Bundesgerichtshof; 2016-10-20; IX ZB 11/16
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2016:201016BIXZB11.16.0
Date: 2016-10-20
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82016DE1020(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A natural person (hereinafter the "defendant") was convicted by a criminal judgment of the Tribunale di Rimini (Italy) for the payment of damages to the applicants as a result of the criminal offences established. With the acquisition of shares in a competing company, the defendant had violated his obligations as the then managing director and shareholder of the applicants. The defendant was also sentenced to pay a total of 520,000 EUR of an immediately fully enforceable advance on the expected compensation.
The applicants sought the declaration of enforcability of the judgment on advances in the the Landgericht Stuttgart (hereinafter "LG Stuttgart"). The defendant pleaded the incompatibility of the claim for damages with various decisions of the LG Stuttgart in this matter, according to Article 45(1) Sentence 1 and Article 34(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (¹).
The LG Stuttgart declared the decision on the compensation payment of EUR 520,000 to be enforceable. The defendant lodged a complaint against this, whereupon the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart) made the enforcement conditional on a guarantee.
The applicants requested the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter the "BGH") to declare the enforceability of all claims by repealing the guarantee in their appeal on points of law.
The appeal on points of law is not admissible for the following reasons.
Contrary to the applicants' opinion, the Court of Appeal may make the enforcement conditional upon a guarantee, even without the defendant's explicit request. The payment order according to Article 46(3) of the Brussels I Regulation is not a contestable decision because it was not given as a remedy against the decision on the application for the declaration of enforceability.
As far as the Court of Appeal has denied the declaration of enforceability, the legal complaint is admissible, but the applicants have not shown any reason for admissibility (²). The case lacks fundamental importance. Neither the advancement of law nor the safeguarding of a uniform jurisdiction require the BGH’s decision to interpret the characteristic of "incompatibility".
The term "incompatibility" is to be interpreted autonomously according to Article 34(3) of the Brussels I Regulation. The decisions are incompatible if they have legal consequences that are mutually exclusive. In this case, the incompatibility of both decisions arises. Tribunale di Rimini and LG Stuttgart have dealt with the question of whether the defendant has violated his obligations with the acquisition of shares in the competitor's company and is therefore obliged to pay damages. And they have come to different results.
The BGH rejected the applicants' appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
(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, valid until 09.01.2015.
(²) Article 15(1) of the Gesetz zur Ausführung zwischenstaatlicher Verträge und zur Durchführung von Abkommen der Europäischen Union auf dem Gebiet der Anerkennung und Vollstreckung in Zivil- und Handelssachen (Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsausführungsgesetz – AVAG) and Article 574(2) of the Zivilprozessordnung.