Oberster Gerichtshof; 2016-10-18; 3 Ob 156/16m
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2016:0030OB00156.16M.1018.000
Date: 2016-10-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82016AT1018(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
In a court case, three Austrian national children, represented by their mother (the "applicants") demanded alimony of their father and former husband of the mother (the "respondent").
The respondent pleaded international incompetence and parallel litigation. On the same case, a court procedure was pending according to Article 27(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (¹) in India, where the applicants permanently live with their mother.
The Court of First Instance (Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien) dismissed the respondent’s objections.
The Court of Appeal (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien) confirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance that the recognition and enforcement of any Indian alimony judgment in Austria had been denied correctly.
The respondent’s appeal on points of law is admissible, but not entitled.
The Oberster Gerichtshof (the "OGH") leads in its decision that there is enough case-law in the present case. Article 27(1) of the Brussels I Regulation shall apply only where the (identical) actions to be assessed are brought in courts of different Member States.
A pending foreign procedure is only a process obstacle if the foreign decision can be recognised and enforced in Austria. The recognition of an Indian alimony judgment differs because it lacks the formal reciprocity according to Article 79(2) of the EO (²).
The OGH rejected the respondent’s appeal on points of law.
(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) Gesetz vom 27. Mai 1896, über das Exekutions- und Sicherungsverfahren (Exekutionsordnung – EO).