PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

BGH, 13.8.2014 – V ZB 163/12

Details of the court

Germany, Third Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

12 August 2014

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The parties argued about a compulsory enforcement from a mortgage. Before the initiation of the German proceedings the defendant had brought a negative declaratory action in Italy which should result in the declaration that he wasn’t obliged to tolerate the compulsory enforcement regarding his property in Germany. It was doubtful whether the German court had to stay the proceedings pursuant to Art. 27 (1) Brussels I. The first instance court denied the obligation to stay proceedings pursuant to Art. 27 (1) Brussels I by arguing that the Italian action had been brought with an abusive intention. The court held that the proceedings didn’t have to be stayed pursuant to Art. 27 (1) Brussels I. It however stated that the first instance court’s reasons weren’t decisive in the case. Generally, the obligation to stay proceedings resulting from Art. 27 (1) Brussels I couldn’t be refused by stating abusive intentions of a party. In the present case however the proceedings didn’t have to be stayed because the second court (here: the German court) had exclusive international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 22 Brussels I. The judgment is correct. It is in accord with the CJEU jurisdiction in C-438/12 (Weber).