In its 4 October 2024 judgment in Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v Le Monde, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recognized, for the first time, that press freedom may justify refusing the enforcement of a judgment rendered in another Member State under the Brussels I recast regulation.
The Court held that manifest and disproportionate interferences with freedom of expression and of the press can trigger the public policy exception under Article 45(1)(a) of the Brussels I recast regulation.
The decision marks an important development in EU judicial cooperation, balancing the principle of mutual trust with the protection of fundamental rights.
Background: enforcement of judgments within the EU
The Brussels I recast regulation establishes that civil and commercial judgments circulate freely within the EU. A judgment delivered in one Member State must, as a principle, be recognized and enforced in all others without any special procedure or review of the merits (Arts. 36 and 52 Brussels I recast regulation).
The Regulation provides only narrow exceptions. Under Article 45(1)(a) of the Brussels I recast regulation, recognition must be refused where it is “manifestly contrary to the public policy (ordre public) in the Member State addressed”. According to settled case-law (e.g. Krombach, Diageo Brands), this exception is interpreted strictly.
Traditionally, the public policy exception has been invoked only for procedural defects, such as the violation of defense rights, rather than for substantive fundamental rights breaches. The Real Madrid therefore raised an unprecedented question: can freedom of the press – a substantive Charter right – justify refusal of enforcement?
Facts of the case
The dispute originated in 2006, when Le Monde published an article suggesting that Real Madrid had used the services of a doctor implicated in a cycling doping scandal. The club and one of its doctors sued in Spain based on harm done to their honour.
In 2014, Spanish courts found in their favour, ordering Le Monde and its journalist to pay EUR 390,000 and EUR 33,000 respectively in damages, and to publish the judgment in the newspaper.
Real Madrid then sought to enforce this decision in France, where Le Monde’s assets were located. The Paris Court of Appeal refused enforcement, holding that such high damages would disproportionately interfere with press freedom, a component of the French ordre public.
On appeal, the French Cour de cassation referred the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, asking whether freedom of expression and of the press, as guaranteed by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, may justify invoking the public policy exception to refuse enforcement, and, if so, what criteria should guide that assessment, including the proportionality of damages, the potential chilling effect on public debate, and the defendants’ financial capacity.
The CJEU’s decision: proportionality assessment and partial enforcement
In its Grand Chamber ruling, the Court confirmed that freedom of expression may form part of the public policy of the Member State of enforcement, but only in exceptional and manifest cases.
- Press freedom as public policy
The Court affirmed the press’s essential role as a “public watchdog” in a democratic society. Reporting on doping in professional sport is considered a matter of public interest, meaning restrictions must remain strictly necessary and proportionate.
Freedom of the press can therefore justify refusal of enforcement, but only when the interference is manifestly disproportionate and would seriously undermine this freedom.
- Proportionality and the “chilling effect”
The Court introduced a proportionality test to guide national courts: the damages awarded must maintain a reasonable relationship with the actual harm suffered.
Enforcement may be refused if the award is clearly excessive, for example when it:
- exceeds proven harm;
- is far above what has been decided in similar cases;
- disregards the financial means of the defendant; or
- is disproportionate given the seriousness of the fault.
Such disproportionate sanctions risk producing a chilling effect, meaning it deters journalists and media outlets from engaging in the public debate, which is contrary to Article 11 of the Charter.
- Partial enforcement: a novel judicial tool
A key innovation of the judgment lies in the Court’s instruction that refusal of enforcement must be limited “to the extent necessary”. National courts may thus enforce a judgment in part, up to the point that remains proportionate, and refuse only the excessive portion.
This partial enforcement mechanism allows national judges to safeguard fundamental rights while maintaining cross-border judicial cooperation.
Follow-up
On 28 May 2025, the French Cour de cassation annulled the Paris Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that it had improperly reassessed the merits of the Spanish judgment instead of applying the proportionality test as formulated by the CJEU. The case was referred to another Court of Appeal for re-examination in line with this guidance.
Outlook
The Real Madrid v Le Monde judgment refines the scope of the public policy exception under the Brussels I recast regulation. It acknowledges that press freedom can limit the free circulation of judgments within the EU, while ensuring that such refusal remains strictly circumscribed and proportionate.
By integrating freedom of expression into the concept of public policy, the Court provides a rare substantive application of the public policy exception in EU private international law.
Equally significant, the Court’s endorsement of partial enforcement offers a practical method for reconciling mutual trust with fundamental rights protection.
