Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf; 2017-03-30; I-3 W 242/16
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGD:2017:0330.I3W242.16.00
Date: 2017-03-30
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82017DE0330(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
In Germany, a lawyer (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), licensed in Germany and in France, sought the declaration of enforceability of a French payment order in the Landgericht Düsseldorf (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).
A Germany-based consumer (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) commissioned the plaintiff with a legal matter concerning a property in France. After completing the contract, however, the plaintiff was forced to sue the defendant (and his daughter) in France for payment of the jointly owed fee. Concerning this fee, the Tribunal de Grande Instance Strasbourg declared the payment order enforceable in France.
Then the plaintiff brought action in the Court of First Instance, where, according to Article 38 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), he requested the declaration of enforceability of the French payment order regarding the fee, and with the request he included his claim, the judgement of the Tribunal de Grande Instance Strasbourg, and a certificate according to Article 54 of the Brussels I Regulation. The Court of First Instance complied with the plaintiff’s request and granted the enforceability clause.
Against the decision of the Court of First Instance, the defendant lodged an appeal, in proper form and on time, in the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), arguing that the plaintiff made excessive claims for payment respectively claims for payment of services that were not provided. The defendant elected the point of first contact with the plaintiff to be in Germany precisely because of the plaintiff’s dual license and a single date took place in France.
The Court of Appeal held that the French payment order, in conjunction with the decision of the Tribunal de Grande Instance Strasbourg, constituted a judgment according to Article 32 of the Brussels I Regulation and its declaration of enforceability according to first sentence of Article 45(1) of the Brussels I Regulation may be denied or repealed only for one of the reasons specified in Articles 34 and 35 of the Regulation. Furthermore, ‘under no circumstances may the foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance‘, according to Article 45(2) of the Brussels I Regulation. In the present case, the reasons for denying or repealing that can be considered are specified in Article 35(1), Article 16(2) and Article 15(1)(c). However, the Court of Appeal sufficiently examined that no such grounds for refusal could be applied here.
As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal at the defendant's expense.
(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.