# C_2021088EN.01001901.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg (Austria) lodged on 8 January 2021 — LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG v CB and Others

(Case C-7/21)

(2021/C 88/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Bleiburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG

Defendants: CB, DF, GH

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 36 and 39 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012, (1) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of effectiveness and equivalence (principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU), to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State which provides for, as the sole remedy against a decision on enforcement issued by the court without prior adversarial proceedings and without an instrument permitting enforcement, and solely on the basis of the allegations of the party seeking enforcement, an objection, which must be lodged within eight days in the language of that Member State, even if the decision on enforcement is served in another Member State in a language which the addressee does not understand, and the objection is already rejected as being out of time if it is lodged within twelve days? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 36 and 39 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012, (1) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of effectiveness and equivalence (principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU), to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State which provides for, as the sole remedy against a decision on enforcement issued by the court without prior adversarial proceedings and without an instrument permitting enforcement, and solely on the basis of the allegations of the party seeking enforcement, an objection, which must be lodged within eight days in the language of that Member State, even if the decision on enforcement is served in another Member State in a language which the addressee does not understand, and the objection is already rejected as being out of time if it is lodged within twelve days?

| 2. | Is Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007, (2) read in conjunction with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, to be interpreted as precluding a national measure which provides that, upon service of the standard form set out in Annex II informing the addressee of his or her right to refuse to accept the document within a period of one week, the period also begins to run in respect of bringing the appeal provided for against the decision on enforcement served at the same time, for which a period of eight days is laid down? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007, (2) read in conjunction with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, to be interpreted as precluding a national measure which provides that, upon service of the standard form set out in Annex II informing the addressee of his or her right to refuse to accept the document within a period of one week, the period also begins to run in respect of bringing the appeal provided for against the decision on enforcement served at the same time, for which a period of eight days is laid down?

| 3. | Is Article 18(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State which provides for, as the remedy against a decision on enforcement, an objection, which must be lodged within eight days, and that time limit also applies where the addressee of the decision on enforcement is established in another Member State and the decision on enforcement is not written either in the official language of the Member State in which the decision on enforcement is served or in a language which the addressee of the decision understands? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 18(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State which provides for, as the remedy against a decision on enforcement, an objection, which must be lodged within eight days, and that time limit also applies where the addressee of the decision on enforcement is established in another Member State and the decision on enforcement is not written either in the official language of the Member State in which the decision on enforcement is served or in a language which the addressee of the decision understands?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).

---