Tribunalul Salaj; 2017-07-11; Ioana Aurel, contestator, şi Van Koppen & Van Eijk Holding NV; 679/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBSLJ:2017:002.000679
Date: 2017-07-11
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82017RO0711(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of enforcement of a foreign judgment resolved by the Tribunalul Sălaj (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
Due to mistakes in bank account numbers, the Dutch tax authorities erroneously transferred an overpayment of corporation tax amounting to EUR 212 279 to the bank account of a Romanian citizen owning a company established in the Netherlands (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The Dutch court in Zutphen ordered the defendant to return the sum to the proper beneficiaries (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’), but the enforcement of this judgment in the Netherlands failed.
The plaintiffs started enforcement proceedings in Romania based on the defendant’s citizenship and applied directly before the Romanian bailiff. The bailiff issued the enforcement orders, which were later confirmed by the Judecătoria Zalău (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’) through a declaration of enforceability of the Dutch judgment.
The defendant objected to that declaration of enforceability. He relied on Article 39 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), according to which ‘judgment given in a Member State which is enforceable in that Member State shall be enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceability being required’. The Court of First Instance upheld the objection and annulled the enforcement orders issued by the bailiff.
The plaintiffs appealed the first instance approval of the defendant’s objection to the Court of Appeal. They sought the defendant’s objection against the enforcement to be dismissed and the enforcement orders issued by the bailiff to be confirmed. The plaintiffs cited Article 41 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), according to which ‘the procedure for the enforcement of judgments given in another Member State shall be governed by the law of the Member State addressed’. The Codul de Procedură Civilă (2) requires a bailiff to apply for the court approval of the enforcement. That was a reason why the Court of First Instance, at the bailiff’s request, had previously declared enforceability of the Dutch judgment. The whole process, in this case, was perfectly legal, and the defendant’s objection was absurd and unfounded.
In a statement of defence against the appeal, the defendant argued that (a) the first instance case-file lacked a certificate issued under Article 53 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), (b) he as a defendant was not aware of the proceedings held against him in the Netherlands, or (c) that the sum enforced in Romania was not provided in Romanian currency, but only in euros. These circumstances would lead the Court of First Instance to reject the enforcement.
The Court of Appeal recalled that, in the appellate procedure, the arguments laid down by the defendant in the statement of defence are not relevant unless the defendant includes them as legal grounds of his own appeal. The Court of Appeal is bound only by the appeal filed, and, in this case, it was only the plaintiff who filed an appeal.
Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeal affirmed the plaintiff’s view regarding the application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and the Codul de Procedură Civilă. The defendant’s objection, laid down in the first instance against the enforcement, was considered unfounded. Consequently, the judgment of the Court of First Instance accepting such objection was annulled.
(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.
(2) Codul de Procedură Civilă (Code of Civil Procedure).