>

Competencia Judicial Internacional Indirecta


TIPOS DE SENTENCIAS

  • Sentencias Declarativas
  • Sentencias Constitutivas
  • Sentencias de Condena

EFECTOS DE LAS SENTENCIAS

  • Fuerza de Hecho
  • Fuerza Probatoria
  • Fuerza de Cosa Juzgada
  • Fuerza Ejecutoria

CUESTIONES PROCESALES RELATIVAS AL CONTROL DE LAS SENTENCIAS EXTRANJERAS

EJECUCIÓN DE SENTENCIAS JUDICIALES EXTRANJERAS EN EL DERECHO COMPARADO

CONTROL DE LAS SENTENCIAS EXTRANJERAS

OBJETO DEL CONTROL DE LAS SENTENCIAS EXTRANJERAS

  • Requisitos de Forma de la Sentencia
  • Requisitos de Fondo de la Sentencia
  • Control de la Competencia Judicial Internacional Directa del Juez Extranjero
  • Control de la Competencia Judicial Interna del Juez Extranjero
  • Derecho Aplicado al Fondo
  • Orden Público Internacional Procesal
  • Orden Público Internacional de Fondo

EJEMPLOS

  • Costas Inglesas
  • Adopción Gay
  • Señoras B y N
  • Prohibición del Divorcio
  • Bad Ass Coffee
  • Jürgen Toft
  • TERMINOLOGÍA


TIPOS DE SENTENCIAS

Sentencias Declarativas

  • Declaran la existencia o inexistencia de un derecho
  • Ejemplo: la sentencia declara que el actor tiene derecho a una parte de la herencia como heredero
  • Ejemplo: una sentencia de prescripción
  • Requieren su reconocimiento, pero no su ejecución

Sentencias Constitutivas

  • Crean, modifican o extinguen un estado jurídico, sin limitarse a la mera declaración y sin imponer condena.
  • Ejemplo: una sentencia de divorcio
  • Ejemplo: una sentencia de nulidad de matrimonio
  • Requieren su reconocimiento, pero no su ejecución

Sencencias de Condena

  • Imponen el cumplimiento de una prestación de dar, hacer o no hacer
  • Ejemplo: una sentencia que condena al pago de rentas
  • Requieren, tanto su reconocimiento, como su ejecución


EFECTOS DE LAS SENTENCIAS

Fuerza de Hecho

  • La sentencia extranjera puede surtir efectos jurídicos en el país donde se dictó; pero, en el foro, no es considerada sino como un simple hecho

Fuerza Probatoria

  • La sentencia extranjera, en la medida en que es un documento, puede ser utilizada como prueba documental en el foro

Fuerza de Cosa Juzgada

  • La sentencia extranjera, en la medida en que implica que la controversia ya fue resuelta, puede impedir la interposición de una nueva demanda en el foro

Fuerza Ejecutoria

  • La sentencia extranjera puede dar lugar a actos de ejecución material en el foro


CUESTIONES PROCESALES RELATIVAS AL CONTROL DE LAS SENTENCIAS EXTRANJERAS

  • El exequatur es otorgado por el país en que se quiere ejecutar la sentencia
  • Será competente para conocer del exequatur el juez que señale el país de ejecución
  • El procedimiento judicial a seguir lo define el país de ejecución
  • Algunos países exigen reciprocidad internacional como condición de ejecución de las sentencias extranjeras


EJECUCIÓN DE SENTENCIAS JUDICIALES EXTRANJERAS EN EL DERECHO COMPARADO

  • Países que no conceden efectos a las sentencias extranjeras
  • Países que sí conceden efectos a las sentencias extranjeras, pudiendo dividirse en tres grupos:
    • Países que revisan tanto la forma, como el fondo, de las sentencias extranjeras (control global)
    • Países que revisan la forma de la sentencia y algunas cuestiones de fondo
    • Países que sólo revisan la forma de las sentencias extranjeras (control limitado)


CONTROL DE LAS SENTENCIAS EXTRANJERAS

¿Qué cuestiones puede, o debe, revisar el juez ejecutor para reconocer y ejecutar, o no, una sentencia extranjera?


OBJETO DEL CONTROL DE LAS SENTENCIAS EXTRANJERAS


1. Requisitos de Forma de la Sentencia

1.1. La autenticidad de la sentencia

1.2. La traducción de la sentencia al idioma del país de ejecución

1.3. La fuerza de cosa juzgada de la sentencia extranjera


2. Requisitos de Fondo de la Sentencia

2.1. Control de la Competencia Judicial Internacional Directa del Juez Extranjero

Algunos países obligan al juez de ejecución a revisar si el juez que dictó la sentencia tuvo, o no, competencia judicial internacional directa para hacerlo. En tal supuesto, el juez de ejecución puede revisar la competencia judicial internacional directa del juez que dictó la sentencia, a la luz de:

  • Los criterios de competencia judicial internacional directa del país de ejecución
  • Criterios análogos a los de competencia judicial internacional directa del país de ejecución
  • Los criterios de competencia judicial internacional directa del país en que se dictó la sentencia
  • La sola exigencia de un lazo serio entre la controversia y el juez que dictó la sentencia
  • Como mínimo, que el juez que dictó la sentencia no haya invadido la esfera de competencia judicial internacional directa exclusiva del país de ejecución


2.2. Control de la Competencia Judicial Interna del Juez Extranjero

Algunos países obligan al juez de ejecución a revisar si el juez que dictó la sentencia tuvo, o no, competencia para conocer del caso, conforme a su derecho procesal interno


2.3. Derecho Aplicado al Fondo

Algunos países obligan al juez de ejecución a revisar si el juez que dictó la sentencia aplicó la ley sustantiva apropiada.

En tal supuesto, el juez de ejecución puede revisar:

  • Que el juez que dictó la sentencia haya aplicado el derecho material competente conforme a las reglas de conflicto del país de ejecución
  • Que el juez que dictó la sentencia haya aplicado un derecho material "equivalente" al derecho sustantivo que hubiera sido aplicable conforme a las reglas de conflicto del país de ejecución
  • Que el juez que dictó la sentencia haya aplicado el derecho material del país de ejecución, en los casos en que el derecho sustantivo del país de ejecución sería competente conforme a las reglas de conflicto del país de ejecución
  • Que el juez que dictó la sentencia haya aplicado el derecho material competente conforme a las reglas de conflicto del país en que se dictó la sentencia


2.4. Orden Público Internacional Procesal

Algunos países obligan al juez de ejecución a revisar el cumplimiento de cuestiones procesales por el juez que dictó la sentencia. Por ejemplo:

  • Que la sentencia extranjera respete las garantías procesales mínimas que otorga el país de ejecución
  • Que la sentencia extranjera haya sido correctamente motivada


2.5. Orden Público Internacional de Fondo

Algunos países obligan al juez de ejecución a revisar el cumplimiento de cuestiones de fondo por el juez que dictó la sentencia. Por ejemplo:

  • Que la sentencia extranjera no viole las instituciones o principios fundamentales del país de ejecución
  • Que la sentencia extranjera no viole las políticas legislativas del país de ejecución
  • Que la sentencia extranjera no sea incompatible con sentencias previas del país de ejecución



EJEMPLOS

1

Costas Inglesas

"Excessive English Costs Orders and Greek Public Policy

Two recent Court of Appeal rulings in Greece have demonstrated the significance of the public policy clause in international litigation and arbitration. Both judgments are dealing with the problem of recognition and enforcement of ”excessive” costs awarded by English courts and arbitration panels. The issue has been brought several times before Greek courts within the last decade. What follows, is a brief presentation of the findings, and some concluding remarks of the author.

I.a. In the first case, the Corfu CoA refused to grant enforceability to a costs order and a default costs certificate of the York County Court on the grounds that Greek courts wouldn’t have imposed such an excessive amount as costs of the proceedings for a similar case in Greece. In particular, the court found that, granting costs of more than £ 80,000 for a case, where the amount in dispute was £ 17,000, contravenes Greek public policy perceptions. Thus, the amount of £ 45,000 + 38,251.47 was considered as manifestly disproportionate and excessive for the case at hand. Consequently, the CoA granted exequatur for the remaining sums, and refused recognition for the above costs, which could not be tolerated by a court of law in Greece.

I.b. In the second case, the Piraeus CoA recognized an English arbitral award despite allegations made by the appellant, that the award’s order for costs contravened public policy. In this case the amount in dispute was in the altitude of nearly $ 3 million, whereas the costs granted did not exceed £ 100,000. The court applied the same rule as in the previous case, and found that the costs were not disproportionate to the case at stake.

II. As already mentioned above, those decisions are the last part on a sequence of judgments since 2005. Free circulation of English judgments is generally guaranteed in Greece; the problem starts when English creditors seek to enforce the pertinent costs orders. For Greek legal views, it is sheer impossible that costs exceed the actual amount in dispute in the main proceedings. This was reason enough for the Supreme Court (Areios Pagos = AP) to establish the doctrine of public policy violation, on the occasion of an appeal against a judgment of the Athens CoA back in 2006 [AP 1829/2006, Private Law Chronicles 2007, p. 635 et seq.]. The Supreme Court held, that granting enforceability to similar orders would violate the principle of proportionality, which is embedded both in the Greek Constitution and the ECHR. At the same time, it emphasized that the excessive character of costs impedes access to Justice for Greek citizens, invoking again provisions from the Greek Constitution (Art. 20.1) and the Human Rights Convention (Art. 6.1). The reasoning of the Supreme Court is followed by later case law: In an earlier judgment of the Corfu CoA [Nr. 193/2007, Legal Tribunal 2009, p. 557 et seq.] the court reiterated the line of argumentation stated by the Supreme Court, and refused to grant exequatur (again) to an English order for costs. Two years later, the Larissa CoA [Nr. 484/2011, unreported], followed the opposite direction, based on the fact that costs were far lower than the amount in dispute.

In regards to foreign arbitral awards, mention needs to be made to two earlier Supreme Court judgments, both of which granted enforceability and at the same time rejected the opposite grounds for refusal on the basis of Art. V 2 b NYC. In the first case [AP 1066/2007, unreported], the Supreme Court found no violation of public policy by recognizing an English award, which awarded costs equivalent to half of the subject matter. A later ruling [AP 2273/2009, Civil Law Review 2010, p. 1273 et seq.] reached the same result, by making reference to the previous exchange of bill of costs particulars, for which none of the parties expressed any complaints during the hearing of the case before the Panel.

In conclusion, it is obvious that Greek courts are showing reservation towards those foreign costs orders, which are perceived as excessive according to domestic legal standards. This stance is not unique, taking into account pertinent case law reported in France and Argentina [for the former, see Cour de Cassation 1re Chambre civil, 16.3.1999, Clunet 1999, p. 773; for the latter see Kronke / Nacimento / Otto / Port (ed.), Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards – A global commentary on the New York Convention (2010), p. 397, note 245]. The decisive element in the courts’ view is the interrelation between the subject matter and the costs: If the latter is higher than the former, no expectations of recognition and enforcement should be nourished. If however the latter is lower than the former, public policy considerations do not usually prevail.

Final point: As evidenced by the case law above, it is clear that the Greek jurisprudence is applying the same criteria for foreign judgments and arbitral awards alike, irrespective of their country of origin. As far as the latter is concerned, no objections could or should be raised. However, making absolute no distinction between foreign judgments emanating from EU – Member States and non-Member States courts seems to defy the recent vivid discussion that predominated during the Brussels I recast preparation phase (2009-2012). Fact is, that public policy survived in the European context, and will continue playing a significant role in the new era (Regulation 1215/2012). Still, what is missing from Greek case law is an effort to somehow soften the intensity of public policy control in the EU landscape. Whatever the reason might be, a clear conclusion may be reached: Greek case law gives back to public policy a Raison d’être, demonstrating the importance of its existence, even when judicial cooperation and free circulation of judgments are the rules of the game."

Cuniberti, Gilles. Excessive English Costs Orders and Greek Public Policy. Conflict of Laws .net, March 5, 2013


2

Adopción Gay

"French Court Rules Gay Adoption Violates Public Policy

In two judgments of June 7th, 2012, the French Supreme Court for private and criminal matters (Cour de Cassation) ruled that foreign judgments allowing adoption by a same sex couple were contrary to French public policy.

In the first case, the couple was composed of two men, one French and one Canadian, who had lived together in Montreal since 1997 and had welcomed in 2005 a three year old. They had obtained an adoption order from a Quebec court in 2009.

In the second case, the couple was composed of two men, one French and one British, who lived in the United Kingdom. In 2008, an English court had issued an adoption order for a 10 year old.

Both couples sought recognition of the relevant adoption judgment in France so that they could appear as the parents of the child on French registries. The lower courts had granted recognition. The Cour de cassation reversed, and ruled that the foreign judgments violated French public policy.

""Attendu qu’est contraire à un principe essentiel du droit français de la filiation, la reconnaissance en France d’une décision étrangère dont la transcription sur les registres de l’état civil français, valant acte de naissance, emporte inscription d’un enfant comme né de deux parents du même sexe""

In substance, the Court held that a fundamental principle of French law prohibited that French registries provide that a child had parents of the same sex. An important factor was that the foreign judgments were perceived as cutting the filiation relationship between the child and his biological parents. This suggests that incomplete adoption would not raise the same issue.

The conciliation of these decisions with a previous one of 2010 which had recognised a foreign gay adoption will be an interesting exercise for French scholars.”

Cuniberti, Gilles. French Court Rules Gay Adoption Violates Public Policy. Conflict of Laws .net, June 27, 2012


3

Señoras B y N

"French Supreme Court Recognizes Foreign Gay Adoption

Yesterday, the French supreme court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) held that an American judgment permitting the adoption of a child by the female partner of the mother was not contrary to French public policy and could be recognized in France.

The women were two doctors living in the United States. They had entered into a domestic partnership. The mother was a American national, while her partner was French. After the child was born, the Superior Court of the county of Dekalb, Georgia, permitted the adoption of the child by the French female partner of the mother in 1999. As a consequence, the birth certificate mentioned that the American woman was the mother, and that the French woman was a parent.

The Paris court of appeal had denied recognition to the judgment. The appeal against their decision is allowed by the Cour de cassation which rules that the American judgement is recognised. The French text of the judgment of the Cour de cassation can be found here.

This decision is presented as historic by French newspaper Le Monde."

Cuniberti, Gilles. French Supreme Court Recognizes Foreign Gay Adoption. Conflict of Laws .net, July 9, 2010.


4

Prohibición del Divorcio

"German Federal Supreme Court: Ban on Divorce may infringe German Public Policy

The German Federal Supreme Court has held in its judgment of 11 October 2006 (XII ZR 79/04) that the non-availability of divorce under the applicable law may violate Art. 6 Basic Law which protects marriage and the family, and therefore German public policy (Art. 6 Introductory Act to the Civil Code (EGBGB)). With this decision the Federal Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the lower court (Court of Appeal Karlsruhe, judgment of 23 April 2004 – 5 UF 205/03)) which did not regard public policy as violated, thereby departed from its own former case law.

The Court sets forth inter alia that the public policy clause was not immutable, but had rather to be seen in the context of the contemporary legal order. Therefore it was subject to the transition of moral concepts. The Court refers for supporting the theory that value propositions had changed to the fact that hardly any State does not provide for the possibility of divorce nowadays (in the European Union the only State not allowing divorce is Malta). Further the Court stresses that the German Basic Law proceeds on the concept of a secular marriage subjected to civil law. Part of this marriage concept was also the possiblity to reattain one's freedom to remarry – by divorce.

The full judgment is available on the Federal Supreme Court's website. The judgment of the Court of Appeal Karlsruhe can be found in IPRax 2006, 181 including an annotation byThomas Rauscher at p. 140. "

Gaertner, Veronika. German Federal Supreme Court: Ban on Divorce may infringe German Public Policy. Conflict of Laws . net, December 5, 2006.


5

Bad Ass Coffee

"Alberta Court Analyzes Public Policy Defence

In Bad Ass Coffee Company of Hawaii Inc. v. Bad Ass Enterprises Inc., [2007] A.J. No. 1080 (Q.B.) (QL), available here, an Alberta Master was asked to recognize and enforce a Utah judgmentThe Master first analyzed the issue of whether the Utah court had jurisdiction, holding that the defendants had submitted to its jurisdiction by making arguments on the merits of the dispute. The Master also, correctly in my view, held that in light of the submission, there was no need for the Canadian court to consider whether there was a real and substantial connection between Utah and the dispute: the submission itself was conclusive on the jurisdiction issue.

Most of the decision deals with the defendants’ argument that the Utah judgment was contrary to the public policy of Alberta, particularly that expressed in its legislation about franchise agreements.  The Alberta legislation provided, in part, that the law of Alberta applied to franchise agreements.  The agreement between the parties had been expressly governed by the law of Utah, and the court in Utah had used that law to resolve the dispute.

The Master, after a lengthy analysis, concluded that the defence of public policy must remain narrow in scope.  In doing so the Master relied on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Beals v. Saldanha. As a result, the Master concluded that the application of Utah law to the agreement, while a violation of the local Alberta statute, was not contrary to the “fundamental morality” of the forum. Principles of international comity meant that the courts of Utah had to be given scope to apply Utah law to the contract.

Bad Ass Coffee Company of Hawaii Inc. is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. For more, follow this link.  The company’s name has to do with hard-working donkeys."

Pitel, Stephen. Alberta Court Analyzes Public Policy Defence. Conflict of Laws .net, October 17, 2013.


6

Jürgen Toft

"U.S. Court Rules (e)Mail Interception Order Violates Public Policy.

On July 22, 2011, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held in In re Dr. Jürgen Toft, Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding that a German Mail Interception Order issued in the context of German insolvency proceedings violates U.S. public policy and would thus be denied recognition.

Dr. Jürgen Toft is an orthopedic surgeon who assertedly has debts exceeding 5.6 million euros ($7.6 million) owed to approximately 110 creditors. Insolvency proceedings were initiated against him in Munich on June 10, 2010, but Toft refused to cooperate with the German trustee and allegedly secreted his assets outside of Europe. On July 8, 2010, the German Court entered a “Mail Interception Order” authorizing the German trustee to intercept Toft’s postal and electronic mail.

London

Having received information that Toft might have relocated to London, the trustee initiated a proceeding on January 28, 2011 in England. The English High Court of Justice issued an ex parte order on February 16, 2011, which granted recognition and enforcement to the German Mail Interception Order. It seems that a public policy defense was rejected on the grounds that Toft could have appealed the July order in Germany, but had not, and that § 371 of the 1986 English Insolvency Act provided a similar remedy.

New York

The German trustee then sought to enforce ex parte both the German and the English orders in the United States. The trustee requested that no notice be given to the debtor both before and after the U.S. court would agree to enforce the foreign orders so that the trustee could continue to investigate the affairs of a debtor whose intransigence, obstructionism, and evasive tactics have allegedly thwarted the German insolvency proceeding.

The point of the enforcement proceedings was to access servers located in the United States. The trustee requested that the US court compel the ISPs, AOL, Inc. and 1 & 1 Mail & Media, Inc., to disclose to the trustee all of the debtor’s e-mails currently stored on their servers and to deliver to the trustee copies of all e-mails received by the debtor in the future.

The United States has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross–Border Insolvency in 2005 as the Chapter 15 of its Bankruptcy Code, including its article 6 providing for a public policy exception (§ 1506 of the Bankruptcy Code). The Court denied recognition to the foreign orders as manifestly contrary to U.S. public policy.

The U.S. Court first examined U.S. privacy law and concluded:

""the relief sought by the Foreign Representative is banned under U.S. law, and it would seemingly result in criminal liability under the Wiretap Act and the Privacy Act for those who carried it out. The relief sought would directly compromise privacy rights subject to a comprehensive scheme of statutory protection, available to aliens, built on constitutional safeguards incorporated in the Fourth Amendment as well as the constitutions of many States. Such relief “would impinge severely a U.S. constitutional or statutory right.”""

The Court then insisted that, contrary to the allegation of the German trustee, a U.S. trustee would not enjoy such power in U.S. insolvency proceedings.

The Court finally concluded:

""This is one of the rare cases in which an order of recognition on the terms requested would be manifestly contrary to U.S. public policy, reflected in rights that are based on fundamental principles of protecting the secrecy of electronic communications, limiting the powers of an estate representative, and providing notice to parties whose rights are affected by a court order. The motion of the Foreign Representative for ex parte relief is therefore denied."""

Cuniberti, Gilles. U.S. Court Rules (e)Mail Interception Order Violates Public Policy. Conflict of Laws .net, December 13, 2011.


Para pensar...

Revisa los siguientes textos:

Proposed Draft Text on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgements

Projet de Texte sur la Reconnaissance et l’Exécution des Jugements Étrangers

Explanatory Note Providing Background on the Proposed Draft Text and Identifying Outstanding Issues

Note Explicative Etablissant le Contexte su Projet de Texte et Répertoriant les Questions en Suspens


TERMINOLOGÍA


Conflicto de jurisdicción, Conflict of jurisdiction, Conflit de juridictions

Ejecución de sentencias extranjeras, Enforcement of foreign judgments, Exécution des jugements étrangers

Reconocimiento de sentencias extranjeras, Recognition of foreign judgments, Reconnaissance des jugements étrangers



Broken Link Reporter

© Fernando Villarreal Gonda 2011