The circulation of judgments between Belgium and the United Kingdom: towards a new balance under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention?
Brexit dismantled the Brussels I Recast regime for the UK and resulted in a fragmented framework of domestic rules and a residual treaty. However, the entry into force of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention for the UK partially restores judicial cooperation in the post-Brexit era.
The Brussels I recast regime
Before Brexit, the United Kingdom was fully integrated into the EU’s system of judicial cooperation. Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, civil and commercial judgments circulated almost automatically across Member States, thanks to mutual trust between courts and the abolition of exequatur.
This regime still applies to the circulation of judgments delivered in proceedings instituted before 31 December 2020.
After Brexit: a fragmented system
Following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, the harmonised European framework ceased to apply. Both Belgium and the UK then had to rely on domestic laws, supplemented by the international instrument to which it remained a party, i.e. the 1934 Anglo-Belgian Convention, to govern the recognition and enforcement of each other’s judgments.
The 1934 Anglo-Belgian Convention
Before Brexit, the 1934 Anglo-Belgian Convention had become largely obsolete, as the EU Regime provided a unified system of recognition and enforcement between the EU and the UK. On 1 January 2021 the 1934 Convention again became the principal instrument governing the circulation of civil and commercial judgments between Belgium and the UK, pending a new framework. This transitional period concluded on 1 July 2025 with the entry into force of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention for the UK.
The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention
Since 1 July 2025, following its 2024 ratification, the UK has been a Party to the Hague Judgments Convention under Article 28(1). With the European Union having acceded in 2022, a common framework now governs judicial relations between the UK and EU Member States. Between Belgium and the UK, the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention now supersedes the 1934 Convention for judgments within the former’s scope, under its Article 23(2), which (again) confines the 1934 Convention to a residual role. The 2019 Convention excludes interim measures and several fields such as tax, customs, administrative matters, family law, insolvency, and personality rights.
Conditions for recognition and enforcement under the 2019 Convention
Recognition and enforcement are possible only if one of the jurisdictional grounds listed in Article 5 is satisfied. These rules allow the court addressed to check that the case has a sufficient connection with the court that issued the judgment.
Limited grounds for refusal
Article 7 provides a limited list of grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement, including incompatibility with public policy, violation of defence rights, fraud, conflict with an earlier judgment, or non-compliance with a choice-of-court agreement or the Convention’s jurisdictional rules.
Procedure
In Belgium, an application for recognition or enforcement under the 2019 Hague Convention is made ex parte before the president of the court of first instance. The applicant must produce an authenticated copy of the judgment and the certificate provided for by the Convention. If the documents are not in French, Dutch or German, then a translation may be required.
Under Article 4, the court addressed may not review the merits and must simply verify that the judgment is effective and enforceable in the State of origin.
Reservations
The EU entered a reservation under Article 18, excluding (UK) judgments on non-residential leases (tenancies) of immovable property situated within its territory.
For the UK, it first limited the Convention’s territorial scope to England and Wales before extending it to Scotland and Northern Ireland under Articles 25 and 30, and it has entered no further reservations.
Conclusion
The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention marks a return to a structured and predictable framework for the circulation of judgments between Belgium and the UK, in a landscape where Brexit had reintroduced fragmentation and uncertainty
Recommended articles
The IOS procedure: avoid the courts when recovering undisputed claims
Since 2016, the law has provided for an administrative procedure for the recovery of undisputed and payable monetary debts in B2B relationships. This “IOS procedure” allows companies to obtain an enforceable title without first having to go through traditional court proceedings, and thus constitutes an efficient and time-saving alternative.
Read on
The Supreme Court’s recent Decision on the Burden of Proof in State Immunity Matters Alters the Dynamics of Sovereign Debt Recovery
On 19 December 2024, the Belgian Supreme Court made a significant decision that has clarified the complexities surrounding State immunity, the burden of proof, and the obligation of debtor States to cooperate in that respect. This ruling not only clarifies existing legal principles but also introduces nuanced considerations regarding how factual presumptions can be utilised to meet evidentiary requirements in cases involving sovereign immunity.
Read on
Extension of the Belgian Reconciliation Procedure
Following the Act of 19 December 2023 (published on 27 December 2023), the legislator has introduced a reconciliation procedure in the commercial and labour courts as well as in the courts of appeal.
Read on