EUPillar BGH, 17.6.2009

Summary

The parties argued on the defendant’s obligation to pay alimony. The Regional Court had granted the declaration of enforceability of an Austrian court’s judgment which concerned a certain amount of the child’s maintenance claim. The defendant contested this decision. The Higher Regional Court reduced the amount of the claim. The defendant claimed for the complete dismissal of the application concerning the alimony obligation. The Federal Court of Justice had to decide whether the Austrian court’s judgment could be declared enforceable in Germany pursuant to Brussels I. It stated that a foreign (here: Austrian) judgment on child maintenance was compatible with a German enforcement decision regarding maintenance if it included the latter. Further, there was no violation of public policy within the meaning of Art. 34 no. 1 Brussels I if the foreign law contrary to the German rules differentiated between support maintenance and cash maintenance and imposed the complete obligation to pay cash maintenance solely to one of the parents. The Court’s interpretation of Art. 34 no. 1, 45 Brussels I is restrictive and promotes recognition. The differences between Austrian and German maintenance law aren’t as fundamental as it would be necessary to assume a violation of public policy. The interpretation of the rules concerning the restriction of the enforcement of judgments is in accordance with settled case law of the CJEU (C-420/07: Apostolides/Orams, paragraph 55 et seq.). Further, the judgment is in accordance with the principles in Recital 16 and 17 Brussels I where there is stated that an efficient and rapid proceeding is desired and the declaration of enforcement should be made virtually automatically. This accounts for the assumption that the refusal of recognition should be an exception. Therefore, the judgment is correct.