EUPillar OLG Karlsruhe, 27.1.2014

Summary

The parties argued on the declaration of enforceability of a Dutch decision stating the defendant’s obligation for maintenance. It was doubtful whether the decision could be declared enforceable. The court examined the provisions of Art 34, 24 Maintenance Regulation after stating the necessity of an exequatur procedure pursuant to Art 75 (2) (a) given the fact that the Dutch decision was made after the Regulation came into force. The court stated that this was valid also with respect to claims that arose only after this point of time or that will arise in the future. The court justified this interpretation with the wording of Art 75 (2) (a) Maintenance Regulation that clearly referred to the point of time of the decision and does not ask when the claims arose. The court examined whether the prerequisites of Art 24 lit a were fulfilled but denied a violation of the ordre public. It held that the fact that an interpreter was not consulted within the proceedings before the court of origin does not violate public policy if the person concerned renounced his defence.