Tribunalul Timis; 2018-02-13; HOCHSTAFFL MICHAEL, petent, şi HOCHSTAFFL DANIELA, intimat; 11112/325/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBTIM:2018:014.000105
Date: 2018-02-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82018RO0213(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment resolved by the Tribunalul Timiș (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
An Austrian citizen (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied before the Judecătoria Timișoara (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’) and sought to overrule the decision of the Oficiul de Cadastru și Publicitate Imobiliară (Land Register, hereinafter ‘the OCPI’), by which the OCPI refused to register his exclusive rights to a property located in Romania. The plaintiff requested the registration on the basis of a judgment issued by the Bezirksgericht Rattenberg, Austria (Austrian court), its certified translation, and a European Enforcement Order issued by the same court. The Austrian judgment concerned a judicial settlement of rights between spouses.
The OCPI based its refusal on requirements laid down by Articles 24(3) and 28(2) of the Legea nr. 7/1996 (1), according to which the court judgment, which should serve as a basis for entry into the Land Register, must be final and irrevocable. However, neither the Austrian judgment nor the European Enforcement Order specifies that the judgment has become final.
The Court of First Instance upheld the OCPI conclusion that an explicit declaration that the Austrian judgment has become final and irrevocable as requested by Romanian law was missing. Moreover, the court invoked Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (2), according to which this Regulation ‘shall not apply to … rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship’. The plaintiff further relied on the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (3), but the Court of First Instance recalled that its Article 1(2)(a) provides the same exclusion of application as Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (by the same wording). The plaintiff’s request was dismissed.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, alleging that the Austrian judgment must be deemed a court settlement within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Its Article 36(1) and Articles 58 and 59 suggest that it should have been recognised in Romania without requiring any declaration of enforceability.
Contrary to the Court of First Instance findings, the Court of Appeal held that the court settlement concluded between the plaintiff and his former wife does not concern a matrimonial property regime. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim does not fall under the applicability exemption cited by the Court of First Instance. Conversely, Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 provides that ‘a judgment which has been certified as a European Enforcement Order […] shall be recognised and enforced […] without the need for a declaration of enforceability’. Article 20(2) of the same Regulation outlines what the plaintiff shall be required to provide the courts of the Member State of enforcement with.
The Court of Appeal held that the European Enforcement Order, by which the Austrian court certified its own judgment, was sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim without further recognition proceedings in Romania. The Austrian court settlement is fully effective and enforceable before the Romanian authorities. The plaintiff provided all documents as requested by Article 20(2) of the Regulation (EC) No 805/2004.
The Court of Appeal granted the appeal, amended the first instance conclusions and overruled the OCPI refusal over the requested entry into the Romanian Land Register.
(1) Legea nr. 7/1996 cadastrului şi a publicităţii imobiliare (Law No 7/1996 on the Land Register and real estate registration).
(2) Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims.
(3) 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.