Bundesgerichtshof; 2020-07-09; IX ZB 86/18
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2020:090720BIXZB86.18.0
Date: 2020-07-09
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82020DE0709(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An applicant (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied for an Italian decision to be declared enforceable. By this decision, the opponent (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), as a several and joint debtor with an Italian company, was ordered to provide compensation for loss of use (hereinafter ‘the Italian decision’).
The Landgericht Stralsund declared the Italian decision enforceable.
The appeal lodged by the defendant with the Oberlandesgericht Rostock (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was not successful.
Subsequently, the defendant filed a revision with the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) which was found inadmissible.
The Court of Appeal was correct to state that the arguments presented by the defendant did not represent reasons to refuse the declaration of enforceability under Article 45(1)(1) in connection with Articles 34 and 35 of the Brussels I Regulation (1).
Further, the declaration of enforceability regarding the Italian judgment was not contrary to German public policy. It was not necessary to examine whether the amount of the granted compensation for loss of use was reasonable or not.
One of the reasons for the inadmissibility of the revision was the fact that the Italian decision which had been declared enforceable was in the meantime annulled by the decision of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione. If appellate proceedings regarding the declaration of enforceability are pending, the annulment of the respective foreign decision in the State of origin may only be considered under the condition that the appeal or revision was found admissible. Such a reason, however, did not follow alone from the annulment of the Italian decision. In this case, the defendant could exercise its rights under Article 27 of the AVAG (2) (3).
The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s revision against the decision of the Court of Appeal citing its inadmissibility.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Gesetz vom 19. Februar 2001 zur Ausführung zwischenstaatlicher Verträge und zur Durchführung von Abkommen der Europäischen Union auf dem Gebiet der Anerkennung und Vollstreckung in Zivil- und Handelssachen (Act of 19 February 2001 regarding the Implementation of Inter-State Agreements and the Execution of Regulations of the European Community in the Area of Recognition and Enforcement in Civil and Commercial Matters).
(3) Judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof of 11 March 2010, IX ZB 94/07, NJW-RR 2010, 1079, paragraph 9.