PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

BGH, 14.6.2012 – IX ZB 183/09

Details of the court

Germany, Third Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

13 June 2012

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The applicant brought an action for the order of enforcement. The declaration of enforceability was denied by the Higher Regional Court pursuant to Art. 34 no. 1 Brussels I. The applicant’s appeal contested this decision. The court had to decide whether the order of enforcement would be contrary to Art. 34 no. 1 Brussels I (violation of public policy). The court stated that there was no violation of public policy (Art. 34 no. 1 Brussels I) when the foreign court rejected the appeal against an order for payment because the authority of the lawyer wasn’t given. The CJEU stated in Gambazzi (C-394/07) that a violation of public policy could only be assumed if there had been a violation of a fundamental principle of a legal system. Such an essential violation couldn’t be stated in the present case. Therefore, the judgment is correct.