OLG Frankfurt; 2019-10-17; 3 U 238/18
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGHE:2019:1017.3U238.18.00
Date: 2019-10-17
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82019DE1017(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A company based in Taiwan (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied for a defence against enforcement and requested that a company based in the Republic of Congo (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) should repay the amounts obtained from the enforcement. The background to the proceedings was a judgment of the Belgian court Cour d’appel de Bruxelles of 16 November 2011, in which the plaintiff was ordered to pay 6 906 600 US dollars (USD) to the defendant. In addition, interest was due, which was determined in a later English judgment of 8 April 2016, the so-called ‘Master Leslie decision’. In total, the amount owed totalled USD 14 640 200.27.
In order to avoid further enforcement measures, the plaintiff deposited EUR 13 200 000 with the deposit office of the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main, which was paid out to the defendant on 26 July 2017. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had received more than it was actually entitled to as a result of this payment and the enforcement proceedings that had already taken place in the United Kingdom and demanded the repayment of EUR 4_155_336.82.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff was merely seeking to have the legality of the claims subject to the enforcement subsequently reviewed. However, the examination of the substantive claim which was to be enforced had nothing to do with the activities of the enforcement bodies and therefore did not fall within the scope of Article 24(5) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1).
The Landgericht Frankfurt (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) dismissed the action and declared that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the plaintiff’s set-off claims, as the plaintiff would have had to assert these claims before courts abroad.
The plaintiff appealed to the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), arguing that the Court of First Instance also held jurisdiction to review the enforcement measures in the United Kingdom.
The Court of Appeal ruled partly in favour of the plaintiff stating that the Court of First Instance did have jurisdiction to examine the enforcement measures in the United Kingdom, as the enforcement also took place, at least in part, in Germany. The defendant obtained a total of EUR 1 657 949.46 through enforcement measures in the United Kingdom up to 11 April 2016, which was to be considered a real act and not a set-off.
The Court of Appeal also held that the payment of the EUR 13 200 000 deposited could also not be considered as voluntary performance, but had to be taken into account in the context of the enforcement defence action. However, with regard to the ‘Master Leslie decision’ and other English court proceedings, the Court of Appeal stated that the Court of First Instance did not hold international jurisdiction to consider these claims by way of set-off as they had to be pursued in the United Kingdom.
Based on the plaintiff’s appeal, the Court of Appeal partially overturned the judgement of the Court of First Instance. The action was found admissible insofar as the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had gained unjust enrichment by the payment of the deposited amount of EUR 13 200 000 and as a result of various enforcement measures in the United Kingdom, through which it obtained a total of EUR 1 657 949.46 by 11 April 2016.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.