BGH; 2022-09-23; V ZR 148/21
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2022:230922UVZR148.21.0
Date: 2022-09-23
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82022DE0923(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A car distributor domiciled in Italy (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against the owner of a personal car (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) seeking the return of a registration certificate Part II.
The plaintiff bought the defendant's car through an intermediary in a car dealership in Germany. The defendant was leasing the car to the car dealership. According to the sale agreement, the registration certificate Part II was to be sent to the plaintiff after receiving the arrival confirmation. It was disputable between the parties whether the registration certificate Part II, which showed the car dealership as being the car's keeper, presented to the intermediary by the car dealership, was a genuine one or a quality fake. The managing director of the car dealership was facing criminal proceedings due to suspected fraud in approximately 100 cases.
The defendant filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff, demanding the car be returned.
The Landgericht Stuttgart (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), as the court seised under Article 1 and Article 63(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), dismissed the action of the plaintiff and upheld the counterclaim of the defendant. Based on the appeal lodged by the plaintiff, the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) ordered the defendant to return the registration certificate Part II and dismissed the counterclaim.
The Court of Appeal was correct that the plaintiff, relying on the presumption of good faith under Article 1006(1) BGB (2), acquired the ownership to the car in good faith under Article 929(1) and Article 932(1) and (2). However, the plaintiff would not have been in good faith if the intermediary had not been presented the registration certificate Part II upon the handover of the car. The burden of proof regarding the lack of good faith lies with the person challenging the transfer of ownership, i.e. the defendant in this case who, however, failed to provide any evidence therefor. With regard to the plaintiff, only the secondary burden of demonstration applied. The plaintiff met its obligation by demonstrating that the intermediary had been given a quality fake of the registration certificate Part II as examined by the intermediary.
It was impossible to exclude good faith just for the mere fact that the registration certificate Part II had not been handed over to the intermediary. Such a procedure is not uncommon. It is a frequent procedure that the registration certificate Part II is not handed over immediately but only upon the payment of the full purchase price by the acquirer.
The Supreme Court dismissed the revision of the defendant against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
(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.
(2) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code).