Tribunalul Caras-Severin; 2017-12-13; SAIN MARIANA, Contestator, şi AMORETTI MARINO, CAORSI PAOLO, ROMANO GIACOMO si ROMANO MASSIMO, Intimaţi ; 2286/115/2017**
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBCRV:2017:001.001905
Date: 2017-12-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82017RO1213(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards the question of recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment addressed to the Tribunalul Caraș Severin (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’).
The Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc (Bailiff’s Office) issued several enforcement orders, subsequently approved by the Court of First Instance, against the debtor (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) amounting to EUR 480,000. The basis for the enforcement orders was a judgment issued by the Tribunale di Genova, Italy (hereinafter ‘Italian court’).
Within the current proceedings, the plaintiff objected to the enforcement orders and asked the Court of First Instance to annul the enforcement orders based on Article 45(1)(b) and Article 46 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). The plaintiff alleged that the Italian judgment was given in default of its appearance. The plaintiff also claimed that it was not served with the documents related to those proceedings. According to the action, the issuance and subsequent approval of the enforcement orders were contrary to Romanian national law, mainly the CPC (2) since the Court of First Instance did not recognise the Italian judgment in Romania but only accepted it without further assessment. The plaintiff also alleged a breach of the requirements laid down by Article 43 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) because the executor allegedly granted the enforcement orders without having the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53 of the cited Regulation. The plaintiff also disputed the amount claimed as unjustified and exaggeratedly high.
The creditors before the Italian court (hereinafter ‘the defendants’) proved before the Court of First Instance the existence of loan agreement between the parties, concluded in Italy, to invest the money in a property project in Romania. The plaintiff did not comply with contractual obligations, which led to the commencement of the Italian proceedings, where the Italian court ordered the plaintiff to fulfil its monetary commitments. The Court of First Instance held that the Italian proceedings were conducted in compliance with relevant legislation, including the service of documents to the plaintiff. The communication proved that the plaintiff was notified of the proceedings and the order. The Italian court confirmed the enforceability of the judgment by certificate under Article 53 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The plaintiff was demonstrably summoned to the Bailiff’s Office to explain its position before issuing enforcement orders.
The Court of First Instance confirmed that the conditions for refusal of enforcement invoked by the plaintiff were not met. Article 45(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) provides an option to refuse the recognition where the judgment was given in default of appearance, or if the person was not served with the relevant documents. However, the provision stipulates that it is applicable only unless the person ‘failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so’. The case file documents confirm that the plaintiff had the opportunity to challenge the Italian judgment, but it avoided this intentionally. The complexity of the Italian proceedings also justifies the amount to be paid.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action and confirmed the validity of the contested enforcement orders.
(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 (CPC) (Code of Civil Procedure).