Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2012:704
Date: 2012-11-08
Language of the case: Swedish
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Sweden

summary proceedings concerning orders to pay and assistance. See Article 62 of the Brussels I Regulation: ‘[i]n Sweden, in summary proceedings concerning orders to pay … and assistance …, the expression ‘court’ includes the ‘Swedish enforcement service’ (kronofogdemyndighet)’. 14 – See Article 1(1) of the Insolvency Proceedings Regulation. See also Case C‑341/04 Eurofood [2006] ECR I‑3813, paragraphs 46 and 54. 15 – It is for the referring court to determine whether the objective pursued is to eliminate the risk or to reduce its occurrence. 16 – The KFM argues that the elimination of the residence requirement will not resolve the problem of the lack of recognition abroad of a Swedish debt relief decision. That may very well be true but showing that does not establish whether, and how, the imposition of a residence requirement contributes to the first objective. 17 – See Paragraph 4 of the Law on debt relief. 18 – It is true than an impecunious debtor resident abroad might find it financially impossible to pay for travel back to Sweden to attend such a meeting in person. It is not beyond the bounds of what is technologically feasible to arrange, for example, a video conference call at the local Swedish embassy or consulate in such circumstances. 19 – See Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Proceedings Regulation. 20 – See point 42 above.