LG Bonn; 2020-10-05; 1 O 303/20
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGBN:2020:1005.1O303.20.00
Date: 2020-10-05
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82020DE1005(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns an application for refusal of enforcement of a European Enforcement Order submitted to the Landgericht Bonn (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
The Bezirksgericht Graz-Ost (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) delivered a default judgment against a debtor (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), ordering him to pay to the creditors the sum of EUR 2 132,52. The Court of First Instance also certified the judgment as a European Enforcement Order.
The plaintiff relied on Article 1115 of the ZPO (1), which allows enforcement suspension if certain conditions are met, and requested the Court of Appeal to suspend enforcement. The plaintiff argued that (a) the judgment conflicts with the rules on international jurisdiction for consumer contracts as supposed by Article 45(1), point (e), of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2), (b) enforcement would manifestly be contrary to German public policy (Article 45(1), point (a), of the Regulation) and (c) he had not been properly informed of the original proceedings leading to the default judgment at issue (Article 45(1), point (b), of the Regulation).
The Court of Appeal noted that Article 46 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) provides that ‘the enforcement of a judgment shall be refused where one of the grounds referred to in Article 45 is found to exist’. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had not acted as a consumer in the transaction with the creditors that gave rise to the default judgment and that the special rules of jurisdiction for consumers did not apply. With respect to the public policy and procedural deficiencies that led to the default judgment, the Court of Appeal found that it was established that the plaintiff had been properly notified of the court hearing that led to the default judgment and had sufficient time to prepare its defence. The plaintiff's failure to respond to or appeal the original decisions did not constitute a violation of his right to a fair trial.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that all procedural requirements had been met and that there were no valid grounds for refusing enforcement under the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The plaintiff’s application to prevent the enforcement of the European Enforcement Order was dismissed.
(1) Zivilprozessordnung (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 (recast).