LG Frankfurt; 2022-11-02; 2-04 O 20/22
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGFFM:2022:1102.2.04O20.22.00
Date: 2022-11-02
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82022DE1102(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
Several private persons domiciled in Germany (hereinafter the ‘plaintiffs’) filed a petition against an attorney (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) demanding that he be ordered to pay the legal expenses and attorney’s fees regarding a lost case as well as to provide compensation for damages due to a loss of rent which could not be asserted for being statute-barred.
Via an auction, the deceased mother of the plaintiffs acquired a plot of land where a multifamily residential was located; the property was subject to the rent regulation by the city of Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter the ‘city’). She applied for the cost-covering rent per square meter to be increased by EUR 1.89. Based on an economic efficiency calculation, the city refused the increase to EUR 6.36 per square meter. More than three years later, the mother of the plaintiffs unsuccessfully pursued her claim further using the defendant’s services in proceedings regarding the issuance of an order to payment. After the city raised an objection and the proceedings were referred to the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), the Court of First Instance dismissed the action, citing that it was statute-barred. The plaintiffs pursued their allegedly inherited claims against the defendant further.
The defendant argued that no damage had been incurred as the claims of the mother against the city had been unsubstantiated from the start stating that no approval from the city had been necessary for the increase of the cost-covering rent. In addition, the liability of authorities for damages had already been statute-barred when the defendant was assigned with the substantiation of the claims.
The Court of First Instance found the action of the plaintiffs to be unjustified and dismissed it. The plaintiffs failed to prove that they inherited the rights of their mother and thus became the owner of a possible claim for compensation against the defendant.
During the oral hearing, the plaintiffs presented the court with a copy of an entry notification to prove their position as heirs. This copy stated that they were owners of the respective property as a community of joint heirs, and as the basis for the registration was stated a European Certificate of Succession which, according to Article 69(1) of the Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 (1), has effect in all Member States. A mere copy of an entry notification, however, was not sufficient for the European Certificate of Succession to produce its effects. What was needed was a verified copy of the European Certificate of Succession. The presentation of other documents, which only allowed conclusions as to the content of the certificate, was not sufficient.
In addition, the claim of the plaintiffs was statute-barred. The three-year time period for the assertion of claims by the mother of the plaintiff began already upon receiving the letter from the city informing the mother about the refusal to increase the cost-covering rent to the requested amount. The defendant was assigned with the assertion of the claims more than three years later.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the action of the plaintiffs.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession.