Quick Overview: Enforcement of Foreign Judgements in Lebanon

I- Object:

 1.     Pursuant to article 1009 of CPC foreign judgements are judgements rendered in the name of a sovereign entity other than the Lebanese sovereignty.

 2.     Unlike other legal systems such as the European Union, foreign judgements have to receive the exequatur from the competent Lebanese jurisdiction in order to be executed through enforcement measures in Lebanon.

 3.     This article aims to provide a substantial legal overview on the exequatur of foreign decisions in the Republic of Lebanon with quick references to other legal systems overseas.

II- The necessity of exequatur:

4.     Foreign judgment’s execution through enforcement measures. Pursuant to article 1010 of the CPC, foreign judgements cannot be executed through enforcement measures or coercion of individuals except after being granted the exequatur.

5.     Foreign judgement’s altering civil status. Pursuant to article 1012 of the CPC, Exequatur is also mandatory for foreign judgements containing enforcement measures as meant by Article 1010 of the CPC, like registering, correcting, or formalizing the entries recorded in the Lebanese personal status registers

6.     Exemptions. Certain foreign judgements are either not covered by the provisions of article 1009 et seq. of the CPC (a) or simply do not need an exequatur to produce some of their effects in the Lebanese fora. (b)

a- Foreign judgements excluded by art. 1009 et seq. of the CPC. Pursuant to art. 1011 CPC, the following foreign judgements aren’t provided for in art. 1009 et seq. of the CPC unless they contain civil obligations, and only to the extent of these obligations:

• Foreign judgements issued by criminal courts

• Foreign judgements issued by administrative courts

b- Foreign judgements exempted from exequatur. Pursuant to art. 1012 of the CPC the following foreign judgements do produce an effect in the Lebanese forum without requiring an exequatur on the condition that they remain uncontested:

• Foreign judgements granting a non-contentious decision (القضاء الرجائي)

• Foreign judgements related to capacity

• Foreign judgements related to personal status on the condition that: (1) They remain uncontested and (2) don’t entice any modification or correction to civil status.

III- Request of Exequatur’s procedure:

A- Non-contentious procedure:

7.     Petition (عريضة) requesting the exequatur. As per art. 1017 of the CPC, the party requesting the exequatur of a foreign judgment must present:

• A duly authenticated copy of the foreign judgment, meeting the requirements that prove its validity according to the law of the country where the judgment was issued.

• Documents that can demonstrate the acquisition of enforceability of this judgment in the country where it was issued.

• A duly authenticated copy of the summons addressed to the party who failed to attend the trial and a document proving the service of court documents if the judgment was issued in absentia.

• A certified translation corresponding to the original documents listed above, in accordance with Lebanese law.

B- Competent jurisdiction:

 8.     Court of Appeal’s President in connection with the foreign judgement. Pursuant to article 1013 of the CPC, a petition (عريضة) requesting the exequatur of a foreign judgment must be submitted to the following jurisdiction:

• Court of Appeal’s President of the defendant’s domicile

• Court of Appeal’s President of the defendant’s residence

• Court of Appeal’s President of the asset’s location intended for enforcement

9.     Residually, Beirut Court of Appeal’s President. In the absence of the aforementioned connecting factors, the petition requesting the exequatur of a foreign judgement must be submitted to the Beirut Court of Appeal’s President.

IV- Conditions of the Exequatur: (Art. 1014 of the CPC)

A- Control of the foreign competence:

10.  Control of the jurisdiction’s competence to issue the foreign judgement. In order to grant the exequatur, Lebanese jurisdictions must examine whether the foreign court that has rendered the foreign judgement is truly competent, according to the conflict of jurisdictions laws of the foreign court’s legal system. This simple method consist on the assessment of the foreign court’s competence by reference to the latter’s foreign jurisdiction rules is a consecration of the Unilaterality theory (Théorie de l’Unilatéralité) praised and despised by many for the very same reason: its liberal nature.

11.  Exceptions. Lebanese jurisdictions are bound to deny the exequatur of a foreign judgement rendered by a court deemed competent as per its respective conflict of jurisdiction rules in the following cases:

a- Competence solely based on the plaintiff’s nationality. Even if assessing the foreign court’s competence does not involve reserving any judgement on its substance, however Lebanese jurisdiction will deny a foreign judgement rendered by a court which competences solely based on the nationality of the plaintiff. In fact, in contrast with the general rule of the forum of the defendant, it would be highly unreasonable, exorbitant even to offer the plaintiff the benefit of initiating legal proceeding from the comfort of his own country.

b- Exclusive competence of the Lebanese forum. Even if a foreign court is deemed competent to render the foreign judgement, Lebanese jurisdictions will deny its exequatur if the aforementioned competence enters in conflict with an exclusive competence of the Lebanese legal system.  

e.g., If a jurisdiction clause inserted in a contract designates a Lebanese jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising from that contract, the Lebanese jurisdiction’s competence becomes exclusive.

12.  Contrast with the French jurisdictions. French jurisdictions do not simply assess the foreign court’s competence by reference to its respective conflict of jurisdiction laws. In fact, since the French Court of Cassation’s ruling “Simitch”[1] influenced by the doctrine of Dominique Holleaux, French jurisdictions operate a control of the regularity of the court’s competence to issue foreign judgements according to the following criteria:

a- Existence of a characterized connection. French jurisdictions assess whether the court that had issued the foreign judgement had a significant connection with the dispute.  

e.g., In contractual disputes, the court of the place of execution of the contract is deemed to have a significant connection with the dispute.

b- Exclusive competence of the French forum.[2]

c- Absence of Fraud. The foreign court’s competence to issue the judgement is regular as long as it is not deemed fraudulent.

B- Final and enforceable foreign judgement:

13.  Acquisition of Res judicata effect (قوة القضية المحكوم بها) and enforceability of the foreign judgement. Lebanese jurisdictions have to examine whether the foreign judgment has acquired the force of the judgment rendered and the executive force in the state in whose name it was issued. However, it is possible to grant exequatur to provisional judgments and interim judgments that have become enforceable in the relevant state.

 C- The procedural rights’ respect:

14.  Respect of procedural defense rights and notification’s regularity. Lebanese jurisdictions must examine whether the defendant has been notified of the claim that led to the judgment rights and his rights of defense have been guaranteed within the foreign jurisdiction.

15.  Contrast with French jurisdictions. French jurisdictions have gone beyond the mere examination of procedural defense rights and notification’s regularity. In fact, Since the French Court of cassation’s ruling “Bachir”[3], procedural right’s respect by the foreign court that has rendered the foreign judgement are examined on a much broader scale according to the French Procedural Public Order which covers:

• Defense rights

• Right to a fair trial[4] 

• Right to a contradictory process

D- Reciprocity:

16.  Existence of reciprocity. The foreign judgement intended to be granted exequatur must have been issued in the name of a state whose laws allow for the enforcement of Lebanese judgments on its territory after they have been examined or granted executive formula.

E- The conformity to the Lebanese International Public Order:

17.  Absence of violation to the Lebanese IPO. In order to receive an exequatur by the Lebanese forum, the foreign judgement must not violate the Lebanese forum’s internal cohesion by importing a situation or producing an effect deemed odd, shocking and unacceptable to the Lebanese society.

18.  Definition and content. There is no clear definition nor an exhaustive of content of the Lebanese International Public Order. In fact, it is but a mere safeguard of a set of values, objectives and believes that constitute the pillar of the Lebanese society and which may, under no circumstance, be shaken by the effect that the exequatur of a foreign judgement may have.

F- Absence of Fraud:

19.  General Principle of Fraud. The exequatur of a foreign judgement in Lebanon may be denied if a fraud is proven under the general principle:

“Fraus omnia corrumpit”

G- Additional grounds for exequatur refusal: (Art. 1016 CPC)

The Lebanese courts must reject the exequatur petition in the following cases:

20.  If a final judgment by the Lebanese jurisdiction has been issued between the same parties involved in the dispute that led to the issuance of the foreign judgment.

21.  If a lawsuit involving the same dispute and between the same litigants is still pending before the Lebanese judiciary, filed prior to the lawsuit associated with the foreign judgment.

V- Exequatur’s effects:

22.  Identical effect to a judgement rendered by a Lebanese jurisdiction. Pursuant to art. 1022 CPC, the foreign judgment that has been granted exequatur enjoys the same enforcement power as Lebanese judgments and benefits from the methods of enforcement available for such judgments.

VI- Additional Remarks:

23.  Free circulation of judgements within the EU. Judgements rendered by a Member State of the EU, within the meaning of art. 2(a) of Brussels I-Bis Regulation, are exempt of any exequatur in order to be enforced in other Member State’s legal systems pursuant to art. 33 of Brussels I-Bis Regulation. Therefore, these judgements circulate freely inside the EU’s territory which marks a huge advancement into the creation of a shared European Legal System. 

24.  Refusal of enforcement. Free circulation being the principle, the party against whom the enforcement is sought can still request its refusal the grounds referred to in Art. 45 of Brussel I Bis, if found to exist.

—————————————————

[1] Cour de cassation [Cass] [Court of cassation], civ. 1re., Feb. 6, 1985

[2] See. Para. [8.b]

[3] Cour de cassation [Cass] [Court of cassation], civ. 1re., Oct. 4, 1967

[4] See art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights