When I was briefly visiting Germany some 8 months ago, an unfortunate
incident happened, and now a German company is trying to have me pay
them roughly $10,000 (totally unfairly, in my opinion), threatening
legal actions.

My question is: what can they realistically do? Can they sue me in
German court? If they do and I simply ignore this, would German Court
be considered as having a jurisdiction over me, so that any monetary
judgment is enforceable in the US? Can they sue me in a US Court,
given that the incident happened in Germany?

And, for that matter: if I want an ?official? legal advice, should I
contact a local lawyer or someone in Germany?
 
It would be very helpful to learn of actual cases of similar nature
(surely this situation shouldn?t be unique?) and how there were
adjudicated at the end.

I live in Massachusetts and have no presence in Germany of any kind.

Hello and thank you for your question.  

Although Google Answers cannot substitute for informed professional
legal advice, having reviewed the material quoted below, I conclude
that no German court can attach you or your assets located in the US,
nor will a Massachusetts court enforce the judgment of a German court.
 You are especially well off in Massachusetts, because Massachusetts
takes the policy position of refusing to enforce any German judgment
in circumstances where a German court would refuse to enforce a
Massachusetts judgment.

Please read the following:

"ENFORCEMENT OF A FOREIGN JUDGMENT IN THE U.S.: Enforcement of
judgments issued by foreign courts in the United States is governed by
the laws of the states. Enforcement cannot be accomplished by means of
a letter rogatory in the U.S. under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1782. See the
Secretary of State''s circular diplomatic note of 2/3/76 to the Chiefs
of Mission in Washington, D.C., Digest of United States Practice in
International Law, 1976, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Legal
Adviser, 306, 311 at 309 (1977). Under U.S. law, an individual seeking
to enforce a foreign judgment, decree or order in this country must
file suit before a competent court. The court will determine whether
to give effect to the foreign judgment. As with most legal
proceedings, it is necessary to retain legal counsel to conduct the
suit. x xi xii xiii See also the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign
Judgments Act (13 U.L.A. 261 (1986) and the Uniform Foreign
Money-Judgments Recognition Act, 13 U.L.A. 149 (1986). But see ,
Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F. 2d 830 (2d Cir. 1986); Matter of Colorado
Corp., 531 F. 2d 463 (1976); Clarkson Co., Ltd. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d
624 (1976)."
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_691.html

"One ground for denying recognition to a foreign country judgment not
found in the Recognition Act is any requirement that it be established
the courts of the foreign country whose judgment is sought to be
recognized would recognize a comparable judgment of the forum state. 
... [E]ight states have adopted nonuniform amendments to the UFMJRA
adding a reciprocity requirement.
[FN]The states are Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Maine,
Massachusetts, North Carolina and Texas.  Colorado, Georgia and
Massachusetts make lack of reciprocity a mandatory ground for denying
recognition, while the other states list it as a discretionary
ground."
http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ufmjra/2004AnnMtgRpt.htm#_ftn7

"For the past few years there has been an effort under the auspices of
the Hague Conference on Private International Law to create a
multilateral treaty that would require state parties to recognize and
enforce civil judgments entered by the courts of other countries who
are parties to the convention.
Up until now, the question of whether the prevailing party in a
foreign court proceeding could use the foreign court?s judgment as a
basis for collecting against assets located in the United States was
almost entirely governed by state common law and a uniform act that
roughly half of the states have adopted in some form. Until now, this
quite important area of law that often requires American courts to
judge the procedural and substantive fairness of foreign legal
systems, has essentially no federal treaties or legislation on the
subject. This means that the state of Texas, for example, has been
free to refuse to enforce foreign judgments entirely, or to condition
enforcement on any number of factors, such as reciprocity."
http://www.nyls.edu/pages/1033.asp

Neither Germany nor the United States have accepted the Hague proposal
described above:
Convention of 1 February 1971 on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=78

So stay out of Germany, and avoid owning assets located in Germany,
and you should be OK.

Search terms used:
"united states" germany treaty  ~enforce ~judgment
"United States Practice in International Law" 1976
"Hague Conference on Private International Law"

Thanks again for letting us help.

Google Answers Researcher
Richard-ga

Yes, obviously you can be sued in a German court and you can lose and
then be pursued until you pay up. The problem for the German party
will be to collect on any judgment they might win against you.
However, even that is not as difficult as some of the answers that you
received suggest. I myself was sued by a French company and ultimately
had to concede defeat in a Georgia court. The question is whether the
plaintiff thinks it is worth it financially and around US$ 10,000 is
probably not worth the high legal and translation costs to start
action in the USA. But the plaintiff has the choice to proceed with
his judgment from the German court to a US court and by and large, if
the case would have  legal merit in the USA, the US court would
enforce it. That still leaves the German plaintiff with the problem of
collecting any judgment in his favor in the USA (which is another
costly procedure from which he might shy away).

One more thing, a judgment in a German court can easily be enforced in
any of the EU nations courts. With few exceptions it is almost a
"rubber stamping". Therefore, the advice to stay away from Germany
should be extended to any EU country, since your can be pursued 
anywhere within the EU and some associated countries (e.g.
Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway etc.) Now, here again  it is a
question of how much the plaintiff is willing to invest into his case,
since widening the "catchment area" is a question of costs. Here the
status of the plaintiff might be as important as the amount. I know of
a case where the German Telecom has pursued an American client for an
unpaid phone bill of a mere Euro 3,000 and had him pay up on a visit
to France.

In summary, while the answers given are in no way wrong and do reflect
the situation more or less accurately, the reality of  transnational 
civil legal cases is often a lot more complicated and governed  by 
many other aspects, usually costs, that will determine the nature of
the outcome. In any case good luck with it.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/95/P0499500.html

A wonderful word apropos of this wonderful answer: praemunire.

NOUN: 1. The offense under English law of appealing to or obeying a
foreign court or authority, thus challenging the supremacy of the
Crown. 2. The writ charging this offense. 3. The penalty for this
offense.

As Richard indicates, the issue is messy. Civil law is different from
criminal law, while family law (mainly child custody) is different
from both.

The last two are generally defined by bilateral treaties.

"So stay out of Germany, and avoid owning assets located in Germany,
and you should be OK."

As a German citizen, I must say that this advice is ridiculous. What
would Americans say if German citizens simply refused to pay their
debts with American companies? And have you considered that it is
possible that the company that wants you to pay is entitled to do so
according to German laws, depending on the circumstances of this
particular case.

I'd say, hire a German lawyer. If that uncompany unrightfully claims
payment, a German court will doubtlessly decide in your favor. On the
other hand, if you are really obliged to pay according to German laws,
you should do so - everyone should respect other countries' laws.

Scriptor

"What would Americans say if German citizens simply refused to pay
their debts with American companies?"

Consider this case:
"The [American] plaintiff alleges that she was injured when operating
a bandsaw while employed by Leggett and Platt in Tupelo, Mississippi.
Fecken-Kirfel GmbH designed the bandsaw. Fecken-Kirfel America
manufactured the bandsaw in New Jersey and assembled and installed it
at Leggett and Platt."

Do you think that Fecken-Kirfel GmbH submitted itself to the
jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court in Mississippi so that the
merits of the plaintiff's case against it could be determined?

Certainly not.  Fecken-Kirfel GmbH hired an attorney who submitted a
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's case for lack of in personam
jurisdiction [Fecken-Kirfel GmbH was able to do this via a limited
appearance, so that its participation in the case did not give the
plaintiff any means to assert jurisdiction over it.]

And the result?  The U.S. District Court granted Fecken-Kirfel GmbH's
motion, and the plaintiff's complaint against it was dismissed without
ever being heard on the merits.
http://home.olemiss.edu/~llibcoll/ndms/sep94/94d0031p.html

Well... yes. Due process requires a certain level of contact before
suit can be brought in a particular state. But, for example, had the
CEO of Fecken-Kirfel GmbH negligently caused a car accident while in
Tupelo, Mississippi's courts would have had jurisdiction for a suit
against him.

Thanks to all who responded!

There are a few aspects of this which aren't yet quite clear to me:

First, the matter of reciprocity. How is it practically going to play
out? Are there any known cases of a German court denying a U.S.
monetary judgement, especially from Massachusetts? If there aren't any
such cases, then what?

Second, a matter of jurisdiction. Is the fact that I was in Germany
while the incident I am blamed for happened (and was diectly involved)
enough to assert jurisdiction?

Third, whould a Massachusetts court (if this matter ever comes to it)
look only at the formal issues, like reciprocity and jurisdiction, or
it may also consider the case on its merits?

Any opinions?


Finally, a remark...

> "What would Americans say if German citizens simply refused to pay their
debts with American companies? [...] I'd say, hire a German lawyer. If
that company unrightfully claims payment, a German court will
doubtlessly decide in your favor."

You do understand, do you not, that it is not very easy to defend
oneself in a foreign court? I don't speak German, know nothing about
German laws, and already had to spend a few hours translating their
latest latter, which is, of course, entirely in German. And I am not
even mentioning the cost of all that, at best comparable with the
amount in question.

So, If I think I am not quilty, and I can legally avoid paying the
money without going to the court, I don't see anything morally wrong
here. A person has a right to defend himself by whatever legal means
necessary; if one of them is to ignore a court, why not? If in a
similar situation you had to do the same in Germany, this would be
totally all right with me.

Hi Konst,
A couple of questions that you don't have to answer here:
Is the German company one with an operation in the States, so that it
would be more easily able to pursue the matter in a Mass. court?
Was the unfortunate incident a one-off type of incident?  That is, not
something like the German Telecom case that ajs45 mentioned, where the
phone company has overriding interest in keeping people from skipping
out on their bills.
Do you feel that the case has no merits at all, or just that the ca. $
10,000 is way out of line?

Wondering what you could have done, I tend to think a traffic accident
would be most likely.  Then it would be easy for the amount to be
justified (I live in Germany), but whatever happened, the company  -
its lawyers -  may be also be speculating that you may just pay
because the cost of a defense would be more expensive, just as it has
been speculated that the company may not choose to pursue the matter
in States.

If you feel that you were at fault, just that the amount is too high,
(and would feel a whole lot better not to have run out on the case),
you could offer to pay what you feel is appropriate.  Many civil cases
are settled out of court this way, indeed the courts prefer it.  You
don't need to start with your best offer, if the other side accepts
less, you have satisfied its demand and your conscience can be clean.

Oh, another question:  What kind of law firm is involved?  You could
check its website and maybe get an idea of its international expertise
(lots of names, people with US law degrees or eligible to practice in
the States).
If it is a small, local firm, it probably is not aware of potential
difficulty of pursuing the case in Mass., and the company will also
probably not have immediate access to legal representation in the
state.

To the questions in your comment:
As I understand Richard-ga's answer (please correct me if I am wrong,
also Expertlaw-ga), if the Mass. court did enforce the German court's
judgement, you  would have to settle that, and maybe the plaintiff's
and both courts' expenses in addition. The Mass. court would then not
be retrying the case but enforcing the German judgement.

Of course, German jurisdiction applies; the incident occurred in Germany.
Only if you had diplomatic immunity would you not be subject to German
jurisdiction.  Between your lines here, I get the impression that you
were involved but maybe not the individual at fault.  ???

As I understand your third question and Richard-ga's answer, a Mass.
court would  consider if the case had merits under Mass. law, that is,
if the same incident had occurred in that state, that a case against
you would have been awarded.

As you know, none of this is legal or professional advice, as the
disclaimer below explains.

Good luck, Myoarin

"As I understand your third question and Richard-ga's answer, a Mass.
court would  consider if the case had merits under Mass. law, that is,
if the same incident had occurred in that state, that a case against
you would have been awarded."

Not exactly.  The reference to reciprocity is that a Mass. court would
consider if a German court would enforce a Mass. judgment in Germany. 
It's not clear whether that means a judgment in the same sort of case,
or judgments in all possible cases.

European courts are often reluctant to enforce US judgments because
they find that US judgments are often overly generous, both in the
amount of compensatory damages awarded and in some cases, punitive
damages.

Richard-ga

Thanks, Richard-ga, for explaining that.  I hadn't been thinking about the award.

If that were the significant consideration for the Mass. court, it
would probably have no problem with the German award.

Since you didn't comment on my suggestion that the defendant could be
left having  to pay legal and court fees here and there, I assume that
could be correct  -
which would make a great deal more risky to just wait and see if the
German company wanted to take it to a Mass. court.

Thanks again, Myoarin

>> "European courts are often reluctant to enforce US judgments
because they find that US judgments are often overly generous, both in
the amount of compensatory damages awarded and in some cases, punitive
damages." <<

I would love to see some statistics or analysis in relation to foreign
courts not enforcing U.S. judgments on the basis of their size.

There is an interesting summary of issues encountered in enforcing
U.S. judgments in foreign courts, on the website of the Office of the
Chief Counsel for International Commerce.
http://www.osec.doc.gov/ogc/occic/refmj.htm

Here is the authority for my earlier statement:
"There is no bilateral treaty or multilateral international convention
in force between the United States and any other country on reciprocal
recognition and enforcement of judgments. Although there are many
reasons for the absence of such agreements, a principal stumbling
block appears to be the perception of many foreign states that U.S.
money judgments are excessive according to their notions of liability.
Moreover, foreign countries have objected to the extraterritorial
jurisdiction asserted by courts in the United States. In consequence,
absent a treaty, whether the courts of a foreign country would enforce
a judgment issued by a court in the United States depends upon the
internal laws of the foreign country and international comity. In many
foreign countries, as in most jurisdictions in the United States, the
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is governed by local
domestic law and the principles of comity, reciprocity and res
judicata (that is, that the issues in question have been decided
already.)"
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Mar/11/127849.html


See also:
"In the absence of a treaty, enforcement of a foreign money judgment
will be determined by reference to the foreign country?s internal law,
so counsel must be particularly aware of the peculiarities of the
country?s requirements and procedures that govern enforcement of
foreign money judgments. Typically, the court in the country in which
enforcement of the foreign money judgment is sought (the ?foreign
country?)has a hearing to determine whether the judgment before it
meets local law requirements for enforcement, and these requirements
generally include the following:(a) that the court of origin had
jurisdiction over the judgment debtor;(b) that the judgment debtor was
properly notified of the commencement of the court of origin?s
proceedings;(c) that enforcement of the judgment would not violate
local public policy; and(d) that the foreign judgment is a final
judgment. In addition, depending on the foreign country concerned, the
country will in all likelihood examine one or more other issues, such
as whether reciprocity exists with the country of origin, whether a
prior inconsistent judgment exists, and whetherthe court of origin
applied the correct law under a proper conflicts of law analysis.
Although most countries will not review the merits of the original
action, some will do so to a limited extent, especially if fraud or a
violation of public policy is alleged by the judgment debtor."
Guidelines for Enforcing Money Judgments Abroad
http://www.kslaw.com/library/pdf/guidelines.pdf

"In addition, please note that any judgment given by a U.S. court will
not automatically be recognized and enforced in Hong Kong. No treaty
exists between Hong Kong and the U.S. providing for the reciprocal
enforcement of foreign judgments. However, the courts of Hong Kong are
generally prepared to accept a foreign judgment as evidence of a debt
due. To enforce the debt due an action must be commenced in Hong Kong
for recovery of the debt.  A Hong Kong court will only accept a
foreign judgment as evidence of a debt due if:

The judgment is a liquidated amount in a civil matter.

The judgment is final and conclusive and has not been stayed or satisfied in full; 

The judgment is not directly or indirectly for the payment of foreign
taxes, penalties, fines or charges of a like nature;

The judgment was not obtained by actual or constructive fraud or duress; 

 The foreign court has taken jurisdiction on grounds that are
recognized by the common law rules as to conflict of laws in Hong
Kong;

The proceedings in which the judgment was obtained were not contrary
to natural justice;

The proceedings in which the judgment was obtained, the judgment
itself and the enforcement of the judgment are not contrary to public
policy of Hong Kong; and

The person against whom the judgment is given is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts."
http://www.angelfire.com/ca6/asiavest/hong_kong.html

Richard-ga,
Are you suggesting that the Mass. court might not accept the German
case against the questioner, regardless of its recognition of the
merits of the case, because the Mass. court assumed that a typical
settlement of the same case in a Mass. court would not be enforced in
Germany?

That is purely a question, no implication that I disagree with
anything you have said.

That would then make the bluff of waiting to see if the German company
went that far a little less risky, it would seem.

Thanks, Myoarin