Sweden. The remaining 9 relevant  EU Member States272 did not 
respond to the national questionnaire. 

Number of foreign judgments cases 

How many third-country judgments are recognised and enforced in your country on 
average per year? 

  Out of the 17 EU Member States who participates to the national questionnaire, 
47%  indicated  that  there  more  than  100  third  country  judgments  that  are 
recognised and enforced in their country on average per year. 18% indicated that 
the  average  ranged  between  0  and  25  cases,  and  another  6%  pointed  out  that 
there are no third country judgments  at  all that are recognised and enforced in 
their country. 

  The 23% remaining respondents did not answer to this question. Whilst they did 
not  justify  this  choice,  there  are  a  lot  of  countries  that  do  not  automatically 
collect this kind of data. 

Have you recorded a positive evolution of these numbers during the last 5 years? 

  Some 18% of the respondents underlined a positive evolution of these numbers. 
53% of the responding Member States indicated that there has been a negative 
evolution of the number.   

Table 54: Average number of foreign judgments cases per year 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Estonia 

Finland 

Average number of foreign judgments 
cases per year 

Positive evolution of these 
numbers during the last 5 
years? 

>100 

N/A 

0-25 

>100 

/ 

>100 

/ 

0-25 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

No 

/ 

No 

/ 

No 

272 Denmark was not part of this research. 

177 

 
                                                           
France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

The Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

>100 

N/A 

25-50 

>100 

/ 

/ 

26-50 

/ 

20-30 

N/A 

/ 

/ 

>100 

>100 

N/A 

>100 

/ 

None 

N/A 

N/A 

No 

No 

/ 

/ 

No 

/ 

/ 

N/A 

/ 

/ 

Yes 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

/ 

No 

Source: Survey questionnaire to the Member States in the context of the Study to support the preparation of an impact 
assessment  on  the  potential  EU  accession  to  the  2019  Convention  on  the  Recognition  and  Enforcement  of  Foreign 
Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. 

The absence of a comprehensive treaty on the recognition and enforcement of foreign 
judgments 

Figure 19:  Lack of a comprehensive treaty on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments 

38% 

Challege / problem

No challenge / problem

62% 

  62% of the respondents expressed that they face a challenge or a problem in the 
light of the lack of a comprehensive treaty on the recognition and enforcement 
of foreign judgments. 38% did not seem to be affected by it.   

178 

 
 
 
Figure  20:  Problems  or  challenges  due  to  the  lack  of  a  comprehensive  treaty  on  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of foreign judgments 

14% 

18% 

25% 

11% 

32% 

The length of the proceeding
is excessively long

This type of proceeding is
costly for businesses and
consumers

The same dispute might be
litigated in two different
States

There might be contradictory
judgments issued by two
different States

Other

  The following challenges or problems were expressed as follows: 32% the same 
dispute  might  be  litigated  in  two  different  states;  25%  potential  contradictory 
judgments issued by two different States; 18% excessive length of proceedings; 
11% costly proceedings for businesses and consumers; 14% other challenges or 
problems.  

Refusals to recognise and enforce non-EU judgments 

Figure 21: Refusals to recognise and enforce a non-EU judgment 

41% 

6% 

53% 

Yes

No

N/A

  Only  6%  of  the  respondents  said  that  their  country  has  never  refused  to 
recognise or enforce a third country judgment. 44% of the respondents did not 
answer  the  question  related  to  the  refusal  to  recognise  and  enforce  non-EU 
judgments. 

179 

 
 
 
Figure 22: Reasons for refusing to recognise and enforce a non-EU judgment 

43% 

36% 

21% 

The rights of the parties
have not been observed
during the proceeding.

The foreign judgment is
against national or EU
principles.

Other

  Only 50% of the respondents to the national questionnaire acknowledged that in 
their countries a non-EU judgment was refused recognition and enforcement at 
some  point.    The  grounds  for  refusal  were:  36%  related  to  the  rights  of  the 
parties  that  have  not  been  observed  during  the  foreign  proceedings;  21% 
concerned  the  fact  that  the  foreign  judgment  was  against  national  or  EU 
principles;  43%  of  the  respondents  provided  additional  reasons  for  refusing  to 
recognise  and  enforce  a  non-EU  judgment,  those  including  among  other,  the 
lack of reciprocity, formalities, lack of documentation, etc.  

Potential benefits from the EU’s accession to the Judgments Convention 

Figure 23:  Potential benefits form the EU’s accession to the Judgments Convention 

3% 

16% 

21% 

The number of instances third country
judgment is not recognised or enforced will
decrease

The legal certainty will increase

It will reduce the costs of proceedings

13% 

It will increase the speed of the judicial
proceedings

10% 

37% 

Other

Don't know

  94%  of  the  respondents  believed  that  the  potential  benefits  from  the  EU's 
accession 
the  possible 
the  Judgments  Convention  would  outweigh 
disadvantages.  There  were  no  responses  stating  the  contrary.  Only  one 
respondent was unsure whether this would be the case.  

to 

  The respondents believed that the EU's accession to the Convention would bring 
the following potential positive impacts to their respective Member States: 37% 

180 

 
 
 
 
said  that  the  legal  certainty  would  increase;  21%  were  of  the  opinion  that  the 
number  of  instances  of  third  country  judgments  not  recognised  nor  enforced 
would decrease; 13% said that accession will increase the speed of the judicial 
proceedings;  10%  that  will  reduce  the  costs  of  proceedings;  16%  put  forward 
other  positive  impacts  such  as  better  access  to  justice,  wider  recognition  of 
judgments, etc.; 3% did not know.  

Potential negative impacts from the EU’s accession to the Judgments Convention 

Figure 24: Negative impacts if the EU would join the Convention. The respondents that identified potential 
negative impacts were also of the opinion that the benefits of accession outweigh the costs  

15% 

45% 

25% 

10% 

5% 

Create more administrative
burden

Create some confusion as some
matters are both covered by the
Convention and EU legal
instruments

Weaker parties might not be
properly protected

Other

Don't know

  The respondents to the national questionnaire believed that the EU's accession to 
the  Convention  could  bring  the  following  negative  impacts  to  their  respective 
Member States: 45% said that it would create some confusion as some matters 
are  both  covered  by  the  Convention  and  EU  legal  instruments;  15%  that  it 
would  create  more  administrative  burden;  10%  put  forward  other  negative 
impacts  that would depend on how the accession is  done (e.g. with  or without 
declarations); 5% said that weaker parties might not be properly protected. 25% 
replied that they didn’t know. 

181 

 
 
Environmental impacts 

Figure 25: Environmental impact to the EU’s accession to the Convention 

Use of paper is expected to increase/decrease

11% 

5% 

6% 

6% 

It is expected to contribute to an
increase/decrease in energy consumption

It is expected to contribute to the
increased/lower demand for transport and
therefore contribute to increased/lower vehicle
emissions

Other

Don't know

72% 

The  vast  majority  of  the  respondents,  72%,  did  not  know  which  environmental 
impacts  the EU’s accession to  the Convention would  entail.  Out of the  responses 
gathered, Hungary and Portugal specified that the accession to the Convention by 
the EU would decrease the use of paper. Energy consumption and the demand for 
transport is also expected to decrease according to Hungary. 

Long lasting measures to be put in place in order to implement the Convention 

67%  of  the  respondents  said  that  the  current  resources  of  their  administration  were 
sufficient to implement the Convention. 7% believed they should hire additional human 
resources. Another 7% pointed out that they should restructure their department. The rest 
mentioned  additional  measures  mostly  referring  to  jurisdictional  related matters  instead 
of administrative measures.  

182