PIL instrument(s)
Brussels I
Case number and/or case name
OLG Zweibrücken, 25.1.2006 – 3 W 239/05
Details of the court
Germany, Second Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels I
Article 32
Article 34
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 4
Article 38
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Article 43
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 5
Article 45
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Article 53
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Article 54
Date of the judgement
24 January 2006
Appeal history
CJEU's case law cited by the court
Summary
The litigation between the parties concerned a declaration of enforcement granted by a German court. The disputed payment order has originally been given by an Italian court (‘decreto ingiuntivo’). It was doubtful whether this order could be considered as a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Art. 32, 38 Brussels I. The first instance court assumed that the decreto ingiuntivo was a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Art. 32, 38. This was confirmed by the Higher Regional Court. It held that the Italian payment order had to be considered as a judgment within the meaning of Brussels I given the fact that the defendant has been granted the right to be heard in proceedings with conflicting interests. It is settled case law that a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Brussels I can be assumed when any judicial body due to his function has ruled on litigious issues between the parties. Therefore the court’s judgment is correct.

This website is written and maintained by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team