Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Japan
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Japan Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Japan
- Japan is member of selective conventions on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments such as Hague Convention on Civil Procedure of 1954, Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters of 1965, etc.
- The Code of Civil Procedure (‘CCP’) and Civil Execution Act (‘CEA’) of Japan deal with the issue of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. ‘Foreign Judgment’ defined under the CEA[1] means the final judgment passed by a foreign court, regardless of the name, procedures or form of the court, under the assurance of due process for both parties, with regard to legal relationship in private law. Any orders of the foreign courts are accepted by the Japanese courts irrespective of their nomenclature. It is essential for the judgment to be pronounced by a competent court of the foreign sovereign State and it must have followed the due process.
- The kinds of judgments recognized and enforced by Japan are:
- Money judgments
- A specific performance
- Permanent injunction
- Judgment which in itself is a recognition of a previous foreign judgment is enforceable
- Judgment against the State is enforceable
- The foreign judgments which are not recognized by Japan are:
- Arbitration
- Any foreign punitive judgment
- Interim Orders, since they are temporary relief and are hence not accepted.
- Article 11 of the CCP is the provision which deals with recognition and Article 24 of the CEA deals with enforcement of foreign judgments. A foreign judgment that fulfills the criteria mentioned in Article 118 of the CCP (previous Article 200) is automatically deemed valid in Japan without taking any special procedure.
- A party seeking enforcement of foreign judgment needs to obtain an enforcement judgement (shikkoh hanketsu) from a competent Japanese court. The requirements for recognition under Article 118 are here as follows:
- The jurisdiction of the foreign court is acknowledged by the laws or ordinances or international treaties
- There is proper notice of the proceeding
- It is not against the public policy of the State
- Respect for reciprocity/ mutual guaranty
- The judgment has to be final and binding judgment of the foreign court.
- There is no fixed statutory limitation for the enforcement of a foreign judgment, though any rights established by a judgment of a Japanese court are subject to a limitation of ten years starting from the date the judgment becomes final and binding.
- After the claimant has obtained an execution judgment, the claimant can file a motion for compulsory execution with the district court that has jurisdiction over the matter. The CEA calls for a compulsory execution for claims of unpaid money and for a claim of delivery, surrender or eviction of real property or movables.[2] A claim for specific performance is treated as follows:
- the claimant may request the court to order specific performance provided that the nature of the obligation is one that permits such enforcement;[3]
- if the nature of the obligation can be performed by a third party, the claimant may request the court to cause a third party to perform the obligation at the expense of the obligor [4]; and
- regardless of whether the obligation can be performed by a third party, the claimant may request that the court demand that the obligor pay a reasonable amount of money to secure performance.[5]
- There is no federal system in Japan. The courts apply the same laws in a uniform manner throughout Japan. A foreign judgment will be recognized by any court in Japan if it satisfies the requirements listed in Article 118 of the CCP, and will be enforceable if an execution judgment with respect to the foreign judgment is obtained pursuant to Article 24 of the CEA.
[1] Article 24
[2] Section 2 & 3 of CEA
[3] CEA, Articles 168 to 170
[4] CEA, Article 171
[5] CEA, article 172 to 173
