A notarial deed is enforceable even abroad

A public document drawn up by a notary in a Member State cannot be subject to review on the merits by the enforcement court in another EU country which is enforcing a European Enforcement Order. This was clarified by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 25 June in Case C-14/25.

It was the Austrian Supreme Court that sought the intervention of the European Court of Justice before resolving a dispute between a company based in Germany and an Austrian debtor who was contesting the enforcement in Austria of a public document certified as a European Enforcement Order in Germany. The German company had brought the matter before the Austrian courts, seeking the enforcement of the judgment against the Austrian citizen’s assets. The enforcement order was based on a German notarial deed. The debtor had objected, and the appeal courts had ruled in his favour because the notarial deed had been drawn up in Germany before the Regulation on the European Enforcement Order came into force. The Supreme Court asked the Court of Justice in Luxembourg to clarify the scope of Article 21 of the Regulation and whether the national courts of the State of enforcement may examine the scope ratione temporis of the instrument on which the enforcement order is based, or whether such competence lies solely with the authorities of the State of origin.

The Court’s position is clear: it does not lose sight of the need to ensure the free circulation of documents. The European judges have clarified that it is for the Member State of origin to verify the requirements necessary for the certification of a document as an enforceable title, precisely with the aim of ensuring the free movement of judicial decisions, settlements and public documents concerning uncontested claims. It is true that Article 26 of the Regulation provides that the EU text is applicable only to public documents drawn up or registered after the entry into force of the Regulation (21 October 2005), but account must be taken of the context and objectives, as well as the systematic structure of the Regulation.

Article 21 of the EU Act prohibits the authorities of the State of destination from reviewing the merits of the case and establishes a clear division of powers between the courts and authorities of the Member State of origin and those of the Member State of enforcement. In the case of a public document certified as an enforcement order, the authorities of the Member State of enforcement may limit or suspend enforcement, but the debtor must apply to the Member State of origin for the rectification or revocation of a certificate of enforceability, even where such a certificate was granted in error by the court of the Member State of origin. The procedure therefore falls within the remit of the authorities of the Member State in which the certificate was issued, based on a public document drawn up by a notary. Furthermore, it is the authorities of the State of origin of the document who must verify ‘the accuracy of the legal or factual assessments on which the certification of a notarial act as a European Enforcement Order was based and, where appropriate, revoke a certificate granted in error’.

 This ruling by the EU Court rreinforces the weight and authority of public documents, by not permitting intervention by authorities other than notaries of the State of origin. Thus, a debtor who disputes the applicability of the Regulation in the case of a public document issued before the Regulation came into force has no choice but to apply to the authorities of the State of origin in order to ensure the division of competences and mutual trust in the administration of justice across Member States.