Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:299
Date: 2023-04-20
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

summary proceedings concerning orders to pay and proceedings such as the French “procédure de référé”. If the debtor is a consumer domiciled in a Member State, jurisdiction to issue the Order should lie only with the courts of that Member State’. 29 Cuniberti, G., Migliorini, S., op. cit., pp. 151 and 152. 30 It should be noted for the sake of completeness that the proceedings in which the judgments of 3 September 2013 and 6 January 2015 were delivered were aimed at obtaining, inter alia, a prohibitory order and an award of damages. See footnote 7 to this Opinion. 31 Article 33(1)(g) of Regulation No 655/2014 provides that ‘upon application by the debtor to the competent court of the Member State of origin, the preservation order shall be revoked or, where applicable, modified on the ground that … the judgment on the substance of the matter, or the court settlement or authentic instrument, the enforcement of which the creditor was seeking to secure by means of the Order has been set aside or, as the case may be, annulled’. 32 See, to that effect, judgment of 9 September 2015, Bohez (C‑4/14, EU:C:2015:563, paragraph 57), which concerned the enforcement of a penalty payment ordered by a Belgian court in the context of the provisions on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility.