OLG Nürnberg; 2014-07-10; 7 UF 694/14
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGNUER:2014:0710.7UF694.14.0A
Date: 2014-07-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82014DE0710(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A minor born in Poland (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), living with his mother as his statutory representative in Poland, requested the enforcement of two Polish judgments obligating his father (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), who lived in Paraguay and was a receiver of civil service pension payments due to his incapacity of service, to pay him a monthly maintenance of PLN 2,000 for the period after the divorce proceedings of 31 May 2011 and onwards.
On 11 November 2003, the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) declared both judgments to be enforceable in Germany. The service of this resolution in Paraguay on the defendant was initiated. However, there was no proof of delivery given.
On 2 May 2014, the defendant lodged a complaint with the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) against the resolution of the Court of First Instance by means of a fax, claiming that he had not been aware of the obligation to pay the monthly maintenance until the receipt of the letter from the Federal Office of Justice on 19 February 2013. For this reason, he asked for the beginning of the maintenance to be as of March 2013.
The Court of Appeal did not comment on whether the complaint had been filed within the required period of time as it was not able to assess this matter. However, the complaint had not been justified in first place.
As the Polish judgments were issued before 18 June 2011, exequatur was not superfluous in this case under Article 17(2) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 (1),  but the maintenance judgements were rather to be declared enforceable under Article 23 thereof.
The reason is that under Chapter IV Section 2 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 a declaration of enforceability of a judgment of a Member State bound by the Hague Protocol (2) is given if the respective proceedings had been initiated before 18 June 2011.
A cancelation of the declaration of enforceability made by the Court of First Instance under Article 34(1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 is out of the question as none of the reasons laid out in Article 24 thereof were given.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint of the defendant.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations.
(2) Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the law applicable to maintenance obligations by the European Community.