In a ruling rendered on May 13, 2014, the Paris Court of Appeal applied the rules for the exequatur of American judgments.
Numerous decisions are rendered each year by French jurisdictions regarding the exequatur of American judgments and arbitral awards.
No judicial cooperation agreement has been signed in this area between France and the United States.
The regime for the exequatur of American judgments is therefore the common law regime established by the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation in the landmark Cornelissen ruling (Cass. Civ. 1st, February 20, 2007, no. 05-14082).
Thus, the applicant for exequatur must establish that the following three conditions are met: the competence of the American judge, the conformity of the judgment with international public policy, and the absence of fraud to the law.
These conditions for the exequatur of an American judgment were notably reiterated by the Paris Court of Appeal in a ruling of March 12, 2013, République d’Argentine / EM Limited, concerning the exequatur of a judgment rendered by the Federal District Court of New York.
In that ruling, the Court of Appeal indicated that: “To grant exequatur in the absence of an international convention, as is the case in relations between France and the United States, the French judge must ensure that three conditions are met, namely the indirect competence of the foreign judge based on the connection of the dispute to the court seized, compliance with substantive and procedural international public policy, and the absence of fraud to the law”.
The Paris Court of Appeal was recently seized of a case in which it reiterated and applied this rule, in a ruling of May 13, 2014, M. B. / Société New York Design Center.
The facts of the case were as follows: a New York civil court had rendered a judgment in 2010 by which it ordered an individual to indemnify a New York company in the amount of $50,000, as compensation for damages and attorney’s fees.
The Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris granted exequatur to this American judgment in 2013.
The individual ordered to indemnify the New York company then appealed the judgment rendered by the TGI, on three grounds.
On one hand, he complained that the American court had conducted the proceedings against him when his state of health would not have allowed him to participate in them. On the other hand, he maintained that the American judicial decision was not reasoned. Finally, the appellant called into question the assessment of attorney’s fees.
Ultimately, these three arguments invoked a disregard for public policy by the New York judgment.
The Paris Court of Appeal rejected these three arguments.
On one hand, the individual had communicated submissions to the American judge, and subsequently lodged an appeal against the American judgment before withdrawing it. The proceedings were therefore indeed adversarial. On the other hand, the American judgment is perfectly reasoned. It sets out in detail the facts of the case, notably the reason for the conviction: his capacity as guarantor of rents owed by a tenant to the New York company. Finally, the conditions under which the American judge set the attorney’s fees do not violate any fundamental principle of French public policy.
Consequently, the judgment of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris is confirmed and exequatur is conferred on the judgment rendered by the New York civil court.
The New York company therefore has an enforceable title on French territory, allowing it to recover its debt.