Summary
The parties to the proceedings to the proceedings had been married, but they separated. They entered into a notarised agreement which was signed in Frankfurt am Main on 26th July 2007. It provided for the payment of a lump sum and a monthly maintenance payment.
The husband, Mr Vogel, decided not to pay the maintenance.
A European Enforcement Order was issued by the German notary.
Although the Maintenance Regulation was considered not to be applicable, Master Roberts made Registration orders, dated 14th December 2009 and 21st November 2011.
In October 2012, the German notary withdrew the European Enforcement Order Certificate.
Mr Vogel made an application for the registration orders to be set aside. His Honour Judge Seymour QC noted:
“20 The submission on behalf of Mr Vogel of Mr Gavin Smith was essentially to this effect, that the withdrawal of the European Enforcement Order Certificate by Mr Frangipani had the consequence of entitling Mr Vogel to have the orders of Master Roberts of 14 December 2009 and 21 November 2011 set aside, and all of the costs orders which had been made against Mr Vogel consequent upon there being in existence a valid European Enforcement Order Certificate could be undone and all of the relevant orders discharged.
21 In my judgment the submission of Mr Smith on behalf of Mr Vogel is not well founded. The way in which Council Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 works, as it seems to me, is this. Once a document which complies in form with the certificate for which the Regulation provides in relation to a European Enforcement Order has been delivered by somebody apparently entitled to deliver it (in this case, Mr Gast) to the court of enforcement (in this case, this court), this court has no option but to permit enforcement of the European Enforcement Order . There is no mechanism for a challenge in this court to the validity of the European Enforcement Order Certificate. Article 21 in paragraph 2 provides in terms that the Member State of enforcement (in this case, this court) cannot in any circumstances review as to its substance the European Enforcement Order or its certification. I have already referred to other provisions in the Regulation which are essentially to the same effect. All that this court can do if a European Enforcement Order Certificate is withdrawn is exercise its powers under Article 23 , and that is what has happened in this case by the orders which have been made by District Judge Hickman on 9 April 2013.” [20-21]
The Judge went further to hold:
“25 Mr Adrian Jack, who appears on behalf of Mrs Lothschutz, submits that in any event the effect of Article 75, paragraph 1 is that the Regulation does not apply to the present circumstances because of the date of the notarised agreement which has given rise to the proceedings with which I have been concerned. I think it is not necessary for me to reach any final conclusion in relation to that point but I am inclined to accept Mr Jack's submission.
26 Consequently both of the applications before me, insofar as they seek to discharge the orders of Master Roberts or that of Master Cook, fail and, insofar as they seek to have set aside the orders for costs made by Master Roberts on 21 November 2011, by Roderick Evans J on 19 October 2012 and by Master Yoxall on 16 August 2013, also fail.” [25-26]