Page - 60 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 2/2017

ALJ 2/2017 Philipp Anzenberger / Tjaša Ivanc 60 forced in the other Member States without any special procedure being required.20 Recognition and enforcement do not require any further cross-border relation.21 One of the biggest changes introduced by the Brussels I recast was the abolition of the exequatur procedure. 22 Thus, any judgment given in a Member State, which is enforceable in that Member State, shall be enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceabil- ity being required (Art. 39 Brussels Ia Regulation). Instead, for the purposes of enforcement in a Member State of a judgment given in another Member State ordering a provisional measure, the applicant only needs to provide the competent enforcement authority with the following (Art. 42 para. 2 Brussels Ia Regulation): 1. a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity; 2. the certificate issued pursuant to Art. 53, containing a description of the measure and certifying that: a. the court has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter; b. the judgment is enforceable in the Member State of origin; and 3. where the measure was ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear, proof of service of the judgment. 2. Legal Remedies The national provisional measures that target the debtor’s bank account can, of course, be con- tested with national legal remedies in the Member State of origin. Furthermore, on the appli- cation of any interested party, the recognition (Art. 45 para. 1 Brussels Ia Regulation) and the enforcement (Art. 46 Brussels Ia Regulation) of a judgment shall be refused:23 a. if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy (“ordre public“) in the Member State addressed; 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 de- fendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so; c. if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in the Member State addressed; d. if the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State addressed; or e. if the judgment conflicts with: 20 Heinrich Dörner, in ZIVILPROZESSORDNUNG Art 39 EuGVVO ¶ 1 (Ingo Saenger ed., 7th ed. 2017). 21 Kodek, supra note 19, at Art. 1 EuGVVO ¶ 18. 22 Barbara Köllensperger, Die neue Brüssel Ia-Verordnung: Änderungen bei der Anerkennung und Vollstreckung, in 4 EUROPÄISCHES ZIVILVERFAHRENSRECHT IN ÖSTERREICH – DIE NEUE BRÜSSEL IA-VERORDNUNG UND WEITERE REFORMEN 37, 50 (Bernhard König & Peter G. Mayr eds., 2015); Peter Mankowski, in 1 EUROPÄISCHES ZIVILPROZESS- UND KOLLISIONSRECHT EUZPR/EUIPR Vorbem zu Art. 39 ff Brüssel Ia-VO ¶ 15 (Thomas Rauscher ed., 4th ed. 2016). 23 Cf. Kodek, supra note 17, at Art. 36 EuGVVO ¶ 6–66; Boris Schinkels, in ZPO KOMMENTAR Art. 45 EuGVO ¶ 1 et seq. (Hanns Prütting & Markus Gehrlein eds., 8th ed. 2016).