Yordanova v Iordanov

Recognition of a foreign divorce under Brussels II Bis is subject to exceptional grounds in article 22, including manifest incompatibility with public policy and inadequate notice enabling the respondent to arrange a defence. A court hearing a recognition challenge must investigate those issues in its own jurisdiction. Compliance with foreign law does not prevent refusal of recognition where the process conflicts with fundamental domestic standards of justice and due process in proceedings changing personal status. Appellate intervention is not justified merely because the trial judge preferred one party’s evidence on the critical factual issue.

The appellant sought permission to appeal an order of His Honour Judge Welchman in the Wandsworth County Court. The judge had dismissed his application concerning recognition of a Bulgarian divorce decree, relying on article 22(a) of Brussels II Bis and/or article 22(b).

The appellant argued that the Bulgarian proceedings were legitimate under Bulgarian law, that the respondent had received inadequate notice only because of an erroneous factual finding, and that the validity of the Bulgarian power of attorney was a matter for Bulgarian law. The central issues were whether the English court could refuse recognition on public-policy or notice grounds and whether it could determine the underlying factual issue itself.

1. Permission refused. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal from the county court order.
2. Lord Justice Thorpe held that the county court judge had properly investigated the essential issue by hearing the husband and wife, whose evidence conflicted on the respondent’s understanding of the power of attorney. The judge preferred the wife’s evidence and found that she did not understand that signing the document could have the asserted far-reaching consequences.
3. That factual finding was not realistically open to challenge on appeal. The judge was entitled to conclude that a divorce decree which complied with Bulgarian law did not satisfy domestic concepts of justice and due process in proceedings changing status. It was therefore unnecessary to determine the full scope of article 22(b).
4. The submission that the English court should not determine the validity of the Bulgarian power of attorney was rejected. Brussels II Bis provides for automatic recognition subject to exceptional provisions in article 22. A challenge based on public policy or failure to give due notice must be investigated and concluded in the jurisdiction where recognition is challenged.
5. Lord Justice Jackson agreed, observing that article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 may exceptionally produce recognition of a divorce and subsequent remarriage in one Member State but not another. Lord Justice Tomlinson agreed with both judgments and added that article 26 was not potentially engaged.

Order: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Permission to appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Welchman was refused: [2013] EWCA Civ 464.
• Wandsworth County Court — On 10 October 2012, the judge dismissed the appellant’s application concerning recognition of the Bulgarian divorce decree and relied on article 22(a) and/or article 22(b) of Brussels II Bis.