Tribunalul Constanta; 2019-09-09; 5242/118/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBCTA:2019:001.001169
Date: 2019-05-09
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82019RO0509(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of enforceability of a foreign judgment heard by the Tribunalul Constanţa (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’).
A creditor (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) asked the Court of First Instance to declare the enforceability of a foreign judgment issued by the Court of Padua, Italy, by which the Italian court ordered the debtor (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) to pay the plaintiff the outstanding debt between the parties. The request was based on Article 666 of the CPC (1).
The plaintiff submitted the enforceable title represented by the Italian judgment and all relevant documents, both in the original Italian language and in certified translation into the Romanian language.
The Court of First Instance held that the present request must be assessed under the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2). Its Article 39 provides that ‘a judgment given in a Member State which is enforceable in that Member State shall be enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceability being required.’ The plaintiff must, however, submit the documents required by Article 42(1)(a) and (b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), i.e. ‘a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity’ and ‘the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53, certifying that the judgment is enforceable and containing an extract of the judgment as well as, where appropriate, relevant information on the recoverable costs of the proceedings and the calculation of interest’. The procedure shall be governed by Romanian law as stipulated by Article 41(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Subsequently, the enforcement of foreign judgments shall be granted subject to the conditions laid down in the CPC. The only grounds on which the recognition and enforcement may be refused are listed in both the European legislation [Article 45 et seq. of the Brussels I Regulation (recast)] and the national law (Article 1097 of the CPC).
The Court of First Instance assessed the submitted documents. It confirmed that all the requirements laid down by the cited legislation were met – the defendant was informed of the right to appeal to the Italian court, and the documents were legally served in compliance with Italian law to the defendant’s last known Italian address. The mere fact that the defendant also owns a property in Romania is not sufficient to prove that the defendant was domiciled in Romania during the service of the documents. The plaintiff also submitted the certificate issued by the Italian court attesting that no appeal against the judgment was registered by the defendant within the legally given time limit (40 days). The Italian court dismissed the later appeal filed by the plaintiff. The Italian judgment must therefore be considered final and enforceable.
Under these circumstances, the Court of First Instance granted the plaintiff’s application and declared the Italian judgment enforceable in Romania and gave the bailiff approval to enter the defendant’s property situated in Romania.
(1) Codul de Procedură (Code of Civil Procedure).
(2) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.