Case number and/or case name
OLG Saarbrücken, 21.1.2011 – 5 W 132/09
Summary
The applicant appealed against the judgment of the Regional Court according to which the judgment of the Cour d’Appel de Paris (action civile, summary proceeding) was enforceable. The Higher Regional Court had to decide whether the enforcement of the judgment had to be refused pursuant to Art. 34.1 Brussels I (violation of the ordre public).
The court stated:
(1) that the French summary proceeding that concerns criminal matters as well as civil law claims fell within the term ‘civil and commercial matters’ in Art 1 (1) Brussels I because the condemnation also included a judgment on civil law claims.
(2) that a violation of public policy within the meaning of Art 34 no. 1 Brussels I wasn’t given if a Member-State judgment (here: from France) was based on a discrepancy concerning the rules on the taking of evidence existing compared to the German rules in this field. A law system that in summary proceedings lets the accused person bring up the exonerating evidence himself didn’t violate the German ordre public.
It is settled CJEU case law that the violation of public policy within the meaning of Art. 34 no.1 Brussels I has to be obvious. The CJEU stated that a violation of public policy was only given in case of an unacceptable infringement of fundamental principles of the Member State that had the jurisdiction on the enforcement (Krombach, C-7/98). The court also cited this jurisdiction. In the present case there can’t be stated a violation of public policy. The discrepancy from the German law can’t be considered as such a violation.