DECISION GIVEN IN DEFAULT AND THE COURT FIRST SEISED RULES THAT THE OBJECTION IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LODGED WITHIN THE PERIOD LAID DOWN FOR THAT PURPOSE?
( 4)IF THE COURT FIRST SEISED HAS RULED THAT AT THE TIME OF SERVICE OF THE DOCUMENT WHICH INSTITUTED THE PROCEEDINGS THE DEFENDANT HAD HIS HABITUAL RESIDENCE IN THE STATE OF THAT COURT , WITH THE RESULT THAT IN THAT RESPECT SERVICE WAS DULY EFFECTED , DO THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPENING WORDS AND POINT 2 OF ARTICLE 27 REQUIRE THAT A SEPARATE EXAMINATION BE CARRIED OUT INTO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DOCUMENT WAS SERVED IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO ENABLE THE DEFENDANT TO ARRANGE FOR HIS DEFENCE? IF SO , IS THAT EXAMINATION THEN CONFINED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DOCUMENT REACHED THE DEFENDANT ' S HABITUAL RESIDENCE IN GOOD TIME OR MUST , FOR EXAMPLE , THE QUESTION ALSO BE EXAMINED WHETHER SERVICE AT THAT RESIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE THAT THE DOCUMENT WOULD REACH THE DEFENDANT PERSONALLY IN GOOD TIME?
( 5)IN CONNECTION WITH THE QUESTIONS SET OUT UNDER ( 4 ), IS THE POSITION ALTERED , HAVING REGARD TO ARTICLE 52 , BY THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURT OF THE STATE IN WHICH RECOGNITION OR ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT RULES THAT UNDER THE LAW OF THAT STATE AT THE TIME OF SERVICE OF THE DOCUMENT WHICH INSTITUTED THE PROCEEDINGS THE DEFENDANT HAD HIS HABITUAL RESIDENCE IN THAT STATE?
' '
7 BEFORE A REPLY IS GIVEN TO THOSE QUESTIONS IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT TITLE II OF THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION CONTAINS PROVISIONS REGULATING DIRECTLY AND IN DETAIL THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE IN WHICH JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN , AND ALSO PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE VERIFICATION OF THAT JURISDICTION AND OF ADMISSIBILITY . THESE PROVISIONS , WHICH ARE BINDING ON THE COURT IN WHICH JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN , ARE OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF DEFENDANTS . THIS HAS MADE IT POSSIBLE , AT THE STAGE OF RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT WHICH IS GOVERNED BY TITLE III OF THE CONVENTION , TO FACILITATE THE FREE MOVEMENT OF JUDGMENTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY BY SIMPLIFYING THE PROCEDURE FOR RECOGNITION AND BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF GROUNDS WHICH MAY OPERATE TO PREVENT THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS . AMONGST THESE GROUNDS ARE THAT CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 27 , POINT 2 , WHICH , FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT , PROVIDES FOR REFUSAL OF RECOGNITION AND , READ TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 34 , FOR REFUSAL OF ENFORCEMENT , IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHERE THE GUARANTEES CONTAINED IN THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN AND IN THE CONVENTION ITSELF ARE INSUFFICIENT TO ENSURE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY OF ARRANGING FOR HIS DEFENCE BEFORE THE COURT IN WHICH JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN . IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE PROVISION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IN CASSATION IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS MUST BE INTERPRETED .
THE