## Facts

- A 14-year-old French girl died in Germany while in the care of her stepfather, Dr. Dieter Krombach, a German physician domiciled in Germany.
- German authorities investigated and discontinued proceedings for lack of sufficient evidence.
- The victim’s father, André Bamberski, initiated criminal proceedings in France; French courts asserted jurisdiction based on the victim’s French nationality.
- Krombach was served with the order committing him for trial and notice of Bamberski’s civil claim for damages but did not appear at trial and was tried in absentia.
- Under then-applicable French procedure for contumacious defendants in serious criminal matters, the court refused to hear defense counsel because Krombach did not appear in person.
- The French court convicted Krombach and imposed imprisonment, and also entered a civil damages award in Bamberski’s favor.
- Bamberski sought to have the French civil judgment declared enforceable in Germany under the 1968 Brussels Convention.
- A German regional court declared the judgment enforceable; Krombach appealed to the German Federal Court of Justice, invoking the Brussels Convention’s public-policy exception.
- The German Federal Court of Justice referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the scope of the public-policy exception in recognition and enforcement proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the public-policy exception permits refusal of recognition/enforcement because the court of origin exercised jurisdiction on a basis not accepted in the enforcing state (here, victim nationality).
2. Whether the public-policy exception permits refusal of recognition/enforcement where the court of origin, in a trial in absentia, refused to allow defense counsel to present the defendant’s case, allegedly violating the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defense.

## Decision

- The Court held that the public-policy exception does not permit the enforcing court to refuse recognition/enforcement merely because the court of origin relied on a jurisdictional ground not recognized by the enforcing state.
- The Court held that the public-policy exception may justify refusal of recognition/enforcement where the foreign judgment was obtained through a manifest breach of a fundamental right, including the right to a fair trial and to present a defense.
- The Court indicated that refusing to hear defense counsel solely because the defendant did not appear in person could constitute such a manifest breach, but left the ultimate assessment to the referring national court.

## Legal Principles

- Recognition and enforcement under the Brussels Convention are the general rule; refusal is exceptional, and the public-policy exception must be interpreted strictly.
- Public policy may bar recognition/enforcement only where doing so would be unacceptable in the enforcing state because it infringes a fundamental principle; the infringement must be a manifest breach of an essential rule of law or a fundamental right in the enforcing state’s legal order.
- The public-policy exception cannot be used as an indirect review of the court of origin’s jurisdiction by reference to domestic jurisdictional standards of the enforcing state.
- Fundamental defense rights form part of the general principles protected in the Brussels system; public policy may be invoked as a last resort when remedies in the state of origin and within the Convention framework have been insufficient to prevent a manifest breach.
- A protocol provision addressing defense presentation in certain cross-border criminal contexts does not preclude reliance on public policy to protect fundamental defense rights where a manifest breach is shown.

## Conclusion

The Court limited the Brussels Convention public-policy exception by barring its use to relitigate the origin court’s jurisdictional basis, while confirming that enforcement may be refused when the origin proceedings involved a manifest violation of fundamental defense rights, such as denying a non-appearing defendant any opportunity to be defended by counsel.


Krombach v. Bamberski, Case C-7/98, 2000 E.C.R. I-1935 (C.J.E.U. 2000)