IC2BE AG Chemnitz, 30.12.2015

Summary

The creditor raises a complaint (Erinnerung) against the refusal of the bailiff to enforce the provisory order for payment of the District Court of Hallein. The bailiff relies on the creditor’s failure to present the original enforceable title together with proof of service. The complaint is not successful. Obviously, there was only a copy of page 1 of the conditional order for payment available. Under Article 20 (2)(a) EEO, the creditor should be required to provide the competent enforcement authorities of the Member State of enforcement with ‘a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity’. That implied immediately that a mere photocopy was not enough. Rather, the requirements in detail as well as under Art 53(1) Brussels I were governed by the law of the state of origin, here Austria. Irrespective of the rules of the law of the state of enforcement, it was principally sufficient if the foreign decision had the appearance of authenticity. Because of Article 56 Brussels I, the presumption of authenticity in § 437(1) ZPO applied to the foreign court-sealed copy of the judgment without legalization or apostille. This presupposes, however, that the copy was provided with the original impression of the court seal, an original signature and an official title of the signee. All of this was missing in the present case because the decision had not even been fully submitted.