Enforcement Refused: Versailles Appeal Court Applies Brussels I Recast to German Seizure Order—A Procedural Review
Introduction
On 8 January 2026, the Cour d’appel de Versailles addressed the enforcement in France of a German court order authorizing the seizure of claims payable by Engie to Gazprom at the request of Uniper Global Commodities SE. The ruling centered on the procedural conditions set out by the Brussels I Recast Regulation for recognizing and enforcing judgments within the EU. Such a refusal of enforcement is rare and was granted here only due to particular procedural shortcomings in the originating German proceedings.
1. Background: German Court Proceedings
The dispute originated from a contractual conflict between Uniper, a German energy company, and Gazprom Export, its Russian supplier. Following supply disruptions, the Regional Court of Weiden ordered Gazprom to deliver gas to Uniper for a period of three months. Uniper subsequently pursued enforcement of this supply through substitute procurement by a third party at Gazprom’s cost, which was granted on appeal by the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg. This order included an obligation for Gazprom to pay an advance of over €3.6 billion for the substitute procurement. Relying on this German order and a Brussels I Recast Article 53 certificate, Uniper initiated a “saisie conservatoire” (freezing order) on Engie in France, freezing €364 million due from Engie to Gazprom.
2. Legal Reasoning of the French Court and the Role of Brussels I Recast
Standpoint of the French Court
The Versailles Court did not primarily debate the substantive law but focused on procedural requirements for recognizing and enforcing a foreign decision under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012). While Article 39 grants automatic enforceability to judgments from EU Member States, Article 45 provides limited grounds on which enforcement may be refused—most pertinently, where the defendant has not been duly notified of proceedings or was unable to present a defense.
Reason for Refusal: Lack of Proper Notification
In this case, the French appellate court gave detailed consideration to whether Gazprom was properly notified and had an adequate opportunity to defend itself in the German appellate proceedings. The court determined that:
– The German court failed to comply with the proper service procedure under the Hague Convention and sent the documents by email only
– This email was sent only three days (including a weekend) before the expiry of the deadline
– The size of the claim and the brevity and informality of the notice did not provide Gazprom with sufficient time or information to defend itself.
– Thus, the requirements of Article 45(1)(b) of Brussels I Recast, which protect the rights of a defaulting defendant, were not met.
Art. 45 (1) (b) of the Brussels I Recast regulation provides as follows:
“1. On the application of any interested party, the recognition of a judgment shall be refused:
(a) ……
(b) where the judgment was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so;
……”
On this basis, the Court found that recognition of the German court’s order should be refused in France—the result being that the corresponding freezing order levied against Engie was declared void and lifted.
Unusual Character of Refusal
It should be emphasized that refusal of enforcement under Brussels I Recast regulation is not the norm and is available only in narrow, strictly defined circumstances. The Regulation is designed to facilitate free movement of judgments while balancing the need for procedural safeguards for defendants. In most cases, Member State judgments are enforceable with minimum review; refusal, as in this case, is exceptional and tied to clear infringements of minimum rights of defense.
It should be noted that a three day notice – including a weekend – is a highly unusual deadline in German proceedings. As well, service by email is neither provided for in the German Civil Code nor in the Hague Convention of 1965. Art. 10 of the Hague Convention in principle allows the direct service of documents by postal services (not by email, though), unless the respective state filed an objection. Both Russia and Germany have filed such objections, so service by email clearly does not comply with these provisions.