Can a judgment in default of defence be in breach of Article 6?

7 September 2012 by

C-619/10, Trade Agency Ltd v. Seramico Investments Ltd, CJEU, 6 September 2012

This case in the EU Court of Justice may sound rather abstruse, but is actually quite important. When someone starts a claim in the English courts for, say, a debt owed, and the defendant does not put in a defence, the claimant can simply ask the court to enter judgment for the sum claimed, and can bring enforcement proceedings based upon that judgment. In this procedure, the court is acting administratively, and typically no judge will be involved in the process. All very simple then.

But that is not what happened in this case. The complication was that  the claimant wished to enforce the English judgment in Latvia. It could do this using an EU Regulation about the enforcement of judgments. But the Latvian court was concerned by two aspects of the case, firstly that, according to the debtor, it had not been informed of the commencement of the English proceedings, and secondly that the default judgment gave no reasons. So they asked the EU Court for its guidance. Hence this judgment of today.

This raised some ticklish problems. To what extent was it right for a Latvian court to go looking into the merits of the English judgment? And did English domestic civil procedure comply with Article 6(1) of ECHR, and its EU equivalent, Article 47 of the  Charter? In part this involved looking at the terms of the EU Regulation, which told the enforcing court (here, Latvia) that it should not recognise the judgment if it was manifestly contrary to public policy in the enforcing country or where the defendant was not served with the proceedings (which is what this defendant alleged) – see Article 34. Hence, the EU Court ruled that it was part of the Latvian court’s job to carry out an independent assessment of whether the defendant was served, and in sufficient time and in such a way to enable him to arrange for his defence [38].

Even more sensitive was the reasons point, given that no English default judgment contains reasons, and, as I have explained, no judicial (rather than administrative) brainpower is applied to the entering of all such judgments. The difficulty is that EU case law says that all judgments must be reasoned. As the CJEU put it

53      In that connection, the Court has held that the observance of the right to a fair trial requires that all judgments be reasoned to enable the defendant to see why judgment has been pronounced against him and to bring an appropriate and effective appeal against it….

54      It follows that the Member State in which enforcement is sought is entitled to take the view, in principle, that a judgment given in default of appearance which does not contain any assessment of the subject-matter, basis and merits of the action, is a restriction on a fundamental right within the legal order of that Member State.

55      In that connection, however, the Court has held that fundamental rights do not constitute unfettered prerogatives and may be subject to restrictions, provided that the restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the measure in question and that they do not constitute, with regard to the objectives pursued, a manifest and disproportionate breach of the rights thus guaranteed…

But the EU Court then considered the other side of the coin, namely the interest in a swift and cost-effective system where defendants do not appear to want to defend a claim, and the fact that such an objective might justify some restriction of the right to a fair trial insofar as the right requires judgments to be reasoned.

So far, a judgment from the EU court which may appear to be the classic ‘on the one hand, on the other” sitting on the fence.

So what then is the answer? Er, there isn’t one. This is because whilst the EU Court gives guidance to domestic courts when they ask for it, that guidance does not necessary answer the question. Hence, it will be for the Latvian court to decide whether the English system stacks up – or in the more measured tones of the EU Court

59      That being the case, it is nevertheless for the referring court to verify, in the light of the specific circumstances in the main proceedings, whether the restriction introduced by the procedural system in England and Wales is not manifestly disproportionate as compared with the aim pursued…..

60      From that perspective, it must be held, as the Advocate General noted in point 83 of her Opinion, that the extent of the obligation to give reasons may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be examined, in the light of the proceedings taken as a whole and all the relevant circumstances, taking account of the procedural guarantees surrounding that decision, in order to ascertain whether the latter ensure that the persons concerned have the possibility to bring an appropriate and effective appeal against that decision….

Perhaps the case will be decided on its facts – the Latvians may decide that, say, the defendant was indeed properly served with the court papers, and that may be the end of it. But a more worrying spectre for UK Court administrators is the one in which a Latvian, or indeed any other EU state, court decides that our default judgments should contain some reasons – at which point chaos breaks out across the EU when anyone relies on an English default judgment abroad. Whether a similar argument about lack of reasons advanced before an English Court would get the thousands of domestic litigants anywhere, in, say, trying to set aside a credit card judgment must be somewhat open to doubt – to put it mildly. Anyway, I dare say someone will try.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. The Engineer says:

    Why is it not rational that an applicant or informant seeking a decision from any tribunal or other body should be required to show why the body should be so moved?

  2. Jeffrey Leib says:

    Hmm. Interesting and worrying both at the same time. Would the Advocate General’s Opinion also extend to regulatory and disciplinary tribunals, or local authority decision-making bodies, where there is no express provIsion to give reasons?

  3. The Engineer says:

    A somewhat different slant: In commercial arbitration an Award in default should be reasoned and the Claimant should be able to prove his claim on the balance of probability even if the Respondent takes part,

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: