Article 45
1. On the application of any interested party, the recognition of a judgment shall be refused:
(a) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State addressed;
(b) where the judgment was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so;
(c) if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in the Member State addressed;
(d) if the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State addressed; or
(e) if the judgment conflicts with:
(i) Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Chapter II where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee was the defendant; or
(ii) Section 6 of Chapter II.
2. In its examination of the grounds of jurisdiction referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1, the court to which the application was submitted shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction.
3. Without prejudice to point (e) of paragraph 1, the jurisdiction of the court of origin may not be reviewed. The test of public policy referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction.
4. The application for refusal of recognition shall be made in accordance with the procedures provided for in Subsection 2 and, where appropriate, Section 4.
'Gjensidige' ADB
Article 45(1)(a) and (e)(ii) does not allow a Member State court to refuse recognition of a judgment from another Member State on the ground that the court of origin assumed jurisdiction over an action brought pursuant to a contract of international carriage in disregard of a jurisdiction agreement forming part of that contract, within the meaning of Article 25.
J v H Limited
Under Article 2(a) and Article 39 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, an order for payment made by a court of a Member State on the basis of final judgments delivered in a third State counts as a judgment and is enforceable in the other Member States, provided it was made at the end of adversarial proceedings in the Member State of origin and was declared enforceable there. Even so, the party against whom enforcement is sought may still apply, pursuant to Article 46, for refusal of enforcement on one of the grounds referred to in Article 45.
Alessandro Salvoni v Anna Maria Fiermonte
The court of origin asked to issue the certificate under Article 53 for a judgment that has acquired the force of res judicata may not of its own motion examine whether the rules in Chapter II, Section 4 were breached, even in order to inform the consumer of any breach found and enable that consumer, in full knowledge of the facts, to consider using the remedy under Article 45.