Can a judge refuse to enforce a conviction from another EU member state to protect freedom of the press?

An judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of Oct. 4, 2024 (C-633/22) sheds new light on the delicate balance between the free press and the protection of reputation within Europe. The case, which pitted Spanish soccer giant Real Madrid against French newspaper Le Monde, poses a fundamental question: may a judge in one EU country refuse to enforce a judgment from another EU country if that judgment threatens to cripple freedom of the press? The Court's answer is a nuanced "yes," and the implications are significant for journalists, media companies, and anyone who values open public debate.

As specialized lawyers in the media law and European law, in this contribution we analyze this landmark judgment and its implications.

The facts: a Spanish conviction, a French refusal

It all began in December 2006, when the newspaper Le Monde published an article suggesting that Real Madrid was using the services of a doctor involved in a doping network. The soccer club and a member of its medical staff felt their honor had been compromised and went to the Spanish courts.

The Spanish judges proved them right. In several instances, up to the Spanish Supreme Court, Le Monde and the journalist involved were ordered to pay substantial damages: €300,000 to the club and €30,000 to the doctor, plus interest and costs.

Armed with this ruling, Real Madrid went to the French courts to enforce payment in France. This is standard procedure within the EU, based on the principle of mutual trust and the Brussels Ibis Regulation, which governs the smooth enforcement of judicial decisions between member states.

Here, however, the case took an unexpected turn. The Court of Appeals in Paris refused to enforce the Spanish conviction. The reason? According to the French court, the compensation was so excessive that its execution would be "manifestly contrary to French international public policy." Such an amount would have a "deterrent effect" (chilling effect) have on press freedom. Indeed, journalists and media in the future would think twice before publishing on sensitive topics of public interest, such as doping in sports.

The case eventually ended up at the French Court of Cassation, which decided to pass the hot potato to the highest European court: the EU Court of Justice.

The legal dilemma: mutual trust versus fundamental rights

At the heart of the case is a clash between two fundamental pillars of the European legal order:

1. Mutual recognition of judgments: Member States should in principle recognize and enforce each other's court decisions without re-judging the case. This is essential for legal certainty and the functioning of the EU internal market.
2. Protection of fundamental rights: The EU is a community of values, and the protection of fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech and press freedom (anchored in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.), is a cornerstone.

The Brussels Ibis Regulation provides an exception to automatic recognition: the enforcement of a judgment of another EU court can be refused if recognition is is manifestly contrary to public policy of the country in which execution is sought. This is a clause to be applied only in exceptional cases. So the question was whether disproportionate damages threatening freedom of the press could be such an exceptional case.

Court ruling: freedom of press is part of public policy

On October 4, 2024, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment. It clearly stated that the protection of press freedom is a fundamental principle and thus part of the public policy of each member state.

The Court held that the enforcement of a foreign judgment was must be refused when this would lead to a apparent violation of freedom of the press.

The key to the assessment is whether the sanction is a deterrent effect has. This is the case when the damages awarded are manifestly disproportionate is. To assess this, the Court gave the national court a concrete guide:

• No reassessment of case land: The French judge may not retry the original case. He may not reassess the facts or the established fault of the journalist. The Spanish judge's determinations on the seriousness of the error and the extent of the damage must be respected.
• Assessment of proportionality: The judge must consider all the circumstances, including:
  • The financial strength of the convicted journalist and the publisher.
  • The seriousness of error and the extent of damage, as established in the Spanish judgment.
  • The amounts awarded in similar cases at home (France).
• Possibility of partial refusal: The Court introduced an important nuance. If only part of the compensation is considered excessive, the court must limit the refusal to that. Thus, the rest of the judgment can be enforced.

The aftermath: French Court of Cassation breaks up

Following the ECJ ruling, the French Court of Cassation ruling on May 28, 2025. It overturned the decision of the Paris Court of Appeals and remanded the case. Why? The appeals court had not correctly applied the strict criteria of the CJEU:

1. It had the extent of the damage self-assessed, which is a forbidden revision on the merits.
2. It had no consideration of the severity of the error as the Spanish court had found.
3. The analysis of the financial situation of the convicts was insufficiently substantiated.
4. It had awarded damages to the club and the doctor wrongly merged in her assessment, rather than analyzing them separately.

The Paris Court of Appeal will therefore have to make a new ruling in accordance with the instructions of the Court of Justice and the French Court of Cassation.

A new weapon: the European anti-SLAPP directive

This whole saga should also be seen in light of a recent development: the adoption of the European anti-SLAPP directive (EU) 2024/1069. SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are strategic lawsuits designed not so much to enforce a right as to intimidate, financially deplete and silence journalists, activists, academics and other "public watchdogs.

The new directive, which EU member states (such as Belgium) are required to transpose by May 7, 2026, provides a number of strong procedural safeguards to stop this abuse:

• Early rejection: Courts are given the ability to dismiss a case that is "manifestly unfounded" at an early stage. The burden of proof is reversed: the plaintiff must show that his case is not manifestly unfounded.
• Order to pay full costs: If a case is found to be abusive, the plaintiff may be ordered to pay all costs, including the defendant's full attorney fees.
• Compensation and penalties: The victim of a SLAPP can seek compensation for the material and non-material damages suffered by himself. Courts can also impose deterrent fines on the plaintiff.
• Protection against judgments from third countries: The Directive explicitly provides a ground for refusal to recognize judgments from non-EU countries arising from SLAPPs.

The case Real Madrid t. Le Monde and the anti-SLAPP directive complement each other perfectly. While the directive tackles abuse at its source, the ECJ's ruling ensures that even judgments that have gone through the procedural maelstrom can still be stopped if the end result puts unacceptable pressure on press freedom.

What does this mean for you?

The implications of these legal evolutions are concrete and far-reaching.

• For journalists, media, academics and activists: This is an important victory. You now enjoy dual protection. First, the anti-SLAPP ruling provides concrete tools to defend yourself against manifestly unfounded or harassing lawsuits. Second, the ruling Real Madrid for an ultimate safety net: even if you are ordered to pay excessive damages abroad, their enforcement can be stopped at home.
• For companies and individualsYour right to the protection of your honor and reputation remains unaffected. This is not a license to libelous or careless journalism. You can still successfully go to court if your reputation is damaged. What does change is the strategic consideration. Bringing a claim with an excessive claim for damages can qualify as abuse and can turn against you. Proportionality is the key.

Conclusion

The judgment in the case Real Madrid t. Le Monde is more than a technical statement about the enforcement of judgments. It is a powerful statement about the values on which the European Union is built. It confirms that the area of freedom, security and justice is not a hollow slogan, but a reality in which fundamental rights, such as freedom of the press, are effectively protected even when this clashes with the principle of mutual trust. Together with the new anti-SLAPP directive, a solid legal shield is erected around public debate.

The subject matter is complex and its application requires specialized knowledge of both national and European law.