This article examines the implications of Real Madrid v. Le Monde judgment of the EU Court of Justice (C-633/22 of 4 October 2024) for the recognition of foreign judgments in EU private international law, with particular regard to strategic litigation and SLAPPs. It analyses how the CJEU has framed the public policy exception in relation to freedom of expression, allowing refusal of recognition only in cases of a “manifest” breach, while strictly preserving the prohibition of review as to the substance. The subsequent application of this framework by the French Cour de cassation highlights both the potential and the structural limitations of relying on public policy as a safeguard against abusive litigation targeting public participation. The article argues that, although the Real Madrid judgment introduces relevant criteria – such as proportionality and chilling effects – the prohibition on reviewing the substance of judgments significantly constrains the ability of national courts to identify the distinctive features of SLAPPs. It concludes that the tension between mutual trust and effective anti-SLAPP protection exposes the limits of the current legal framework governing the circulation of judgments within the European Union.
Freedom of Expression and Recognition of Foreign Judgments in EU Private International Law: Rethinking Public Policy and Anti-SLAPP Protection after Real Madrid v. Le Monde
Edoardo Alberto Rossi
2025
Abstract
This article examines the implications of Real Madrid v. Le Monde judgment of the EU Court of Justice (C-633/22 of 4 October 2024) for the recognition of foreign judgments in EU private international law, with particular regard to strategic litigation and SLAPPs. It analyses how the CJEU has framed the public policy exception in relation to freedom of expression, allowing refusal of recognition only in cases of a “manifest” breach, while strictly preserving the prohibition of review as to the substance. The subsequent application of this framework by the French Cour de cassation highlights both the potential and the structural limitations of relying on public policy as a safeguard against abusive litigation targeting public participation. The article argues that, although the Real Madrid judgment introduces relevant criteria – such as proportionality and chilling effects – the prohibition on reviewing the substance of judgments significantly constrains the ability of national courts to identify the distinctive features of SLAPPs. It concludes that the tension between mutual trust and effective anti-SLAPP protection exposes the limits of the current legal framework governing the circulation of judgments within the European Union.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
