The article discusses the enforcement of foreign judgments within the European Union and the public policy (ordre public) exception. It is mainly focused on some recent judgments of Polish and German courts. On 22nd December 2016 and 23rd of March 2021 rulings in cases of infringement of personality rights were issued by the Court of Appeal in Cracow (ordering an apology and correction). The enforcement of the former ruling was dismissed by the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) (IX ZB 10/18) on 19th July 2018. The non-enforcement was justified by invoking German ordre public and “freedom of opinion” as a constitutional right stipulated in Article 5 of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz). A reference to the CJEU ruling of 17 June 2021 is also presented.

After presenting the issue of ordre public in the context of enforcement of foreign judgments within the EU, the authors evaluate as questionable the argumentation of the BGH in its 2018 judgment. The Polish ruling ordering the defendant to correct and apologise for the false statement was included by the BGH in the category of “opinion” (Meinung) protected by the German Constitution. Enforcement of the judgment of the Polish court in Germany was held to be contrary to this German constitutional right and the enforceability of the Polish judgment was denied as being manifestly contrary to German public policy.

The authors support the functioning of the ordre public clause in intra-EU relations. It is justified inter alia by the large differences in EU legal systems and future possible changes. However, the common standards of the ECHR should be particularly taken into consideration when applying the public policy clause, because they co-shape the EU legal systems.

文章讨论了欧盟内外国判决的执行和公共政策（公共秩序）例外情况。它主要关注波兰和德国法院最近的一些判决。克拉科夫上诉法院于 2016 年 12 月 22 日和 2021 年 3 月 23 日对侵犯人格权的案件作出裁决（下令道歉和更正）。2018 年 7 月 19 日，德国最高法院 ( Bundesgerichtshof, BGH ) (IX ZB 10/18) 驳回了前一项裁决的执行。不执行的理由是援引德国公共秩序和“言论自由”作为宪法德国宪法第 5 条规定的权利 ( Grundgesetz). 还提到了欧洲法院 2021 年 6 月 17 日的裁决。

在介绍了在欧盟内部执行外国判决的背景下的公共秩序问题之后，作者评估了BGH在其 2018 年判决中的论点存在问题。波兰要求被告更正并为虚假陈述道歉的裁决被 BGH 列入受德国宪法保护的“意见”（ Meinung ）类别。在德国执行波兰法院的判决被认为违反了这项德国宪法权利，波兰判决的可执行性被否认为明显违反德国公共政策。

作者支持公共秩序条款在欧盟内部关系中的作用。欧盟法律制度的巨大差异和未来可能发生的变化证明了这一点是合理的。然而，在应用公共政策条款时，应特别考虑欧洲人权公约的共同标准，因为它们共同塑造了欧盟的法律体系。