7/31/2019 NJA 1986 p. 119 - Sw Supr Crt

1/2

1

Carolina Saf

Swedish Supreme Court ruling NJA 1986 p. 119extract

Carl Friederichs Gesellschaft mit beschrnkter Haftung, Hamburg, and Kinnegrip Aktiebolag,

Lidkping, participated during the autumn 1975 as exhibitors at the 46th

International Auto

Exhibition IAA in Frankfurt am Main. The companies had exhibition cases next to each

other. When Kinnegrips on Sept. 10, 1975 was setting up its case, one of companys co-work-ers drove a car on to Friederichs case and damaged it.

After Friederichs had brought proceedings against Kinnegrip before the Landgericht Frankfurt

am Main and claimed alleged damages for 3 059,95 DM together with 5 per cent interest

thereupon until payment takes place, judgment was given by the court May 6, 1980, whereby

Kinnegrip was ordered to pay 2 769,28 DM together with interest to Friederichs. The judg-

ment became final.

Friedrichs brought proceedings before the Court of Lidkping asking the court to give judg-

ment, without ruling on the merits of the case, ordering Kinnegrip to pay in accordance with

the German judgment the sum of 2 769,28 DM together with interest.

Kinnegrip disputed the claim.

Friederichs stated that: The German court has had jurisdiction to hear the case. Kinnegrip has

not contested the jurisdiction of the German court, instead it has participated in the proceed-

ings during both the written preparations and the main proceedings. During which, Kinnegrip

has been represented by German counsel. In the proceedings Kinnegrip did not dispute liabil-

ity as such, only its extent. Friederichs produced evidence about the extent of the damage,

whereas Kinnegrip by free will abstained from this.

The German judgment should be given legal effect in this country. In support of this, the

cases NJA 1935 p. 611 and 1973 p. 628 were cited. In case the judgment has no legal effect, it

should at least be evaluated as evidence.

Kinnegrip stated the following: Recognition of such a foreign judgment as the one in ques-

tion, require statutory law. There is no such statutory rule. The prerequisite for recognising a

foreign judgment in this country nevertheless, is a jurisdiction agreement. There is no such

agreement as between the parties. It is further disputed that the German judgment should be

given any value as evidence in Sweden. It is true that Kinnegrip has participated in the pro-

ceedings and that it was represented by a German counsel. However, the company has neither

submitted nor replied, but has been passiv during the trial. Thus, no counter-proof has beenpresented. The reason for the passivity of the company is the knowledge that a German judg-

ment cannot be enforced in Sweden.

[The German judgment did not constitute enough of evidence.]

Judgment of Supreme Court:

In Sweden, the well-established principle for recognition of foreign judgment is that recogni-

tion presupposes statutory law. It is true that in the case NJA 1973 p. 628, a departure was

made from that principle, in that a foreign judgment for a monetary claim was made the basisfor an equivalent Swedish judgment. However, the parties had in that case through an agree-

7/31/2019 NJA 1986 p. 119 - Sw Supr Crt

2/2