The revised Brussels I Regulation introduced an important change in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters: the elimination of exequatur. The procedure is now supposed to be shorter, more efficient and more economical, since the exequatur constituted an obstacle to the implementation of one of the basic objectives of the Regulation – that is, free movement of judgments. Although the desire for the free movement of judgments resulted in the elimination of the exequatur, Member States refused to give up entirely the possibility to decide which judgments to recognise. It is important that Member States retain the ability to safeguard their legal orders and core values. As a result, attempts to abolish, above all, the exception of substantive public policy, have failed, but the closed circle of grounds for refusal has, although with minor changes, remained and even slightly expanded.
In Slovenian case-law, two grounds for refusal stand out: the violation of public policy and the breach of the adversarial principle. It is evident that Slovenian courts are interpreting the grounds for refusal in an appropriately restrictive way, which is particularly reflected in the interpretation of the concept of public policy.
|
