Judecătoria Zalău; 2016-12-12; Ioana Aurel, contestator, şi Van Koppen & Van Eijk Holding NV; 2350/12.12.2016
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:JDZAL:2016:003.002350
Date: 2016-12-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82016RO1212(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards the enforcement of a foreign judgment in Romania which was addressed to the Judecătoria Zalău (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
A natural person domiciled in Romania (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) and a company domiciled in the Netherlands (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff) were the parties to a dispute held before the Rechtbank Gelderland, the Netherlands, according to which the defendant was ordered to pay a debt of EUR 212.279. After unsuccessful attempts to enforce the debt in the Netherlands, the plaintiff initiated the enforcement proceedings before a Romanian bailiff, who in the end ordered the defendant to pay the debt.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal seeking to annul the bailiff’s order alleging that the plaintiff did provide neither a copy of the Dutch judgment nor a certificate declaring the enforceability of the judgment in the Netherlands, as requested by Article 42 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). The defendant added that he was not aware of the proceedings in the Netherlands, had no option to defend himself and objected that the amount to be paid was only provided in EUR and not in RON.
The plaintiff, in his response to the appeal, refused the grounds of appeal stating that the defendant was aware of the Dutch proceedings, which is also well documented and that the Dutch judgment was provided in a certified translation into Romanian language. The fact that the certificate under Article 53 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was not provided, cannot cause, pursuant to the plaintiff, the invalidity of the enforcement proceedings. National law permits that the debt between Romanian residents and non-residents can be expressed in foreign currency too.
The Court of Appeal analysed the documents in the case file and cited Article 39 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), according to which ‘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 refusal of recognition and enforcement is governed by Section 3 of Chapter III of this Regulation.
The Court of Appeal stated that these provisions must be applied to the present case too. The plaintiff had commenced the enforcement proceedings before the bailiff, who assessed and finally confirmed the Dutch judgment. However, it was unnecessary to assess the foreign judgment in proceedings before the bailiff, since, pursuant to the cited provision of this Regulation, no special procedure or national declaration of enforceability is needed for the foreign judgment to be enforced.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal partially admitted the appeal and annulled the enforcement order issued by the bailiff and ordered the refund of related costs in favour of the defendant.
(1) 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.