A Normandy shipper has been ordered by the Commercial Court in London to pay freight and demurrage to a Cypriot shipowner. The contract of carriage designated the English courts. The judgment is final, the shipowner wants to be paid, and all the shipper’s assets are in France. Until 31 December 2020, the matter was settled in a single step. Three routes now coexist, and the right one depends on two dates and one subject matter.
Proceedings issued before 2021: Brussels I bis survives
Under Article 67 of the Withdrawal Agreement, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 continues to apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period, 31 December 2020. For those judgments nothing changes: they are enforceable in France without any declaration of enforceability (Article 39 of the Regulation). Maritime litigation is slow, and judgments in that category may still be handed down today.
For all proceedings issued since 1 January 2021, the United Kingdom is a third State. The English judgment no longer carries a European passport.
The 2005 Hague Convention: useful, except for carriage
The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements applies to clauses conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of a Contracting State. The Union and the United Kingdom are both parties. The timing is disputed: the United Kingdom regards itself as continuously bound since 1 October 2015, when the Convention entered into force for the Union, whereas the European Commission considers that it applies in relations with the United Kingdom only to agreements concluded on or after 1 January 2021. An English jurisdiction clause signed in 2019 is thus in a grey area.
But the real limit lies elsewhere. Article 2(2) of the Convention excludes from its scope the carriage of passengers and goods, marine pollution, limitation of liability for maritime claims, general average, and emergency towage and salvage. In other words, the core of maritime law.
Which leaves chartering. A time charter places a ship and her crew at the charterer’s disposal; its object is not to move cargo, and there are good arguments for keeping it outside the exclusion. A voyage charter is closer to carriage, and the debtor will not fail to say so. The question is unsettled. A prudent creditor does not build its strategy on it.
The 2019 Hague Convention: in force since 1 July 2025, with the same exclusions
The Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments entered into force for the Union on 1 September 2023 and for the United Kingdom on 1 July 2025. It does not require a jurisdiction clause: it applies whenever the judgment is connected with the State of origin by one of the links it lists.
Two locks limit its reach. The first is temporal: it applies only if, when the proceedings were instituted in the State of origin, the Convention had effect between that State and the requested State (Article 16). An English judgment can therefore benefit from it only if the London proceedings were issued on or after 1 July 2025. The second is substantive, and it repeats almost word for word the 2005 exclusion: excluded are the carriage of passengers and goods, several forms of marine pollution, including ship-source pollution, limitation of liability for maritime claims and general average. Arbitration is also outside its scope.
French ordinary law: three conditions, and a lawsuit
Outside any convention, the English judgment falls under the French ordinary law of exequatur. The Cour de cassation has settled it: the French judge must be satisfied of the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court, based on the connection between the dispute and the court seised, of compliance with substantive and procedural international public policy, and of the absence of fraud. The judge need not check that the foreign court applied the law that the French conflict rule would designate (first civil chamber, 20 February 2007, No. 05-14.082, Cornelissen).
Those conditions are rarely an obstacle for a Commercial Court judgment. The connection is established where the contract designated London or the dispute had a serious link with England; procedural public policy is respected if the defendant was properly served. The real cost lies elsewhere. Exequatur proceedings are brought by writ before the Judicial Court, they are fully adversarial, they follow the ordinary timetable of proceedings on the merits with exchanges of submissions and adjournments, they are open to appeal, and the debtor, who has nothing left to lose on the merits since the French judge will not re-examine them, has every interest in dragging them out by challenging the service it received in Rouen, the translation of the documents, the English court’s jurisdiction in light of the dispute’s links with England and, where it can, the compatibility of English disclosure with French procedural public policy, arguments that are seldom well founded but each of which costs months. Where an award obtains exequatur on application, an English judgment opens a lawsuit.
The lesson for drafting
For a contract of carriage or a charterparty with an English counterparty, an arbitration clause now prevails over a jurisdiction clause, for a purely mechanical reason: the New York Convention covers the matters that both Hague Conventions exclude, and French law grants awards exequatur on application. Choosing the Commercial Court over the London Maritime Arbitrators Association may have excellent reasons, the quality of the judges and the possibility of an appeal. It is simply worth knowing that the choice is paid for at the enforcement stage, in France.
What we check first
- The date on which the London proceedings were issued: before 1 January 2021, on or after 1 July 2025, or in between.
- The subject matter: carriage of goods, time or voyage charter, general average, limitation.
- The jurisdiction clause: exclusive or not, date of conclusion.
- Whether the claim form was properly served on the French defendant.
- The debtor’s assets in France and whether a conservatory measure is warranted during exequatur.
For our work on these matters, see International maritime lawyer in France and Enforcing a foreign judgment in France. For the enforcement of a London award, see our analysis Enforcing a London maritime arbitration award in France.
This analysis is part of the firm’s work in maritime law.
Frequently asked questions
Is an English judgment still enforceable in France without exequatur?
Only if it was given in proceedings instituted before 1 January 2021, to which Brussels I bis continues to apply under Article 67 of the Withdrawal Agreement. For proceedings instituted later, an applicable Hague Convention or exequatur proceedings under French ordinary law are required.
Does the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention apply to a carriage of goods by sea dispute?
No. It excludes the carriage of passengers and goods, several forms of marine pollution, limitation of liability for maritime claims and general average. It also covers only judgments given in proceedings instituted after its entry into force between the two States, 1 July 2025 for the United Kingdom.
Does the French judge review the merits of the English judgment?
No. Under French ordinary law, the judge checks the indirect jurisdiction of the English court, compliance with international public policy and the absence of fraud (Cour de cassation, first civil chamber, 20 February 2007, No. 05-14.082). There is no review of the merits or of the law applied.