Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2020MinterEllison: Beverley Newbold & Evan Goldman 31 Austria...

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2020A practical cross-border insight into the enforcement of foreign judgments

Fifth Edition

CC RRDDCommercial Dispute Resolution

Featuring contributions from:

Advokatfirman Hammarskiöld & Co

Allen & Gledhill (Myanmar) Co., Ltd.

Allen & Gledhill LLP

Archipel

Bae, Kim & Lee LLC

Bär & Karrer Ltd.

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Boss & Young, Attorneys-at-Law

Covington & Burling LLP

CRA – Coelho Ribeiro e Associados

CRB Africa Legal

Debarliev, Dameski and Kelesoska, Attorneys at Law

ESENYEL & PARTNERS LAWYERS AND CONSULTANTS

Gall

GASSER PARTNER Attorneys at Law

GVZH Advocates

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP

King & Wood Mallesons

Konrad Partners

Kubas Kos Gałkowski

Macesic and Partners LLC

Machado Meyer Sendacz e Opice Advogados

MinterEllison

Montanios & Montanios LLC

Mori Hamada & Matsumoto

Osborne Clarke LLP

Papadimitriou – Pimblis & Partners

PIERRE THIELEN AVOCATS S.à r.l

Portolano Cavallo

Quevedo & Ponce

Rahmat Lim & Partners

Roberts & Shoda

Sébastien Champagne & Vanessa Foncke

Simont Braun

Sorainen

Van Oosten Schulz De Korte

Williams & Connolly LLP

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Enforcement of ForeignJudgments 2020Fifth Edition

Contributing Editors:

Louise Freeman & Shivani SanghiCovington & Burling LLP

©2020 Global Legal Group Limited. All rights reserved. Unauthorised reproduction by any means, digital or analogue, in whole or in part, is strictly forbidden.

DisclaimerThis publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehen-sive full legal or other advice. Global Legal Group Ltd. and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication. This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice. Full legal advice should be taken from a qualified professional when dealing with specific situations.

ISBN 978-1-83918-034-7ISSN 2397-1924

Published by

59 Tanner StreetLondon SE1 3PLUnited Kingdom+44 207 367 0720 [email protected] www.iclg.com

Group Publisher Rory Smith

Publisher Jon Martin

Senior Editors Suzie Levy Rachel Williams

Editor Oliver Chang

Creative Director Fraser Allan

Printed by Ashford Colour Press Ltd.

Cover image www.istockphoto.com

Strategic Partners

Table of Contents

Q&A Chapters24 Australia

MinterEllison: Beverley Newbold & Evan Goldman

31 AustriaKonrad Partners: Dr. Christian W. Konrad & Philipp A. Peters 130 Korea

Bae, Kim & Lee LLC: Seong Soo Kim & Yoo Joung Kang

136 LiechtensteinGASSER PARTNER Attorneys at Law: Thomas Nigg & Domenik Vogt

Expert Chapters

1 Enforcement Under the Hague Choice of Court ConventionLouise Freeman & Shivani Sanghi, Covington & Burling LLP

39 BelarusSorainen: Alexey Anischenko, Valeria Dubeshka & Katsiaryna Hashko

44 BelgiumSimont Braun: Rafaël Jafferali & Fanny Laune

49 BrazilMachado Meyer Sendacz e Opice Advogados: Eduardo Perazza de Medeiros & Ariana Júlia de Almeida Anfe

55 CanadaBlake, Cassels & Graydon LLP: Erin Hoult & Josianne Rocca

62 ChinaBoss & Young, Attorneys-at-Law: Dr. Xu Guojian

69 CroatiaMacesic and Partners LLC: Anita Krizmanic

76 CyprusMontanios & Montanios LLC: Yiannis Papapetrou

82 EcuadorQuevedo & Ponce: Alejandro Ponce Martínez & María Belén Merchán

87 England & WalesCovington & Burling LLP: Louise Freeman & Shivani Sanghi

94 FranceArchipel: Jacques-Alexandre Genet & Michaël Schlesinger

100 GermanyHerbert Smith Freehills LLP: Catrice Gayer & Sören Flecks

142 LuxembourgPIERRE THIELEN AVOCATS S.à r.l: Peggy Goossens

147 MalaysiaRahmat Lim & Partners: Jack Yow & Daphne Koo

153 MaltaGVZH Advocates: Dr. Karl Briffa, Dr. Ariana Falzon & Dr. Nicole Sciberras Debono

158 MyanmarAllen & Gledhill (Myanmar) Co., Ltd.: Minn Naing Oo

162 NetherlandsVan Oosten Schulz De Korte: Jurjen de Korte

167 NigeriaRoberts & Shoda: Adeniyi Shoda & Abolanle Davies

174 North MacedoniaDebarliev, Dameski and Kelesoska, Attorneys at Law: Ivan Debarliev & Martina Angelkovic

179 PolandKubas Kos Gałkowski: Dr. Barbara Jelonek-Jarco & Agnieszka Trzaska

188 PortugalCRA – Coelho Ribeiro e Associados: Rui Botica Santos & Mark Robertson

194 SingaporeAllen & Gledhill LLP: Tan Xeauwei & Melissa Mak

201 SpainKing & Wood Mallesons: Alfredo Guerrero & Fernando Badenes

125 JapanMori Hamada & Matsumoto: Yuko Kanamaru & Yoshinori Tatsuno

5 European UnionSébastien Champagne & Vanessa Foncke

12 International Enforcement Strategy – An OverviewAndrew Bartlett, Osborne Clarke LLP

17 The Personal Jurisdiction Filter in the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the United StatesDavid W. Ogden, David W. Bowker, Karin Dryhurst & Apoorva J. Patel, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

107 GreecePapadimitriou – Pimblis & Partners: Nikos L. Kanellias

113 Hong KongGall: Nick Gall, Ashima Sood & Kritika Sethia

119 ItalyPortolano Cavallo: Filippo Frigerio, Martina Lucenti, Micael Montinari & Claudia Rivieccio

207 SwedenAdvokatfirman Hammarskiöld & Co: Sandra Kaznova & Caroline Bogemyr

213 SwitzerlandBär & Karrer Ltd.: Saverio Lembo & Aurélie Conrad Hari

Table of Contents

220 TanzaniaCRB Africa Legal: Rugambwa Cyril Pesha & Charles R.B. Rwechungura

231 USAWilliams & Connolly LLP: John J. Buckley, Jr. & Ana C. Reyes

226 TurkeyESENYEL & PARTNERS LAWYERS AND CONSULTANTS: Selcuk Esenyel

Chapter 32188

Portugal

CRA – Coelho Ribeiro e Associados Mark Robertson

Rui Botica Santos

Portugal

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2020

Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road of 19 May 1956 (CMR)

Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Uzbekistan

Section 3

New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (NY Convention)

All countries signatory to the Convention

Section 3

1 Country Finder

1.1 Please set out the various regimes applicable to recognising and enforcing judgments in your jurisdiction and the names of the countries to which such special regimes apply.

Applicable Law/Statutory Regime

Relevant Jurisdiction(s)

Corresponding Section Below

Portuguese Civil Procedure Code (CPC)

Portugal Section 2

Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 30 October 2007 (Lugano Convention)

EU Member States and Norway, Iceland and Switzerland

Section 3

Hague Convention on Civil Procedure of 1 March 1954 (Hague Convention on Civil Procedure)

Countries signa-tory to the Convention

Section 3

Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations of 2 October 1973 (Hague Convention on Maintenance Obligations)

Countries signa-tory to the Convention

Section 3

© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London

189CRA – Coelho Ribeiro e Associados


the Portuguese courts to recognise and enforce a foreign judg-ment, apart from the rules set out in the previous question.

2.5 Is there a difference between recognition and enforcement of judgments? If so, what are the legal effects of recognition and enforcement respectively?

In fact, there are differences between recognition and enforcement. Recognition operates to give the foreign judgment the same

status in the Portuguese jurisdiction as it has in the State of origin. A party may merely wish to seek recognition in order to secure formal acknowledgment of its rights, but may not seek to enforce them.

Enforcement involves the implementation, of the rights recognised and awarded by the judgment, via recourse to coer-cive means.

2.6 Briefly explain the procedure for recognising and enforcing a foreign judgment in your jurisdiction.

According to Art. 979 of the CPC, the competent Portuguese court with regard to the recognition of foreign judgments is the Court of Second Instance (Tribunal da Relação), with jurisdiction in the area of the defendant’s registered domicile.

The Portuguese system for the recognition of foreign judg-ments is termed a “deliberation or simply formal review”, in which it is confirmed whether the judgment is capable of taking effect in Portugal.

The process is essentially divided into the following steps:a) the claim, which must be accompanied by: (i) a copy of the

judgment; (ii) an ad justitia power of attorney; and (iii) any other documents that may be relevant to the recognition proceedings;

b) the claim will then be subject to a preliminary analysis by the Second Instance Court;

c) following this, the defendant is served with the statement of claim and notice to file a defence within no more than 15 days;

d) the Claimant is entitled to file a reply within 10 days of being served with the defence;

e) after the close of pleadings, the parties and the attor-ney-general’s department have 15 days in which to file closing arguments; and

f) in case the parties do not agree with the decision, they are entitled to appeal.

However, if the judgment in question is an arbitral award, the competent court will be a Court of First Instance (Tribunal da Primeira Instância). Where the relevant countries are signatories of the NY Convention, Art. III of the Convention is applicable, and in that case the recognition of foreign arbitral judgments follows the same procedure as that applicable to foreign court judgments as stated in the CPC.

2.7 On what grounds can recognition/enforcement of a judgment be challenged? When can such a challenge be made?

A foreign judgment may only be challenged if:a) it does not meet the requirements described in the answer

to question 2.3 above;b) where any of the specific cases of review in Art. 696 a), c)

and g) of the CPC applies, namely: (i) another final judg-ment finds that the judgment was the result of a crime committed by the judge in the performance of his/her

Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States 1965 (Washington Convention)

All countries signatory to the Convention

Section 3

2 General Regime

2.1 Absent any applicable special regime, what is the legal framework under which a foreign judgment would be recognised and enforced in your jurisdiction?

Without prejudice to the provisions of international treaties, conventions and European Union regulations and special laws, the legal framework that governs the recognition and enforce-ment of foreign judgments in Portugal is the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Chapter V, Title XIV (The Review of Foreign Judgments), Arts. 978 to 985.

2.2 What constitutes a ‘judgment’ capable of recognition and enforcement in your jurisdiction?

All decisions regarding private rights which are rendered by an independently appointed jurisdictional body of any State, which are final, can be recognised or enforced.

European regulations may be applicable in some specific matters as described in the EU chapter.

2.3 What requirements (in form and substance) must a foreign judgment satisfy in order to be recognised and enforceable in your jurisdiction?

According to Art. 980 of the CPC, the following requirements must be met for a judgment to be recognised: a) there are no doubts as to the authenticity of the judgment

documents or the correctness of the decision; b) the judgment must have the status of a final decision under

the law of the country where the judgment was given; c) the judgment was given by a foreign court the jurisdic-

tion of which was not fraudulently obtained and concerns a matter that is not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Portuguese courts;

d) a plea of lis pendens or res judicata cannot be invoked on the grounds of a case before the Portuguese courts, except where the foreign court exercised jurisdiction first;

e) the defendant has been properly served with the docu-ment which instituted the proceedings, under the law of the country of the court of origin, and that the proceed-ings were conducted in accordance with the adversarial principle and the principle of equality of the parties; and

f) the judgment does not contain a decision, the recognition of which is manifestly incompatible with the principles of international public policy of the Portuguese State.

2.4 What (if any) connection to the jurisdiction is required for your courts to accept jurisdiction for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment?

There is no specific connection to the jurisdiction required for


190 Portugal


the revision will be limited to verifying whether the conclusions reached on the legal merits, or the procedure adopted, led to a breach of international public policy.

2.12 Are there any differences in the rules and procedure of recognition and enforcement between the various states/regions/provinces in your country? Please explain.

Recognition and enforcement apply identically throughout the whole Portuguese territory. The Azores and Madeira are part of Portuguese territory.

2.13 What is the relevant limitation period to recognise and enforce a foreign judgment?

There is no specific provision regarding the limitation period for the recognition of foreign judgments. The limitation periods appli-cable to the nature or the legal basis of the claim are applicable.

3 Special Enforcement Regimes Applicable to Judgments from Certain Countries

3.1 With reference to each of the specific regimes set out in question 1.1, what requirements (in form and substance) must the judgment satisfy in order to be recognised and enforceable under the respective regime?

Please find below the answers depending on the specific regime:

Lugano Convention: This Convention applies to civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It does not include tax, customs or administrative matters. It basically reproduces the requirements in EU Regulation no. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recogni-tion and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I Bis Regulation), with the exception provided in Art. 47 no. 1, which states that nothing shall prevent the applicant from availing himself of provisional, including protective, measures in accordance with the law of the State requested without a declara-tion of enforceability being required.

Hague Convention on Civil Procedure:The order for costs and expenses is rendered enforceable without a hearing (Art. 19). The party seeking enforcement must provide (i) a copy of the judgment fulfilling the conditions required for its authenticity, (ii) proof of the res judicata effect of the underlying judgment, and (iii) whether that part of the judg-ment which constitutes the decision is worded in the language of the authority addressed, or in the language agreed between the two States concerned, or whether it is accompanied by a transla-tion, in one of those languages and, unless there is agreement to the contrary, which is certified as correct by a diplomatic officer or consular agent of the requesting State, or by a sworn trans-lator of the State addressed.

Hague Convention on Maintenance Obligations:This Convention applies to maintenance obligations arising from a family relationship, parentage, marriage or affinity, including a maintenance obligation in respect of a child who is not legitimate.

A judgment is recognised or enforced according to the conflict of law rules set out in Arts. 4 to 6 in connection with Art. 8.

duties; (ii) a document is filed of which the applicant party was unaware, or which it was unable to use in the proceed-ings in which the judgment was made, and which is, per se, sufficient to alter the decision so as to favour the losing party; or (iii) the dispute is based on an act simulated by the parties and the court did not use its power to prevent the parties’ improper objective, because it failed to notice the fraud; and

c) where the judgment was against a Portuguese natural or legal person on the grounds that the outcome of the claim would be more favourable to the judgment debtor if the foreign court had applied Portuguese substantive law.

Portuguese courts do not consider whether the judgment complies with Portuguese or foreign substantive law. The existence of a conflicting local law or prior judgment between different parties is not relevant, unless it would lead to incom-patibility with international public policy rules, since Portugal is a civil law jurisdiction where judges are not bound by stare decisis.

2.8 What, if any, is the relevant legal framework applicable to recognising and enforcing foreign judgments relating to specific subject matters?

Regulations on recognition and enforcement of foreign judg-ments are normally applicable to all subject matters.

There are, however, several multilateral conventions, to which Portugal is a party, related to the recognition and enforcement of judgments regarding specific matters, such as those stated in question 1.1 above.

2.9 What is your court’s approach to recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment when there is: (a) a conflicting local judgment between the parties relating to the same issue; or (b) local proceedings pending between the parties?

As stated in question 2.6, Portuguese courts only make a formal revision of foreign judgments.

If the judgment is in accordance with the formal requirements set out in Art. 980 of the CPC, the judgment must be recog-nised, unless it is against Portuguese international public order principles.

Recognition would be refused in the cases where proceedings between the same parties are pending in Portugal, which were commenced before the foreign proceedings.

2.10 What is your court’s approach to recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment when there is a conflicting local law or prior judgment on the same or a similar issue, but between different parties?

Portuguese courts do not review on the merits of the judgment, the revision is limited to verifying whether the judgment is contrary to international public policy order or not. Portugal is a civil law jurisdiction and there is no stare decisis doctrine.

2.11 What is your court’s approach to recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment that purports to apply the law of your country?

As stated in the answer to the previous question, the issue of the substantive law applied in a foreign judgment concerns the merits of the case which cannot be reviewed by the Portuguese courts unless it breaches international public policy. Therefore,




3.3 With reference to each of the specific regimes set out in question 1.1, briefly explain the procedure for recognising and enforcing a foreign judgment.

For the regimes set out in the European Regulations and the Washington Convention, no exequatur will be necessary and, therefore, enforcement proceedings according to the procedural law applicable to the Member State where the enforcement is made can commence immediately. In most cases, an applica-tion for recognition and enforcement is made to the competent district court as set out in the answer to question 2.6 above.

3.4 With reference to each of the specific regimes set out in question 1.1, on what grounds can recognition/enforcement of a judgment be challenged under the special regime? When can such a challenge be made?

Under the special regime, recognition/enforcement may be refused if any of the criteria set out in Art. V of the NY Convention is met, as previously stated in the answer to question 3.1 above. There is otherwise no review of the merits of the judgment.

4 Enforcement

4.1 Once a foreign judgment is recognised and enforced, what are the general methods of enforcement available to a judgment creditor?

A duly recognised foreign judgment can be enforced in the courts, in which the courts are the competent authorities and are assisted by enforcement agents. In court enforcement proceedings assets and/or income of the judgment debtor may be seized/attached.

As an alternative to the judicial procedure, creditors may use a prior administrative procedure known by the acronym PEPEX (pre-enforcement extrajudicial procedure), which is administered by enforcement agents. PEPEX may be used, inter alia, in cases of foreign judgments declared to be enforceable, judgments which are enforceable pursuant to EU legislation, treaties or conventions that are binding on Portugal and European enforcement orders. In PEPEX proceedings, enforcement agents conduct the search for assets and income on Portuguese databases. PEPEX allow creditors to obtain information about the possibility of recovering the money owed to them, very quickly, without the need to have recourse to legal proceedings. However, PEPEX proceedings must be converted into court enforcement proceedings.

Interim measures, such as the attachment of assets or income of the judgment debtor in order to secure the future enforce-ment of the judgment debt based on the foreign judgment and to prevent the judgment debtor from disposing of assets/income can be applied for prior to or when a judgment creditor applies for a foreign judgment to be recognised and enforced.

5 Other Matters

5.1 Have there been any noteworthy recent (in the last 12 months) legal developments in your jurisdiction relevant to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments? Please provide a brief description.

There have been no noteworthy legal developments in the Portuguese jurisdiction in the last 12 months.

According to Art. 11, the application of the law designated by this Convention may be refused only if it is manifestly incompat-ible with public policy (“ordre public”).

NY Convention:Portugal ratified the NY Convention in 1994 by Assembly of the Republic Resolution no. 37/94, of 10 March 1994.

The Convention is applicable to arbitral awards that fall within the scope of Art. I.

Art. IV provides that, in order to obtain recognition and enforcement, the parties must supply: (i) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof; and (ii) the orig-inal arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. If the said award or agreement is not made in an official language of the country in which the award is enforced, the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the award shall produce a translation of these documents into such language, which shall be certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent.

Moreover, in accordance with Art. V, recognition and enforce-ment of the award may only be refused where: (i) the parties to the arbitration agreement were under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid; (ii) the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; (iii) the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submis-sion to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the deci-sions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be recognised and enforced; (iv) the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; and (v) the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.

Pursuant to Art. V, other grounds available for refusal are: (vi) the subject matter was not arbitrable; and (vii) the award is against public policy.

Washington Convention: This Convention established an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The purpose of the Centre is to provide facilities for conciliation and arbitra-tion of investment disputes between Contracting States and nationals of other Contracting States.

According to Art. 54 no. 1 of the Washington Convention, each Contracting State must recognise an award rendered within the Convention and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award. Therefore, no exequatur will be needed. The enforcement of partial/interim awards is also possible. No. 2 of the Art. 54 provides that, in order to recognise a judgment, a copy of the award must be certified by the Secretary-General.

3.2 With reference to each of the specific regimes set out in question 1.1, does the regime specify a difference between recognition and enforcement? If so, what is the difference between the legal effect of recognition and enforcement?

All conventions provide for automatic recognition of foreign judg-ments, which has the same effects and limitations as described under the general regime referred to in the answer to question 2.5.


192 Portugal


5.2 Are there any particular tips you would give, or critical issues that you would flag, to clients seeking to recognise and enforce a foreign judgment in your jurisdiction?

Clients seeking to recognise and enforce a foreign judgment in Portugal should bear in mind that the proceedings can be slowed down by the service of proceedings. These delays can be considerable where debtors domiciled abroad have to be served.

It is essential to comply with all the legal requirements in the relevant regulations and to ensure that all necessary documents are available. The translation of the documents is essential and must be clear in order to avoid any contradictions or inconsist-encies in the State where the judgment is enforced.

As stated in the answer to question 4.2, in Portuguese enforce-ment proceedings the competent authorities are the courts and enforcement agents, with the latter being selected and appointed by the judgment creditor.




Rui Botica SantosNationality: Portuguese; born in 1968. Languages: Portuguese; English; and Spanish. Bars Admitted: Portugal (1995); Brazil (2006); Timor-Leste (2012); and Macau (2013). Additional Education: Post-Graduation Course in European Community Studies, Lisbon University (1994); and Mediation Course in Civil and Corporate Matters, organised by the Portuguese Chamber of Commerce and Industry-Professor Serge Roy-Canada (2001). Partner of CRA (since 1996); Partner of CRA Timor – Timorese Law Firm (since 2006); Arbitrator in several arbitrations (ICC and Ad Hoc Arbitrations related to contractual disputes and Oil & Gas matters); Arbitrator of the official list of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland (since 2004); Mediator of CAS; Judge at the International Court of Appeal of FIA (since 2011); and Arbitrator of: the “Centro de Arbitragem das Profissões Liberais”, the Portuguese Centre for Commercial Arbitration; and “Centro Brasileiro de Mediação e Arbitragem” (Brazil/RJ – 2018). Conferences/Publications: Speaker at several national and international seminars. Author of several articles related to arbitration and dispute resolution.

CRA – Coelho Ribeiro e Associados Av. Eng. Duarte Pacheco Amoreiras Torre 2 – 13 A 1099-042 Lisbon Portugal

Tel: +351 21 383 9060 Email: [email protected] URL cralaw.com/en

CRA is an independent law firm founded in 1986 by José Manuel Coelho Ribeiro, then President of the Portuguese Bar Association, and has since then gained an international dimension. CRA has offices in Lisbon, Porto, Sines and, abroad, in Timor-Leste, Brazil and Macau. CRA offers full-service legal advice, with an emphasis on general corporate and business law, to national and international corporations and potential investors, with a specific focus on providing services for foreign investors in Portugal and in Portuguese-Speaking Countries. CRA is recognised to be the first line in areas such as business law, natural resources and dispute resolution. Find out more about CRA:

cralaw.com/en

Mark Robertson is a bilingual (English and Portuguese) English solicitor (no current practising certificate). He worked in Portugal for more than 20 years as a lawyer, law lecturer and legal translator before returning to the UK in 2008 where he continues to work as a specialist legal translator. He has extensive experience of the interface between the Portuguese legal system and common law-based legal systems and has translated more than 15 million words of legal documentation from Portuguese to English including several Portuguese legal manuals. Mark has worked on a regular basis with CRA for more than 15 years, as an English lawyer and translator on both day-to-day projects and major publishing projects such as Sports Law in Portugal, published by Wolters Kluwer.

CRA – Coelho Ribeiro e Associados Av. Eng. Duarte Pacheco Amoreiras Torre 2 – 13 A 1099-042 Lisbon Portugal

Tel: +44 1671 404 802Email: [email protected]: cralaw.com/en


The International Comparative Legal Guides are published by:@ICLG_GLG

Current titles in the ICLG series

Alternative Investment Funds

Anti-Money Laundering

Aviation Finance & Leasing

Aviation Law

Business Crime

Cartels & Leniency

Class & Group Actions

Competition Litigation

Construction & Engineering Law

Consumer Protection

Copyright

Corporate Governance

Corporate Immigration

Corporate Investigations

Corporate Recovery & Insolvency

Corporate Tax

Cybersecurity

Data Protection

Derivatives

Designs

Digital Business

Digital Health

Drug & Medical Device Litigation

Employment & Labour Law

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Environment & Climate Change Law

Family Law

Financial Services Disputes

Fintech

Foreign Direct Investment Regimes

Franchise

Gambling

Insurance & Reinsurance

International Arbitration

Investor-State Arbitration

Lending & Secured Finance

Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Merger Control

Mergers & Acquisitions

Mining Law

Oil & Gas Regulation

Outsourcing

Patents

Pharmaceutical Advertising

Private Client

Private Equity

Product Liability

Project Finance

Public Investment Funds

Public Procurement

Real Estate

Sanctions

Securitisation

Shipping Law

Telecoms, Media & Internet

Trade Marks

Vertical Agreements and Dominant Firms

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2020MinterEllison: Beverley Newbold & Evan Goldman 31 Austria...

Documents

Transcript of Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2020MinterEllison: Beverley Newbold & Evan Goldman 31 Austria...