Make a Submission
Vol. 35 (2015)
General Articles

The Current European Perspective on the Exequatur of U.S. Punitive Damages: Opening the Gate But Keeping a Guard

PDF
  • Cedric Vanleenhove
Cedric Vanleenhove
Ghent University in Belgium

Published 2016-06-30

Keywords

  • European Union,
  • punitive damages,
  • United States

Copyright (c) 2016 ILS PAS

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

The Current European Perspective on the Exequatur of U.S. Punitive Damages: Opening the Gate But Keeping a Guard. (2016). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 35, 235-263. https://doi.org/10.7420/pyil2015i

Abstract

Global trade and intercontinental tourism are on the rise in today’s world. This, in turn, leads to more cross-border law suits. Inevitably, jurisdictions will be confronted with legal concepts that are unknown in the host forum. This contribution investigates whether, and to what extent, punitive damages judgments originating in the United States can be enforced against the assets of a defendantin a number of selected Member States of the EU. More specifically, the article explores the possibilities of enforcing American punitive damages judgments in five EU countries, namely Germany, Italy, Spain, France and England. This comparative analysis reveals that the case law in these selected countries is relatively divergent as to the stance adopted towards foreign punitive damages, resulting in different degrees of acceptance of this legal remedy.

PDF

References

  1. Adar Y., Touring the punitive damages forest: A proposed roadmap, “Osservatorio del Diritto Civile e Commerciale” 2012, vol. 2.
  2. Barrett J.M., Contort: Tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in noninsurance commercial contracts – its existence and desirability, “Notre Dame Law Review” 1985, vol. 60, no. 3.
  3. Baumgartner S., How well do U.S. judgments fare in Europe?, “George Washington International Law Review” 2009, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 173–231.
  4. Baumgartner S., Understanding the obstacles to the recognition and enforcement of U.S. judgments abroad, “New York University Journal of International Law and Politics” 2013, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 965–1001.
  5. Behr V., Punitive damages in American and German Law: Tendencies towards approximation of apparently irreconcilable concepts, “Chicago–Kent Law Review” 2003, vol. 78.
  6. Behr V., Punitive damages in Germany, “Journal of Law and Commerce” 2005, vol. 24.
  7. Benefit Strategies Group Inc v. Prider [2005] SASC.
  8. Bernard P., Salem H., Further Developments for Qualification of Foreign Judgments for Recognition and Enforcement in France: The test for punitive damage awards, International Bar Association 2011.
  9. Blatt R.L., Hammesfahr R.W., Nugent L.S., Punitive Damages: A State-by-State Guide to Law and Practice, Thomson Reuters/West, Eagan, Minnesota 2008.
  10. British Airways v. Laker Airways [1984] QB 142.
  11. British Airways v. Laker Airways [1985] AC 58.
  12. Browne K., Punitive Damages in the U.S.: A primer for insurance buyers and brokers, Armonk, Swiss Re 2011, http://www.thefederation.org/documents/06.Punitive_Damages_in_the_USBrowne.pdf [access: 20.04.2016].
  13. Burnham W., Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States, Thomson/West, St. Paul, Minnesota 2006.
  14. California Superior Court (County of San Joaquin) 24 April 1985, John Doe v. Eckhard Schmitz, no. 168-588, unpublished.
  15. California Superior Court, Schlenzka v. Pajot, case no. 837722-1, 26 February 2003.
  16. Cass. Civ. 1st, 1 December 2010, Schlenzka & Langhorne v. Fountaine Pajot S.A, no. 09-13303, Recueil Dalloz 2011.
  17. Cohen T.H., Langton L., Civil Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 28 October 2008.
  18. Collins L. (ed.), Dicey & Morris on the Conflict of Laws, Sweet and Maxwell, London 2000.
  19. Dailey v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 919 P.2d 589, 590–91 (Wash. 1996).
  20. Distinctive Printing and Packaging Co. v. Cox, 232 Neb. 846, 857, 443 N. W. 2d 566, 574 (1989).
  21. Dollinger J., World public policy: Real international public policy in the conflict of laws, “Texas International Law Journal” 1982, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 167–193.
  22. Estes Health Care Ctrs Inc v. Bannerman, 411 So2d (1982).
  23. European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, European Union, Trade in Goods with USA, 16 April 2014, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113465.pdf [access: 20.04.2016].
  24. European Union, EU member countries (4 November 2015), http://europa.eu/abouteu/countries/member-countries/index_en.htm [access: 20.04.2016].
  25. Fawcett J., Carruthers J.M., Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008.
  26. Fiebig A.R., The recognition and enforcement of punitive damage awards in Germany: Recent developments, “Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law” 1992, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 635–657.
  27. Fleshner v. Technical Communications Corp., 575 N.E.2d 1107, 1112 (Mass. 1991).
  28. Folliott v. Ogden [1790] 3 Term Rep.
  29. Fowler R., Why punitive damages should be a jury’s decision in Kansas: A historical perspective, “Kansas Law Review” 2004, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 631–666.
  30. Galanter M., Shadow play: The fabled menace of punitive damages, “Wisconsin Law Review” 1998, vol. 1.
  31. Garner B.A. (ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary, West, St. Paul, Minnesota 2006.
  32. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
  33. Gotanda J.Y., Punitive damages: A comparative analysis, “Columbia Journal of Transnational Law” 2004, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 391–444.
  34. Hay P., The recognition and enforcement of American money-judgments in Germany: The 1992 decision of the German Supreme Court, “The American Journal of Comparative Law” 1992, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 729–750.
  35. Honsell H., Amerikanische Rechtskultur [in:] P. Forstmoser, H.S. von der Crone, R.H. Weber, D. Zobl (eds.), Festschrift für Roger Zäch zum 60. Geburtstag. Der Einfluss des europäischen Rechts auf die Schweiz, Schulthess Verlag, Zürich 1999, pp. 39–56.
  36. Huckle v. Money, 95 English Reports, King’s Bench (Eng. Rep.) 768 (K.B. 1763).
  37. Huntington v. Attrill [1893] AC, 150.
  38. Ingman T., The English Legal Process, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2010.
  39. Int’l Harvester Credit Corp. v. Seale, 518 So.2d 1039, 1041 (La. 1988).
  40. International Monetary Fund, World Economic and Financial Surveys – World Economic Outlook Database (October 2013), http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/02/weodata/index.aspx [access: 20.04.2016].
  41. Italian Supreme Court Affirms Position Against Punitive Damage Awards (31 January 2013), http://www.goldbergsegalla.com/publication/italian-supreme-court-affirms-position-against-punitive-damage-awards [access: 20.04.2016].
  42. Jablonski S.R., Translation and comment: Enforcing U.S. punitive damages awards in foreign courts: A recent case in the Supreme Court of Spain, “Journal of Law and Commerce” 2004-2005, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 225–244.
  43. Janke B., Licari F.-X., Enforcing punitive damage awards in France after Fountaine Pajot, “The American Journal of Comparative Law” 2012, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 775–804.
  44. Janke B., Licari F.-X., Les conflits de lois en matière de dommages-intérêts punitifs. L’expérience de la Lousiane, “Revue Lamy Droit des Affaires” 2013, vol. 85.
  45. Jansen N., Rademacher L., Punitive damages in Germany [in:] H. Koziol, V. Wilcox (eds.), Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives, Springer, Vienna 2009, pp. 75–86.
  46. Juvénal J., Dommages-intérêts punitifs. Comment apprécier la conformité à l’ordre public international?, “La Semaine Juridique Edition Générale” 2011, vol. 6.
  47. Kahn T.J., The protection of Trading Interests Act of 1980: Britain’s response to U.S. extraterritorial antitrust enforcement, “Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business” 1980, vol. 2, no. 2.
  48. Kellman E., Enforcement of judgments and blocking statutes: Lewis v. Eliades, “International & Comparative Law Quarterly” 2004, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1025–1030.
  49. Kelsey v. Connecticut State Emp. Ass’n, 179 Conn. 606, 427 A.2d 420 (1980).
  50. Kezel E. de, The protection and enforcement of private interests by (the Recognition of US) punitive damages in Belgium [in:] L. Meurkens, E. Nordin (eds.), The Power of Punitive Damages: Is Europe Missing Out?, Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland 2012.
  51. Kühn W., RICO claims in international arbitration and their recognition in Germany, “Journal of International Arbitration” 1994, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 37–49.
  52. Lambert-Faivre Y., Porchy-Simon S., Droit du dommage corporel. Systèmes d’indemnisation, Dalloz, Paris 2009.
  53. Landgericht Düsseldorf 12 April 1990, 13 O 456/89, unpublished.
  54. Levine H.R., Demonstrating and Preserving the Deterrent Effect of Punitive Damages in Insurance Bad Faith Actions, “University of San Francisco Law Review” 1979, vol. 13.
  55. Licari F.-X., La compatibilité de principe des punitive damages avec l’ordre public international. Une décision en trompe-l’oeil de la Cour de cassation?, “Recueil Dalloz” 2011, vol. 6.
  56. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., 1995 WL 360309 (N.M. Dist. 1994).
  57. LS Lexjus Sinacta, Italian Supreme Court Confirms Stance On Punitive Damages (21 December 2012), International Law Office, http://www.intemationallawoffice.com [access: 20.04.2016].
  58. Magnus U., Punitive damages and German Law [in:] L. Meurkens, E. Nordin (eds.), The Power of Punitive Damages: Is Europe Missing Out?, Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland 2012.
  59. Mallor J., Roberts B.S., Punitive damages: On the path to a principled approach?, “Hastings Law Journal” 1999, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1001–1014.
  60. Mayer P., Heuzé V., Droit international privé, Montchrestien, Paris 2004.
  61. McLuhan M., The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man, Toronto University Press, Toronto 1962.
  62. Meurkens L., The punitive damages debate in Continental Europe: Food for thought [in:] L. Meurkens, E. Nordin (eds.), The Power of Punitive Damages – Is Europe Missing Out?, Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland 2012, pp. 3–62.
  63. Meyer Fabre N., Enforcement of U.S. Punitive Damages Award in France: First Ruling of The French Court Of Cassation in X. v. Fountaine Pajot, December 1, 2010, Mealey’s International Arbitration Report 2011.
  64. Meyer Fabre N., Recognition and enforcement of U.S. judgments in France: Recent developments, “The International Dispute Resolution News” 2012.
  65. Mills A., The Confluence of Public and Private International Law: Justice, Pluralism and Subsidiarity in the International Constitutional Ordering of Private Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009.
  66. Mills A., The dimensions of public policy in Private International Law, “Journal of Private International Law” 2008, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 201–236.
  67. Morris C., Punitive damages in Tort Cases, “Harvard Law Review” 1931, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1173–1209.
  68. Nagy C.I., Recognition and enforcement of US judgments involving punitive damages in continental Europe, “Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht” 2012, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 4–11.
  69. Nater-Bass G., U.S.-Style punitive damages awards and their recognition and enforcement in Switzerland and other civil-law countries, “Deutsch-Amerikanische Juristen-Vereinigung Newsletter” 2003.
  70. Nettesheim P.J., Stahl H., Recent development: Bundesgerichtshof rejects enforcement of United States punitive damages award, “Texas International Law Journal” 1993, vol. 28.
  71. Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 28 May 1991, RIW 1991.
  72. Old North State Brewing Co v. Newlands Services Inc. [1999] 4 WWR.
  73. Ostoni L., Italian rejection of punitive damages in a U.S. Judgment, “Journal of Law and Commerce” 2005, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 245–262.
  74. Otero Crespo M., Punitive damages under Spanish Law: A subtle recognition? [in:] L. Meurkens, E. Nordin (eds.), The Power of Punitive Damages: Is Europe Missing Out?, Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland 2012.
  75. Owen D.G., Products Liability Law, Thomson/West, St. Paul, Minnesota 2005.
  76. Owen D.G., Punitive damages overview functions: Problems and reform, “Villanova Law Review” 1994, vol. 39, no. 2.
  77. Polonsky M., Particular issues affecting the recognition and enforcement of U.S. judgments, “International Law Practicum” 2006, vol. 19.
  78. Quarta F., Class Actions, Extra-Compensatory Damages, and Judicial Recognition in Europe, Conference paper – “Extraterritoriality and Collective Redress”, London 15 November 2010, Draft 19 November 2010.
  79. Quarta F., Foreign punitive damages decisions and class actions in Italy [in:] D. Fairgrieve, E. Lein (eds.), Extraterritoriality and Collective Redress, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012, p. 269–284.
  80. Quarta F., Recognition and enforcement of U.S. punitive damages awards in Continental Europe: The Italian Supreme Court’s veto, “Hastings International & Comparative Law Review” 2008, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 753–782.
  81. Ramos Romeu F., Litigation under the shadow of an exequatur: The Spanish Recognition of U.S. Judgments, “International Lawyer” 2004, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 945–970.
  82. Raulin v. Fisher [1911] 2 KB.
  83. Requejo Isidro M., Punitive damages from a Private International Law Perspective [in:] H. Koziol, V. Wilcox (eds.), Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives, Springer, Vienna 2009, pp. 237–255.
  84. Requejo Isidro M., Punitive Damages: Europe Strikes Back?, presentation delivered at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London 2011.
  85. Requejo Isidro M., Punitive damages: How do they look like when seen from abroad? [in:] L. Meurkens, E. Nordin (eds.), The Power of Punitive Damages: Is Europe Missing Out?, Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland 2012.
  86. Rookes v. Barnard [1964], 1 All E.R. 367, 410-11 (H.L.).
  87. Rouhette T., The availability of punitive damages in Europe: Growing trend or nonexistent concept?, “Defense Counsel Journal” 2007, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 320–342.
  88. S.A Consortium General Textiles v. Sun and Sand Agencies Ltd. [1978] Q.B.
  89. Sales J.B., Cole K.B., Punitive damages: A relic that has outlived its origins, “Vanderbilt Law Review” 1984, vol. 37.
  90. Savannah & Memphis Railroad v. Shearer, 58 Ala. (1877).
  91. Schlueter L.L., Punitive Damages. Volume 1, LexisNexis, Newark, New Jersey 2005.
  92. Schubert W., Simplifying punitive damages: Due Process and the pursuit of manageable awards and procedures in U.S. courts, “European Journal of Consumer Law” 2011, vol. 4.
  93. Schwartz V.E., Behrens M.A., Mastrosimone J.P., Reining in punitive damages “Run Wild”: Proposals for reform by courts and legislatures, “Brooklyn Law Review” 1999, vol. 65.
  94. Sebok A.J., Punitive damages in the United States [in:] H. Koziol, V. Wilcox (eds.), Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives, Springer, Vienna 2009, pp. 155–196.
  95. Sebok A.J., The U.S. Supreme Court’s theory of Common Law punitive damages [in:] L. Meurkens, E. Nordin (eds.), The Power of Punitive Damages: Is Europe Missing Out?, Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland 2012.
  96. Sibon A.S., Enforcing Punitive Damages Awards in France: Facing Proportionality within International Public Policy, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2382817 [access: 15.03.2016].
  97. South & North Alabama Railroad v. Sullivan, 59 Ala. (1877).
  98. Spanish Supreme Court, Exequatur no. 2039/1999, 13 November 2001, Aedipr 2003.
  99. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell et al., 538 U.S. 425 (2003).
  100. Supreme Court, Soc Ruffinatti v. Oyola-Rosado, no. 1781/2012, 8 February 2012, Danno resp 2012.
  101. Tolani M., U.S. punitive damages before German courts: A comparative analysis with respect to the order public, “Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law” 2011, vol. 17, no. 1.
  102. Tribunal de Grande Instance Rochefort, Peter Schlenzka & Julie Langhorne v. S.A. Fountaine Pajot, 12 November 2004, no. 03/01276, unpublished decision.
  103. Wegen G., Sherer J., Germany: Federal Court of Justice decision concerning the recognition and enforcement of U.S. judgments awarding punitive damages, “International Legal Materials” 1993, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1320–1346.
  104. Wegen G., Sherer J., Recognition and Enforcement of US Punitive Damages Judgments in Germany: A Recent Decision of the German Federal Court of Justice, “International Business Lawyer” 1994, vol. 22, no. 6.
  105. Wilcox V., Punitive damages in England [in:] H. Koziol, V. Wilcox (eds.), Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives, Springer, Vienna 2009.
  106. Wisconsin Supreme Court, Luther v. Shaw, 147 N.W. 18 (1914), 20.
  107. Wurmnest W., Recognition and enforcement of U.S. money judgments in Germany, “Berkeley Journal of International Law” 2005, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–200.
  108. Zekoll J., The enforceability of American Money judgments abroad: A landmark decision by the German Federal Court of Justice, “Columbia Journal of Transnational Law” 1992, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 641–659.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.