Enforceability of judgement issued in other EU countries

Enforceability of judgement issued in other EU countries and the changes to the rules governing the enforceability of judgement issued in other EU countries.
One of the primary reasons of the adoption of UE Regulation 1215/2012, called Brussels I “bis”, was to simplify and expedite the enforcement of judgments issued within the European Union.
Under the previous regime, which was based on Regulation No 44/2001,it was neccesary to establishe the foreign judgment feasibility in a separate proceeding by a court of the state where the execution shall take place. (“Exequatur”).
Therefore, the first instance court was obliged to make a formal review of the judgment, ie. whether the requesting party submitted copy of the judgment and required certificate from the country of origin. This procedure extended the execution of the judegement till time when the decision on the enforceability of the judgment would be issued.
Actually, Brussels I bis reveresed a procedure for the “exequatur” aligning the mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions. As a result, a judgement issued in the EU automatically becomes enforceable in Poland and can be immediately executed without enforceability by Polish court.
The basis for initiating its enforcement is the copy of the judgment and the certificate on its enforceability issued by the “mother” court; theoretically there is even no need to provide a translation of these documents, although it may be required by authorities. Additionaly, the procedure for refusal of enforcement of the judgement does not suspend its execution. Although the court has the possibility of suspension upon the request of the debtor, but it is left to its discretion.
The abolition of the “exequatur” procedure must be regarded as crucial change.
The new regulation pass on the burden of defending rights on the debtor. Taking into account the relatively high standards of individual rights in the European Union, there is no compelling reason to favor the debtor with additional means of protection solely on the ground that it has foreign creditors and that is why the changes should be considered positive.