Greek Court Rules on Personal Enforceability under Brussels Ia Regulation

A commercial dispute between a Cypriot and a Greek company led to a series of judgments concerning the application of the Brussels Ibis Regulation on matters of enforceability, which demonstrate the problems of mixing EU with domestic enforcement procedures. A recent judgment refused enforcement of a Cypriot decision on the grounds of lacking subjective enforceability, thus demonstrating the existence of a concealed ground for refusal.

Facts

The case began in Cyprus. A Cypriot aviation company (creditor = C) started litigation against another Cypriot company (debtor 1 = D1) before the district court of Nicosia. C requested the return of a Cessna aircraft, of which it was the owner. The aircraft was leased to D1. The latter did not appear in the proceedings. The default judgment was served on D1. At some point, C was informed that the aircraft was not anymore in Cyprus: D1 had subleased the aircraft to a private aviation company situated in Thessaloniki, Greece (debtor 2 = D2).

C served both the judgment and the certificate of Article 53 of the Brussels I bis Regulation (issued by the Nicosia court) on D2, requesting the return of the aircraft.

The remedies of D2

D2 initiated three sets of proceedings: an application for refusal of enforcement; an action to oppose execution; an application to suspend enforcement.

The interesting part in the present context is the first proceeding: Some of the grounds for refusal referred to the classic impediments featured under Article 45 of Brussels Ibis Regulation, namely public policy and violation of the right to be heard, aiming at the refusal of enforcement.

Judgement 1

The first decision (Thessaloniki Court of first Instance nr 2181/2022, published in: Thessaloniki Bar Review (Armenopoulos), pp. 1648 et seq., reported on this blog here) concerned the application for refusal of enforcement. The court did not enter into the merits of the case. A number of issues were in need of clarification, so that the court could render judgment. Therefore, the court ordered the stay of proceedings, requesting evidence with respect to the following issues:

First, the Greek court was not aware of the right of D2 to challenge the Cypriot judgment in the state of origin, pursuant to Cypriot law of civil procedure.

Second, the court was not aware of the Cypriot provisions on the service of process on legal entities.

Third, the court requested the original certificate of the service of process on D1.

Fourth, the court requested the production of a document, which would certify whether the Cypriot judgment is final and conclusive.

Judgment 2

In the second case (Thessaloniki Court of first instance nr 12095/2025, published in: Thessaloniki Bar Review (Armenopoulos) 2026, Vol. 3, p. 284), the Greek court dealt initially with the application for refusal of enforcement on the grounds that proceedings in Cyprus had commenced without proper summons to the legal person (D2), against whom enforcement was sought.

The court noted uncertainty as to whether D2 had an opportunity to seek a legal remedy under Cypriot law. Citing the opinion of the Hellenic Institute of International and Foreign Law, the court concluded that enforcement should be refused, as the applicant had not been a party to the foreign proceedings. The court emphasized that the subjective limits of enforceability cannot extend beyond what is acceptable under the Greek legal order. The violation of public policy justified the refusal to enforce the Cypriot judgment

The Issue: Lack of Subjective Enforceability?

In the most recent decision, the trajectory of the case shifted, and the primary question was reformulated as follows: Does enforceability arise against D2 (the applicant), who neither participated in, nor had knowledge of the Cypriot proceedings?

This question was examined in great depth. The court considered the issue in a comprehensive manner, by delving into the provisions of Articles 41 and 45–47 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation.

In this context, the court emphasized the significant role of the enforceability of the foreign judgment, a condition that is not explicitly listed among the grounds for refusal under Article 45, but is understood to be implicitly included within the broader framework and spirit of the Regulation.

In addition, the court examined the issue of determining the applicable law, on the basis of which it would be possible to ascertain whether the Cypriot decision is endowed with subjective enforceability vis-à-vis D2, i.e., the applicant company. Here, an in-depth analysis of Cypriot law was undertaken, leading to the conclusion that, the applicant did not meet the requirements to fall within the scope of subjective enforceability of the Cypriot decision.

Finally, the court extensively referenced the applicable law concerning enforceability, invoking fundamental principles and ultimately arriving at a conclusion that was against the application of the principle of extension.

Conclusion and Implications

The rarity of similar decisions in the Greek legal order invites for a reconsideration of the judgment rendered. As the dispute is expected to reach the appellate court, there is a possibility that the matter may even reach the Supreme Court, potentially influencing future interpretations of enforceability within the scope of EU law.