Enforcement must be refused where enforcing a judgment requiring a newspaper publishing house and one of its journalists to pay damages for non-material harm caused to a sports club and one member of its medical team by published information would manifestly breach freedom of the press under Article 11 of the Charter, and therefore the public policy of the Member State where enforcement is sought.

A court of a Member State may refuse to recognise and enforce a judgment from another Member State on public-policy grounds where that judgment impedes the continuation of proceedings pending before another court of the first Member State by awarding one party provisional damages for the costs of bringing those proceedings, on the grounds that the proceedings concern a matter covered by a settlement agreement lawfully concluded and ratified by the court of the Member State that gave the judgment, and that the first court lacks jurisdiction because of an exclusive-jurisdiction clause.

The courts of the Member State in which enforcement is sought may refuse to enforce a default judgment that decides the substance of the dispute but contains no assessment of the subject matter or basis of the action and no reasoning on the merits. They may do so only if, after an overall assessment of the proceedings and in the light of all the relevant circumstances, that judgment appears to be a manifest and disproportionate breach of the defendant's right to a fair trial under the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, because it is impossible to bring an appropriate and effective appeal against it.

Article 45 precludes a court hearing an appeal under Article 43 or Article 44 from refusing or revoking a declaration of enforceability on any ground other than those set out in Articles 34 and 35, including compliance with the judgment in the Member State of origin.