Swedish default judgment not enforceable

Case no. 37/2023
Order made on 21 December 2023

A
vs.
Ekeby Sparbank

In January 2014, Ekeby Sparbank filed a writ of summons with Helsingborg District Court claiming that A pay the bank SEK 129,000 because A had defaulted on a loan agreement entered into with the bank. As Helsingborg District Court could not find out where A was domiciled, it publicly served the summons in the Official Swedish Gazette and the newspaper Helsingborgs Dagblad in February 2014. In its default judgment of 1 April 2014, the District Court ordered A to pay the bank SEK 129,000. The court stated in its judgment that A is a Danish citizen.

In August 2022, Ekeby Sparbank filed a request with the Enforcement Court in Hillerød for enforcement of the Swedish default judgment in Denmark. The Enforcement Court ruled that the default judgement could be enforced in Denmark, and the Eastern High Court concurred.

The Supreme Court stated that the assessment of whether the Swedish default judgment could be enforced in Denmark should be made on the basis of the provisions of the Brussels I Regulation of 2000. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that it had to be assumed that Helsingborg District Court had not, prior to the public service of the summons or the delivery of the default judgement, initiated further investigations into whether A was domiciled in Denmark, even though the District Court was aware that A was a Danish citizen.

The Supreme Court went on to rule that the summons from January 2014 – which had only been served in the Official Swedish Gazette and Helsingborgs Dagblad – had not been served on A in sufficient time and in such a way that A could protect his interests during the proceedings. For that reason, the Swedish default judgment could not be enforced in Denmark, cf. Article 45, cf. Article 34(2), of the Brussels I Regulation of 2000.