Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt/Main; 2019-03-05; 26 W 45/15
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGHE:2018:0305.26W45.15.00
Date: 2018-03-05
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82018DE0305(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with by the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) concerned the declaration of enforceability of a Polish ruling and an alleged breach of the German public policy due to a substituted service of the decision in Poland.
On 15 September 2015, the Landgericht Marburg (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) decided that a decision made by the District Court Lodz from 18 August 2010 in favour of the plaintiff should be declared enforceable. The plaintiff had filed the action against the managing directors of a company A seeking the payment of a financial claim based on an order of payment acknowledged by the District Court Warsaw. Initially, the decision of the District Court Lodz had not been served to the defendants by the Polish court. In 2012, the plaintiff initiated the service of the ruling to the defendants.
The defendants lodged an appeal against the decision of the Court of First Instance requesting that the enforcement of the Polish decision be dismissed on the grounds of multiple breaches of German public policy. The defendants further requested that the decision of the Court of First Instance be revoked and the contested enforceability clause be declared ineffective. The plaintiff applied for the appeal to be dismissed.
Under Article 45(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), the court with which an appeal is lodged shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only on one of the grounds specified in Articles 34 and 35.
Under Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, the polish ruling was not be refused due to the initial substituted service of the decision by the District Court Lodz which had been conducted in accordance with the respective Polish law even though the document had not been initially physically serviced. In addition, it was also not possible to refuse the declaration of enforceability under Article 34(2) of the Brussels I Regulation due to the fact that the defendant had not filed any remedy against the decision of the District Court Lodz despite having the possibility thereto.
The claim made by the defendant regarding a breach of the German public policy in administrative matters did not justify a refusal to declare the Polish decision enforceable as with regard to the expert report commissioned by the Court of Appeal, the defendant had a reasonable possibility to have the Polish decision examined by Polish remedial means.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the defendant against the decision of the Court of First Instance.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.