Bundesgerichtshof; 2020-10-15; IX ZB 55/19
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2020:151020BIXZB55.19.0
Date: 2020-10-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82020DE1015(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The applicant (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) was awarded an enforceable English decision against two Cypriot companies (hereinafter ‘the defendants’) where one company was the sole member of the other company.
Under the English decision, the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff EUR 6.2 million. The only assets of the one of the defendants were shares relating to an investment company, and the defendant assigned them to an attorney-at-law in Düsseldorf.
The first application seeking the declaration of enforceability filed with the Landgericht Düsseldorf (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) had been rejected, based on the appeal of the defendant, by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) due to its failure to meet formal preconditions.
After receiving the second application, the Court of First Instance declared the English decision enforceable. The appeal of the defendant lodged with the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful.
The revision filed by the defendant with the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) was found justified but inadmissible.
The international jurisdiction of the German courts followed from Article 38(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1). The Court of First Instance held local jurisdiction. Required, but also sufficient was the statement of the creditor (the plaintiff in this case) that it wanted to conduct the enforcement at the respective place (Article 39(2) second alternative of the Brussels I Regulation). Such a statement was given in this case.
The Court of Appeal was correct to state that an application which had been rejected with a final effect due to the failure to meet the precondition laid down by Article 53 and 54 of the Brussels I Regulation could be filed for the second time, for according to Article 41 of the Brussels I Regulation, the scope of the final effectiveness related solely to the formalities.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant against the decision of the Court of Appeal due to its inadmissibility.
(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.