Year
Stage
Relevant documentation
1996 18th Session decides to include "the question of jurisdiction, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters" in the Agenda Final Act of the Eighteenth Session, Part B, No 1 (extract only)

1994-1996 Special Commission convened to study further the problems involved in drafting a new convention and to make proposals with respect to the work which might be undertaken.

The Special Commission meets on two occasions (22-24 June 1994 and 4-7 June 1996).

In preparation for the first meeting, the Permanent Bureau draws up an annotated checklist of issues to be discussed, which addresses the nature and scope of a possible convention, and grounds of jurisdiction that might be admitted and excluded, and recognition and enforcement. The annex to this checklist contains a diagram explaining the different models of conventions (i.e., "simple convention", "mixed convention" and "double convention").

"Annotated checklist of issues to be discussed at the meeting of the Special Commission on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments" (Prel. Doc. No 1 of May 1994)
 
  At its first meeting, the Special Commission favours a double convention with a list of bases for assuming jurisdiction and a list of bases, the utilisation of which is prohibited. A consensus also emerges in favour of the court addressed being able to verify (or control) the court of origin’s jurisdiction. "Conclusions of the Special Commission of June 1994 on the question of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters" (Prel. Doc. No 2 of December 1995)
 
  At its second meeting, the Special Commission examines the following questions in more detail based on notes drawn up by the Permanent Bureau:
  • declining jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens; and
  • recognition and enforcement of judgments, in particular those awarding punitive or excessive damages.
The Special Commission also considers a case note submitted by the Swiss delegation which highlights the need for a new convention.

Subsequent discussions show substantial agreement among experts on the application of forum non conveniens only in exceptional circumstances, and the inclusion of a clause dealing with excessive damages. The Special Commission also reaffirms the need for the court addressed to be able to verify (or control) the judgment of the court of origin.
"Conclusions of the second Special Commission meeting on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters" (Prel. Doc. No 6 of August 1996)

"Note on the question of forum non conveniens in the perspective of a double Convention in judicial jurisdiction and the enforcement of decisions" (Prel. Doc. No 3 of April 1996)

"Note on the recognition and enforcement of decisions in the perspective of a double convention with special regard to foreign judgments awarding punitive or excessive damages" (Prel. Doc. No 4 of May 1996)

"A Case for The Hague" (Prel. Doc. No 5 of June 1996)

1993 17th Session requests Special Commission to study further the problems involved in drafting a new convention and make proposals with respect to the work which might be undertaken. Final Act of the Seventeenth Session, Part B, No 2

1992 Working Group unanimously agrees on the desirability of negotiating a new general convention on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

Meeting from 29-31 October 1992, the Working Group considers that a simple convention would not meet present needs. It expresses a preference for an approach in the direction of a "double convention", but acknowledges that a complete double convention (i.e., one which lists exhaustively the grounds of jurisdiction) would be "overly ambitious in the context of the broad Hague Conference membership".

"Conclusions of the Working Group meeting on enforcement of judgments" (Prel. Doc. No 19 of November 1992 in Proceedings of the Seventeenth Session (1993), Vol I, 257)