Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt/Main; 2018-05-25; 8 UF 97/17
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGHE:2018:0525.8UF97.17.00
Date: 2018-05-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82018DE0525(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A former Polish citizen (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against her ex-husband, a Bosnian citizen, (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), with whom she had three children, seeking a property settlement (interests in companies, plot of lands, other real estate properties) in connection with their divorce in the amount of more than EUR 15 million.
At first, the plaintiff did not quantify her request. Subsequently, she specified with the Amtsgericht – Familiengericht – Hanau (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) that she sought to be granted half co-ownership to certain assets of the defendant and based this claim on the Bosnian matrimonial property law. Alternatively, the defendant further claimed that the defendant had been ordered to pay the respective amount by a decision made by the Bosnian courts which had been recognised in Germany.
The defendant raised an objection based on statute limitations.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the applications of the plaintiff.
The defendant lodged an appeal against this decision with the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’). According to the plaintiff, Bosnian law was applicable to the matrimonial property regime due to the fact that upon the marriage at the General Consulate of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Stuttgart, the parties to the dispute had a close connection to Yugoslavia.
The appeal was found admissible, but not justified.
The international jurisdiction of the German courts followed from Article 3(1)(a) first alternative of the new Brussels II Regulation (1). Both spouses had their habitual residence in Germany. Article 22(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (2) was not applicable to this case (3). Pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Brussels I Regulation, the regulation did not apply to the matrimonial property regime.
The marriage between the parties was subject to German law. The plaintiff and the defendant had no common citizenship, and the evidence provided did not suggest that they would have planned a common future in Bosnia or Croatia. On the contrary, the circumstances suggested that they had both lived together in Germany. The oldest son attended a school in Germany and the plaintiff had been registered with the German police authorities throughout the time she had lived there.
The objection of the defendant regarding statute limitations was found to be correct under Article 194 et seq. BGB (4). The limitation period had not been suspended by the actions of the plaintiff within the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(3) Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where the case is dealt with.
(4) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code).