# C_2014303EN.01002401.xml

| 8.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 20 June 2014 — Imtech Marine Belgium NV v Radio Hellenic SA

(Case C-300/14)

2014/C 303/31

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Imtech Marine Belgium NV

Appellant:

Respondent: Radio Hellenic SA

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the non-application directly of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims constitute a breach of Article 288 (consolidated version) of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 on the functioning of the European Union, because






  — | the Belgian legislature has not transposed that regulation into Belgian legislation and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Does the non-application directly of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims constitute a breach of Article 288 (consolidated version) of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 on the functioning of the European Union, because

1

—

the Belgian legislature has not transposed that regulation into Belgian legislation and

| — | although an opposition and an appeal are provided for in Belgian legislation, the Belgian legislature has not introduced a review procedure? |
| --- | --- |

—

although an opposition and an appeal are provided for in Belgian legislation, the Belgian legislature has not introduced a review procedure?

| 2. | If that is not the case, given that an (EC) regulation has direct effect, what should be understood by ‘review of [a] judgment’ in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 ...? Must a review procedure be provided for only if a summons/document instituting proceedings has been served by a method provided for in Article 14 of Regulation No 805/2004 ..., in other words without proof of receipt? Does Belgian legislation not offer satisfactory guarantees to satisfy the [criterion] of ‘review procedure’ provided for in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 ... by providing for opposition in accordance with Article 1047 et seq. of the Belgisch Gerechtelijk Wetboek (Belgian Judicial Code) and an appeal in accordance with Article 1050 et seq. of the Belgisch Gerechtelijk Wetboek? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If that is not the case, given that an (EC) regulation has direct effect, what should be understood by ‘review of [a] judgment’ in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 ...? Must a review procedure be provided for only if a summons/document instituting proceedings has been served by a method provided for in Article 14 of Regulation No 805/2004 ..., in other words without proof of receipt? Does Belgian legislation not offer satisfactory guarantees to satisfy the [criterion] of ‘review procedure’ provided for in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 ... by providing for opposition in accordance with Article 1047 et seq. of the Belgisch Gerechtelijk Wetboek (Belgian Judicial Code) and an appeal in accordance with Article 1050 et seq. of the Belgisch Gerechtelijk Wetboek?

| 3. | Does Article 50 of the Belgisch Gerechtelijk Wetboek, which allows the limitation periods referred to in the second paragraph of Article 860, Article 55 and Article 1048 of that code to be extended in the event of force majeure or due to extraordinary circumstances without any fault on the part of the person concerned offer sufficient protection for the purposes of Article 19(1)(b) of Regulation No 805/2004 ...? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 50 of the Belgisch Gerechtelijk Wetboek, which allows the limitation periods referred to in the second paragraph of Article 860, Article 55 and Article 1048 of that code to be extended in the event of force majeure or due to extraordinary circumstances without any fault on the part of the person concerned offer sufficient protection for the purposes of Article 19(1)(b) of Regulation No 805/2004 ...?

| 4. | Is certification as a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims a judicial measure which must be applied for in the document instituting the proceedings? If so, must the judge certify the judgment as a European Enforcement Order and must the registrar of the court issue the certificate?
  If that is not the case: can the task of certifying the judgment as a European Enforcement Order fall to a registrar? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is certification as a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims a judicial measure which must be applied for in the document instituting the proceedings? If so, must the judge certify the judgment as a European Enforcement Order and must the registrar of the court issue the certificate?

If that is not the case: can the task of certifying the judgment as a European Enforcement Order fall to a registrar?

| 5. | In the event that certification as a European Enforcement Order is not a judicial measure, may the applicant — who has not used the document instituting proceedings to apply for a European Enforcement Order — subsequently, once the judgment has become final, request the registrar to certify the judgment as a European Enforcement Order? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event that certification as a European Enforcement Order is not a judicial measure, may the applicant — who has not used the document instituting proceedings to apply for a European Enforcement Order — subsequently, once the judgment has become final, request the registrar to certify the judgment as a European Enforcement Order?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15.

1

---