EUPillar OLG Nürnberg, 14.4.2014

Summary

The parties argued about maintenance obligations. The applicant had obtained a maintenance decision in favour of her child from a Romanian court and was seeking enforcement of the judgment in Germany. The defendant claimed that he had not been aware of the proceedings in Romania because he had never been served with the document which instituted the proceedings and the judgment had been rendered without him being summoned to any hearing. The defendant first learned about the Romanian decision when it was communicated to him by the German first instance court in the course of exequatur proceedings, offering him the opportunity to comment on the matter within two weeks. According to Romanian procedural law, the judgment had therefore been validly served, and this triggered an appeal period of fifteen days. The German court of appeal held that the Romanian provision violated the German ordre public and revoked the declaration of enforceability pursuant to Art. 45 (1) in conjunction with Art. 34 No. 2 Brussels I. It stated that the notification had not been clearly identifiable as triggering the appeal period and, considering that service had been effected abroad, the set deadline had been too short to enable the defendant to arrange for his defence.