Apostolides v Orams & Ors

The public-policy exception to recognition of another Member State’s judgment is narrow. Refusal under article 34(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 requires a manifest breach of a concrete rule regarded as essential, or a right recognised as fundamental, within the United Kingdom legal order.

General international support for a negotiated peace settlement does not establish such a rule. Courts should not determine public policy by assessing the political expediency of enforcement or by adopting the foreign-policy preference of the government of the day.

Official contacts between an international judge and a Member State, including visits and receipt of an honour, create no appearance of bias unless a fair-minded and informed observer would perceive a real possibility of partiality.

The appellant obtained judgments from the Nicosia District Court concerning land in northern Cyprus. Master Eyre registered and declared those judgments enforceable in England under Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. Jack J allowed the respondents’ appeal and set aside registration: [2006] EWHC 2226 (QB).

The Court of Appeal referred questions concerning the Regulation and Protocol No 10 on Cyprus to the European Court of Justice. Following the Grand Chamber’s ruling in Case C-420/07, the matter returned for determination of two further objections. The respondents contended that enforcement was manifestly contrary to public policy because it might prejudice the Cyprus peace process. They also alleged an appearance of bias arising from contacts between the President of the European Court of Justice and representatives of Cyprus.

1. Appeal allowed. The orders registering and declaring enforceable the judgments of the Nicosia District Court were reinstated. Pill LJ delivered the leading judgment. Lloyd LJ agreed and gave additional reasons on public policy; Sir Paul Kennedy agreed with Pill LJ.
2. The public-policy exception in article 34(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 had to be interpreted strictly. Recognition could be refused only where it would infringe a fundamental principle of the United Kingdom legal order to an unacceptable degree. The infringement had to be a manifest breach of an essential rule of law or a fundamental right. General international support for the Cyprus peace process did not establish such a concrete domestic rule.
3. It was neither a proper nor a practicable judicial function, save in exceptional circumstances, to assess the merits of an international political dispute and decide whether enforcing a lawful judgment would assist or prejudice negotiations. The present case involved no plain breach of an established rule of international law by the Republic of Cyprus. Moreover, obligations to respect Cyprus’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, together with mutual trust in the administration of justice within the European Union, pointed towards enforcement.
4. Public policy under the Regulation could not be dictated by the government’s current view of expedient foreign policy. Permitting executive policy to determine whether a judgment should be enforced would itself offend an essential rule of law. The public-policy objection was therefore rejected, and the position was sufficiently clear to make a further reference to the European Court of Justice unnecessary.
5. The apparent-bias objection was also rejected. A fair-minded and informed observer, considering the institutional setting and all relevant context, would perceive no real possibility that the President of the European Court of Justice had been influenced by official visits, meetings, political remarks made in his presence, or the honour conferred upon him. Those contacts did not tarnish the Grand Chamber’s judgment, individually or cumulatively. No further reference or reconsideration was appropriate.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By [2010] EWCA Civ 9, unanimously allowed the appeal and reinstated Master Eyre’s registration and enforcement orders.
2. European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber): On the Court of Appeal’s reference in Case C-420/07, ruled that Protocol No 10 did not preclude application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001; articles 34(1) and 35(1) did not justify refusal on the grounds referred; and practical inability to enforce the judgment where the land lay did not make it unenforceable under article 38(1).
3. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Jack J allowed the respondents’ appeal and set aside registration of the Cypriot judgments: [2006] EWHC 2226 (QB).
4. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Master Eyre registered and declared enforceable the judgments of the Nicosia District Court.