Judecatoria Timisoara; 2017-09-12; HOCHSTAFFL MICHAEL, petent, şi HOCHSTAFFL DANIELA, intimat; 11112/325/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:JDTIM:2017:001.010657
Date: 2017-09-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82017RO0912(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a complaint examined by the Judecatoria Timisoara (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) concerning the recognition of a foreign judgment.
The plaintiff asked the Oficiul de Cadastru și Publicitate Imobiliară (hereinafter ‘the Land Registry Office’) to register his exclusive right of ownership over an immovable property situated in Romania based on the judgment of the Bezirksgericht Rattenberg (Court in Rattenberg, Austria), certified as a European Enforcement Order. By the judgment at issue, the Austrian court approved the settlement concluded between the plaintiff and his wife concerning the real estate in Romania.
The Land Registry Office rejected the request, invoking Article 24(3) of the Legea nr. 7/1996 (1) in conjunction with Article 888 of the C. civ. (2), according to which the registration in the land register is carried out on the basis of (a) the notarial deed, (b) the final court decision, (c) the certificate of heirship or (d) another document issued by the authorities where the law provides so. If the registration is to be carried out on the grounds of a court judgment, then the judgment must be declared final and irrevocable.
The plaintiff filed a complaint before the Court of First Instance seeking to overturn the rejection of registration. He relied on Article 33(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (3), according to which ‘a judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required’. As a result, the Austrian judgment must be understood as fulfilling the conditions laid down in national law for registration in the land register. The refusal to give effect to the foreign judgment, provided in its original language and translated into the Romanian language, is a flagrant infringement of EU legislation.
The Court of First Instance examined the documents and circumstances of the case. It held that, even though the Austrian court has made it clear that the judgment has entered into force, there is no explicit declaration that the judgment has become final and irrevocable as requested by Romanian law. At the same time, contrary to the plaintiff’s suggestion, the Austrian judgment cannot be recognised as a European Enforcement Order, since Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (4) provides that ‘this Regulation shall not apply to […] rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship’.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance upheld the conclusions of the Land Registry Office and dismissed the complaint.
(1) Legea nr. 7/1996 cadastrului şi a publicităţii imobiliare (Law No 7/1996 on land registry and real estate registration).
(2) Codul Civil (Civil Code).
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(4) Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims.