The general principle of international law applicable in such cases is that a foreign state exercises the right to consider foreign judgments on four grounds: (1) whether the court that issued the judgment was competent; 2. to determine whether the defendant was properly informed of the action; (3) to determine whether the proceedings were tainted by fraud; and (4) to find that the judgment is not contrary to the public order of the foreigner. While documentary procedures and requirements vary considerably from country to country, judgments that do not involve multiple or punitive damages may, as a rule, be executed in whole or in part with the recognition of determinative and finality, subject to the above indications, unless domestic law imposes a contractual obligation. In England and Wales, there are three avenues of application and rules of recognition: in the absence of applicable statutes or agreements between Norway and the foreign state concerned, the enforcement of foreign judgments is conditional on the adoption of a judgment by a court agreed by the parties (see Section 4 to 6 of the Litigation Act, which requires a written court clause to the extent that it extends or restricts the jurisdiction of the Norwegian court). and the obligation to enter into agreements with consumers after the dispute in order to be binding). In practice, the same applies to the recognition and enforcement of foreign distinctions, while recognizing that the jurisdiction of arbitration bodies is also contingent on the agreement reached between the parties in the arbitration agreement. Recognition is generally denied where the judgment is essentially inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the country`s law of recognition. For example, under the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act, U.S. courts are prohibited from recognizing or applying foreign defamation convictions against a U.S. person unless the foreign country in which the verdict was rendered protects freedom of expression at least in the same way as the United States and the conduct of the foreign court in the case. , in which the judgment was rendered, respects the guarantees of the ordinary procedure.
to the same extent as a U.S. court. Here, everything becomes a little more complicated. Judgments may be enforceable in Hague if the clause was adopted after 1 October 2015, but before the end of the transition period, but there are some uncertainties. It is therefore important to consider whether, in the absence of law enforcement, the judgment is still enforceable in the United Kingdom or in the relevant EU Member States.