Instrument

The 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention

The 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention makes a judgment from a court named in an exclusive choice-of-court clause recognisable and enforceable in other contracting states. It only reaches judgments from an exclusive clause, and only between states bound by it. It is one route within the wider mechanics of cross-border enforcement, separate from but overlapping with the newer 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.

Scope

This route covers judgments given by a court named in an exclusive choice-of-court agreement, where that agreement points to a single court or to the courts of one contracting state. The clause has to be exclusive. A clause that lets a claimant pick among several courts falls outside this convention.

That exclusivity requirement is also the line dividing this instrument from the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, which was drafted because a large share of commercial clauses are asymmetric and does not require reciprocity in the jurisdiction clause to apply. Unlike the New York Convention, which covers arbitral awards, this instrument deals with court judgments under a separate framework, and the two routes are not interchangeable. Which categories of dispute or contract are excluded for a specific clause is not listed here as a general rule; it is checked against the convention text and the clause itself before this route is relied on.

Where it applies

States accede to this convention individually, and the list of parties changes as more join or file declarations. We check the current status for the specific states involved in a matter rather than printing a list that goes stale in print.

This convention predates the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, which entered into force on 1 September 2023, and covers a narrower slice, judgments from a court chosen in an exclusive clause. Where a clause meets that test, the route under this convention stays available and is not displaced by the newer instrument coming into force. Checking whether both states involved are bound, and since when, is part of the groundwork in any cross-border recognition and enforcement matter.

Traps

Whether this convention reaches a given judgment depends on timing, on the date the clause was made, the date proceedings opened, and the date each state became bound. The 2019 convention has a documented rule here, applying where it was already in force between the state of origin and the state addressed when proceedings started. No equivalent entry exists yet for the 2005 convention's own temporal scope, and it must be checked against the treaty text and each state's accession instrument first.

States can also file declarations narrowing what the convention covers for them. A creditor chasing an unpaid judgment, including in cases involving frozen crypto holdings after a judgment goes unpaid, needs that declaration checked before assuming the route is open. Broader patterns in these refusals are tracked in our O8 insights.

How it is used in practice

In practice, this convention matters at drafting stage as much as at enforcement. A contract naming one court, and only one court, for all disputes keeps this route open if a judgment later needs to cross borders. A clause letting either side sue in its own courts, common in finance documents, usually falls outside this convention and depends instead on the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, which does not require reciprocity in the jurisdiction clause.

Where a judgment qualifies, the recognising court checks that the convention's conditions were met rather than reopening the merits. We work this route inside non-enforcement of a judgment matters, where a debtor's assets sit outside the court that decided the case. See what we do not do for the limits on that work. There is no reward tied only to recovery; the firm's registration can be checked using the guidance on how to verify a law firm.