Bundesgerichtshof; 2021-02-18; IX ZB 28/20
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2021:180221BIXZB28.20.0
Date: 2021-02-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82021DE0218(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case concerned the recognition and enforcement of a domestic decision in the same Member State.
The plaintiff (hereinafter the ‘plaintiff’) was ordered by the Landgericht Görlitz (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance A’) by the means of a default judgment to pay a specific amount and to return certain documents. The plaintiff raised an objection against the default judgment claiming that the action had not been served to it properly.
Based on the preliminary enforceable default judgement, the defendant (hereinafter the ‘defendant’) was awarded the pledge and transfer order, and subsequently pledged the claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an objection against the enforcement of the judgment.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application with the Landgericht Osnabrück (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance B’) demanding that the Court of First Instance B refuse to recognise the default judgment of the Court of First Instance A and the enforcement of the judgment. The plaintiff stated to have its domicile in London relying on Article 45 and 46 of the of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). Court of First Instance B rejected the application.
The immediate appeal lodged by the defendant with the Oldenburg (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was not successful. The Court of Appeal found that Article 45 and ff. of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) only applied to the refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions. As such, the preconditions were that the decision had to be given in a different Member State and the respondent had to apply for the enforcement in Germany based on such a decision. That was not the case in this dispute as the Member State of origin and the Member State addressed were identical. In addition, the application lacked the need for legal protection due to the fact that it was possible for the plaintiff to use domestic reliefs or appeals against the default judgment and the subsequent enforcement.
The plaintiff pursued its claim further by filing a revision with the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) which was found inadmissible. The Supreme Court stated that the Court of Appeal was correct to consider the Brussels I Regulation (recast) to apply solely to the recognition and enforcement of decisions in different Member States. With regard to the enforcement of domestic decisions, national law applied. A refusal of the enforcement under Article 46 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was only possible if the respective decision was made in a different Member State.
(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.