EUPillar C-157/12 Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA (Fourth Chamber)

Summary

This case on the interpretation of Art 34(4) of Brussels I was referred to the CJEU in German proceedings brought between Salzgitter (a company established in Germany) and Laminorul (a company established in Romania) concerning an application for a declaration of enforceability in Germany of a judgment given by a Romanian court by which Salzgitter was ordered to pay EUR 188 330 to Laminorul for a delivery of steel products. Laminorul brought an action seeking payment against Salzgitter in Romania. Salzgitter claimed that that action should have been brought against the actual contracting party and, on that ground, the Romanian court dismissed the action. The judgment became final. Then, Laminorul initiated new proceedings against Salzgitter before the same court for the same cause of action, but that application was served on Salzgitter’s former legal representative, whose authority to act for the company had been limited, according to Salzgitter, to the first proceedings. The court, this time, had delivered a judgment by default against Salzgitter, requiring Salzgitter to pay a sum to Laminorul but Salzgitter made an application for this judgment to be set aside because it had not been summoned to appear at the hearing. That application was rejected because Salzgitter had failed to lodge the necessary fee stamps. The judgment was declared enforceable in Germany by a court order. Salzgitter appealed against the order and also lodged an extraordinary appeal in Romania seeking annulment of the second judgment. The application was rejected as inadmissible. Salzgitter then lodged another appeal in Romania to have that judgment set aside on account of the binding authority of the first judgment. It was rejected on the ground that it was out of time. As the legal remedies available in Romania had been exhausted, the German proceedings for a declaration of enforceability were resumed and the appeal brought by Salzgitter was dismissed as unfounded. Salzgitter had then lodged an appeal against that decision before the referring court which asked the CJEU whether Art 34(4) also covers irreconcilable judgments given by the courts of the same MS. The CJEU reaffirmed its approach in Case C 619/10 Trade Agency that the provision should be interpreted according to not only its wording but also the system established by Brussels I and its objectives. In its analysis, the CJEU also considered Recitals 15-17. By agreeing with AG Wahl, it observed that the wording of Art 34(4), read in the light of the notion of ‘judgment’ in Art 32, indicates the non-enforcement ground of the irreconcilability of judgments given in two different States. It added that this interpretation is also supported by the principle of mutual trust. It noted that the list of grounds for non-enforcement is exhaustive and according to its settled case law those grounds must be interpreted strictly and may not therefore be given, an interpretation by analogy pursuant to which judgments given in the same MS would also be covered. Thus, it held that Art 34(4) does not apply to two irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same MS (ie state of origin). It was correct to interpret Art 34(4)’s grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement strictly even in this case because Salzgitter, in answer to a question by AG Wahl at the oral hearing, admitted that it had “ample opportunity to contest the second judgment in Romania” (para 44 of the AG’s Opinion).