Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht; 2020-10-14; 4 U 229/19
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGBB:2020:1014.4U229.19.00
Date: 2020-10-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82020DE1014(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A former client (hereinafter the ‘plaintiff’) of an attorney-at-law (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) who was at the same time the managing director of the second defendant (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’) filed an action against both defendants due to enforcement arising out of a court settlement between the parties.
Within earlier proceedings conducted by the Landgericht Berlin, the plaintiff sought that she be obliged to pay defendant 1 his fee and defendant 2 its remuneration for services they had provided, which was settled in the ensuing court case. Subsequently, bankruptcy proceedings against the plaintiff were initiated in London which led to the discharge of the residual debt of the plaintiff. Five years later (2018) and having regard to a decision of the Landgericht Berlin, the Amtsgericht Köln decided to assign claims which the plaintiff had against a Germany privately limited liability company (hereinafter the ‘third-party debtor’) to the defendants. The third-party debtor paid the defendants an amount which, according to the plaintiff, exceeded the respective debt.
Within her action, the plaintiff claimed that as a result of the discharge of residual debt in the United Kingdom, the defendants were not entitled to receive the amounts paid by the third-party debtor. The defendants, however, claimed that the plaintiff could not rely on the discharge of residual debt as she had never lived in London. In addition, the defendants were stated as creditors within the bankruptcy proceedings in London.
The Landgericht Potsdam (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) found the action admissible stating that its jurisdiction followed from the binding effects of the referral decision of the Landgericht Berlin. With regard to defendant 1, the jurisdiction was based on Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). The defendant lodged an appeal against this decision.
The Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) concluded that the Court of First Instance was correct to base its jurisdiction regarding the action against defendant 2 on Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Defendant 1 was living in the district of the Court of First Instance and there was a close connection between the actions against the defendants.
Under Article 16(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (2), the decision of an English bankruptcy court regarding the discharge of the residual debt of the plaintiff was to be recognised in all other Member States immediately upon becoming effective in the Member State where the proceedings had started. The arguments of the defendants that the plaintiff had never lived in London and that they had not been stated as creditors within the bankruptcy proceedings were not sufficient to refuse a recognition due to the fact that the defendants would have been able to achieve legal protection in English courts based on these objections.
After hearing the appeal of the defendants, the Court of Appeal modified the decision and rejected the action regarding the interest claims. As for the rest, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the defendants.
(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) Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings.