EUPillar OLG Stuttgart, 13.2.2012

Summary

The parties argued about the declaration of enforceability of a foreign (Czech) maintenance judgment. It was doubtful whether the declaration of enforceability was contrary to Art. 24 (a) Maintenance Regulation. The court held that Art. 24 Maintenance Regulation didn’t apply to the case. The court denied the existence of a violation of public policy within the meaning of the rule. A foreign judgment that was given without consultation of a serological expert opinion on questions of parentage for the determination of fatherhood could be declared enforceable. The Czech court stated the paternity of the defendant by applying its procedural rules on the taking of evidence. The defendant had refused the blood taking in Czech Republic. In consequence, the court assumed the paternity in accordance with its procedural rules. According to German rules of the taking of evidence it is in general also possible to assume fatherhood without a serological examination. The CJEU stated in Gambazzi (C-394/07) concerning the Brussels I-Regulation that a violation of public policy could solely be assumed if there was a violation of a fundamental principle of a legal system. These guidelines can be transferred to the present case in order to promote a coherent interpretation between different PIL instruments. An essential violation as described by the court though can’t be noted. It is in accordance with legal variety that there are different assessments and focuses in different procedural law systems. The judgment is correct.