Order — ECLI:EU:C:2016:316
Date: 2016-04-28
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary — Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 28 April 2016 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation No 1393/2007 — Objectives (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1393/2007) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation No 1393/2007 — Refusal to accept a document — Powers and obligations of the receiving agency — No power to assess the conditions of refusal — Assessment to be made by the national court of the Member State of origin (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1393/2007, Art. 7, 8(1), (2) and (3), and Annex I) 3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation No 1393/2007 — Refusal to accept a document — Right conferred on the addressee of the document under certain conditions — Obligation for the receiving agency to inform that addressee of his right through the standard form in Annex II to that Regulation — No margin of discretion (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1393/2007, Art. 8(1) and Annex II) 4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation No 1393/2007 — Refusal to accept a document — Assessment of the conditions for refusal to be made by the national court of the Member State of origin — Verification by that court of the linguistic knowledge of the addressee of the document — Obligation to examine all facts and evidence (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1393/2007, Art. 8(1)) 5. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation No 1393/2007 — Refusal to accept a document — No provision in the regulation for the consequences of an unjustified refusal — Application of national law — Conditions — Respect for the principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1393/2007) 6. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation No 1393/2007 — Document instituting proceedings transmitted in another Member State for service — Defendant not entering an appearance — Obligations of the national court of the Member State of origin (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1393/2007, Art. 19(1); Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 34(2)) 7. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation No 1393/2007 — Refusal to accept a document — Consequences — Application of national law — Conditions — Compliance with the requirements and objectives of Regulation No 1393/2007 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1393/2007) 1. See the text of the decision. Paragraphs 47-51 2. See the text of the decision. Paragraphs 53-58 3. See the text of the decision. Paragraphs 59-71 4. See the text of the decision. Paragraphs 75-79 5. See the text of the decision. Paragraphs 81-85 6. Where a writ of summons has had to be transmitted to another Member State for the purpose of service and the defendant has not appeared, Regulation No 1393/2007 requires, as is clear specifically from Article 19(1), a guarantee that the party concerned actually and effectively received the document instituting the proceedings, enabling him to be aware of the judicial proceedings brought against him and to identify the subject matter of the claim and the cause of action, and that he has had sufficient time to defend himself. Furthermore, such an obligation is consistent with the requirements of Article 34(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. (see paragraph 86) 7. Regulation No 1393/2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, and repealing Regulation No 1348/2000, must be interpreted to the effect that, when serving a document on its addressee residing in the territory of another Member State, in a situation where the document has not been drafted in or accompanied by a translation in either a language which the person concerned understands, or the official language of the Member State addressed, or, if there are a number of official languages in that Member State, the official language or one of the official languages of the place where service is to be effected: - the court seised in the transmitting Member State must ensure that the addressee has been properly informed, by means of the standard form in Annex II to that regulation, of his right to refuse to accept that document; - where that procedural requirement has not been complied with, it falls to that court to return the proceedings to a lawful footing in accordance with the provisions of that regulation; - it is not for the court seised to prevent the addressee from exercising his right to refuse to accept that document; - only after the addressee has effectively exercised his right to refuse to accept the document that the court seised may verify whether that refusal was well founded; for that purpose, that court must take into account all the relevant information on the court file in order to determine whether or not the party concerned understands the language in which the document was drafted; - where that court finds that the refusal by the addressee of the document was not justified, it may in principle apply the consequences under its national law in such a case, provided that the effectiveness of Regulation No 1393/2007 is preserved. Thus, it is only after the steps laid down in Regulation No 1393/2007 have been completed that that regulation authorises the application of national legislation, according to which, where a defendant refuses to accept the documents served on him, they are to be deemed as having been validly served where the court finds that the refusal was not objectively justified, provided that the detailed rules concerning the application of such a national provision comply with the requirements and objectives of Regulation No 1393/2007, which is for the national court to determine. (see paragraphs 87-89, operative part)