Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

A. The proceedings which have resulted in the present reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling relate to the enforceability in France of an instrument drawn up by a German notary.

B. My views on that question are as follows :

C. In view of the foregoing I propose that the Court of Justice should reply to the question referred to it by the Cour d'appel, Colmar as follows:

D. Should the Court none the less consider giving a reply to the substance of the question referred to it by the Cour d'appel, Colmar, — the question is worded generally and does not consider whether or not the Brussels Convention is applicable — I beg leave to add some observations on the forms of appeal available when an order for enforcement is issued.

1 Translated from the German.

2 See the judgment of the Reichsgericht of 9 February 1931 Az IV 320/30, Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen, Vol. 132, p. 6.

3 Bundesgerichtshof, judgment of 21 January 1976, Az VIII ZR 148/74, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, p. 567.

4 See Paragraph 1192 (1) of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, which states as follows: The provisions relating to mortgages shall apply to charges on land, unless the contrary is to be inferred from the fact that a charge on land is dependent upon a preexisting claim.

5 Case 258/83, Calzaturificio Brennero sas v Wendel Schuhproduktion GmbH, [1984] ECR 3971.

6 At paragraph 10.

7 At paragraph 15.

8 That provision is referred to in the preamble to the Convention.

9 See judgment of 5 May 1982 in Case 15/81, Schul v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, [1982] ECR 1409, at paragraph 33.