Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg; 2022-11-08; 26 Ta (Kost) 6228/21
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LAGBEBB:2022:1108.26TA.KOST6228.21.00
Date: 2022-11-08
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82022DE1108(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, addressed to the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerns the conditions for granting a European Enforcement Order where a consumer is involved.
A plaintiff applied to the Arbeitsgericht Potsdam (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for certification of a cost assessment order, which he had obtained against his client, as a European Enforcement Order. Relying on Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1), the Court of First Instance dismissed the application on the grounds that the debtor was a consumer not domiciled in Germany.
Following the plaintiff's appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed the conclusions of the first instance. Article 6(1), point (d), of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 lays down the requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order where the debtor is a consumer. In such a case, the certification can only be granted if the judgment was given in the Member State of the debtor’s domicile, i.e. the debtor must be domiciled in Germany. As the Court of Justice of the European Union held in Case C-508/12 (2), ‘the definition of consumers within the meaning of Article 6(1), point (d), of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 refers to a person who concludes a contract for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession with a person who is acting in the exercise of his trade or profession’.
In the present case, the debtor must be regarded as a consumer within the meaning of Article 6(1), point (d), of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 and the plaintiff has not proved that the debtor has a place of residence in Germany. A European Enforcement Order cannot, therefore, be issued.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as unfounded.
(1) Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 December 2013, Walter Vapenik v Josef Thurner, C-508/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:790, paragraph 38.