Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:546
Date: 2019-06-27
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Czechia

Anonymised version 
Translation C-518/18 — 1 
Case C-518/18 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
7 August 2018 
Referring court: 
Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
1 June 2018 
Applicant: 
RD 
Defendant: 
SC 
  
[…] 
ORDER 
The Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (District Court, České Budějovice) has 
decided […] in the case of 
applicant:   […] RD […] 
residing at […] České Budějovice,    
[…]    
v 
defendant:   SC […] 
permanently residing at […] České Budějovice,   
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 1. 6. 2018 — CASE C-518/18 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
concerning payment of CZK 6 600 plus interest and costs, 
as follows: 
I. The court refers the following question to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
‘Must Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council creating a European Enforcement Order 
for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that a claim which 
has been decided on after taking evidence may be regarded as 
uncontested if neither the defendant, who acknowledged the debt 
before the commencement of the action, nor the guardian took part in 
the court proceedings, and they did not raise any objections in the 
course of the proceedings?’ 
II. The proceedings for certification of the judgment of the Okresní soud 
v Českých Budějovicích of 26 June 2009 […] as a European 
enforcement order are stayed. 
Grounds: 
Subject matter of the dispute and findings of the referring court 
1. By her application to the court the applicant sought from the defendant 
payment of the sum of CZK 6 600 with interest for late payment on the ground 
that, under a lease agreement of 23 July 2008 which was effective from 1 August 
2008 the defendant had the use of a dwelling […] in České Budějovice and 
committed herself in the agreement to paying rent of CZK 5 600 and a deposit for 
compensation in connection with the use of the flat of CZK 1 000, making a total 
sum of CZK 6 600 a month. On 28 September 2008 the defendant acknowledged 
her debt in writing and committed herself to paying it by 30 September 2008, 
which she did not do. 
2. The court was unable to ascertain the defendant’s place of residence despite 
making an investigation, and a guardian was therefore appointed for the defendant 
on the ground of her unknown residence. 
3. The defendant did not take part in the proceedings, and the guardian 
appointed also remained inactive, not attending the hearing arranged. In the oral 
proceedings evidence proposed by the applicant was produced and after the taking 
of evidence the application was allowed. In view of the fact that the defendant’s 
place of residence was unknown, the judgment was served on the guardian. [Or. 
2] 
4. The applicant applied to the court on 14 October 2016 to be sent the 
judgment of the present court with a notice of finality and enforceability and 
RD 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
certification as a European enforcement order in accordance with 
Paragraph 353(1) of the Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure) and 
Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 
5. By letter of 3 November 2016 the present court informed the applicant that 
the conditions for the issue of a certificate were not satisfied, in that a claim is 
regarded as uncontested if the debtor has expressly agreed to it (in those 
circumstances the Czech court delivers a judgment in acknowledgment or 
approves a court settlement), or the debtor does not during the proceedings raise 
any objections available to him under the procedural rules of the Member State, or 
does not attend the court hearing regarding the claim where such non-attendance 
amounts to a tacit admission of the claim or of the facts alleged by the creditor 
under the law of the Member State of the court giving judgment, a so-called 
fictitious judgment in acknowledgement or judgment in default. The court did not 
regard as an uncontested claim the claim on which judgment was given after the 
taking of evidence without the defendant putting forward factual objections or a 
defence. The failure on the part of the debtor to put forward a factual defence is 
not a procedural requirement. 
6. The applicant brought a constitutional complaint against the present court’s 
approach, since in her view there had been an unjustified encroachment by the 
present court on her constitutionally guaranteed rights. The core of the applicant’s 
argument was that the court had not referred a question to the Court of Justice of 
the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for the CJEU to answer the 
question whether a judgment delivered by the court after taking evidence, without 
the defendant putting forward factual objections or a defence, may be regarded as 
uncontested. According to the applicant, there is as yet no settled case-law of the 
CJEU, and the correct application of EU law is also not so obvious that there is no 
room left for reasonable doubts as to the decision on the question referred. She 
also observed that Czech and foreign legal writings express a view contrary to that 
expressed by the present court in the letter sent to the applicant. The applicant 
referred to the judgment of the CJEU of 16 June 2016, Pebros Servizi, Case 
C-511/14, paragraph 30, according to which it must be noted that the certification 
of a court decision as a European enforcement order is a judicial act during the 
adoption of which the national court is entitled to refer questions to the Court for a 
preliminary ruling. The request for a preliminary ruling is therefore admissible. 
The applicant further submitted in the constitutional complaint that, against the 
non-certification of a judgment as a European enforcement order, a complainant is 
not entitled within the framework of the legal order of the Czech Republic to 
make use of ordinary or extraordinary legal remedies. The District Court, České 
Budějovice, in the event of non-certification of a judgment as a European 
enforcement order, is a court against whose decision (‘communication’) of the 
non-certification of a judgment as a European enforcement order it is not possible 
to make use of any legal remedies within the meaning of Article 267 of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union. The complainant referred to the ruling 
of the Ústavní soud (Constitutional Court) of 29 November 2011 […] and argued, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 1. 6. 2018 — CASE C-518/18 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
in line with the view expressed by the Constitutional Court in that ruling, that it is 
immaterial that the District Court, České Budějovice, constitutes the ‘lowest’ 
member of the judicial structure in the Czech Republic; what is material is that, 
against the non-certification of a judgment as a European enforcement order, the 
complainant has no legal remedy available. The complainant further submitted 
that the possibility of not referring a question to the CJEU exists where, in 
accordance with specific criteria, there are no reasonable doubts concerning the 
validity and interpretation of the relevant Community law, where the EU Court of 
Justice has already ruled on the same question in another case, or settled case-law 
of the Court of Justice already exists on the question concerned or the application 
of Community law is so absolutely clear that it is beyond doubt, such doubt not 
existing where the courts of other Member States and the Court of Justice also 
have the same view of the matter. According to the applicant, none of those 
exceptional cases in which a court of a Member State of the European Union does 
not have to make a reference for a preliminary ruling arose in this case. The Court 
of Justice [Or. 3] of the European Union has not as yet made any ruling stating a 
position on the question whether there may be regarded as an uncontested claim a 
judgment delivered by the court after taking evidence without the defendant 
putting forward factual objections or a defence. The application of Community 
law in this case, according to the applicant, is not so absolutely clear that no doubt 
exists. She again referred to the CFEU judgment in Pebros Servizi, in which the 
CJEU expressed its view on the concept of ‘undisputed claim’ within the meaning 
of Article 3(1) of the Regulation. In paragraph 41 of that judgment it found that 
‘consequently, a claim may be regarded as “uncontested”, within the meaning of 
… Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 805/2004, if the debtor does nothing to object 
to it by failing to comply with an invitation by the court to give written notice of 
an intention to defend the case or by failing to appear at the hearing’. In the 
present case the defendant has said nothing and has not appeared at the hearing. 
The applicant further referred to paragraph 42 of that judgment of the CJEU, 
according to which ‘the express reference to the procedural rules of the Member 
State in Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 805/2004 does not relate to the legal 
consequences of a failure by the debtor to attend the proceedings, those 
consequences being the subject of an autonomous classification under that 
regulation, but concerns exclusively the detailed procedural rules in accordance 
with which the debtor may effectively contest the claim’. Not certifying a 
judgment as a European enforcement order on the ground that a certain decision 
was not made in accordance with the procedural rules of the Czech Republic (for 
example, a judgment in acknowledgment, a judgment in default or a payment 
order) is contrary, according to the applicant, to the CJEU case-law cited, since 
the requirements for certification of a judgment as a European enforcement order 
are governed exclusively by the Regulation. 
Applicable law 
7. In accordance with Paragraph 353(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 
application by a person entitled under a court judgment, court settlement or public 
RD 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
instrument which satisfies the conditions under a directly applicable provision of 
the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 21 April 2004) creating a European Enforcement Order for 
uncontested claims (also referred to as ‘EEO’) for certification as a European 
enforcement order or partial European enforcement order, the court is to certify 
that judgment, settlement or public instrument as a European enforcement order 
on the conditions laid down by a directly applicable provision of the European 
Union (the EEO). If the conditions for certification are not satisfied, the court 
must not certify it, and must inform the person entitled of the reasons in writing. 
8. Under Article 3 of the EEO Regulation, the Regulation applies to judgments, 
court settlements and authentic instruments on uncontested claims. A claim is to 
be regarded as uncontested if (a) the debtor has expressly agreed to it by 
admission or by means of a settlement which has been approved by a court or 
concluded before a court in the course of proceedings; or (b) the debtor has never 
objected to it, in compliance with the relevant procedural requirements under the 
law of the Member State of origin, in the course of the court proceedings; or (c) 
the debtor has not appeared or been represented at a court hearing regarding that 
claim after having initially objected to the claim in the course of the court 
proceedings, provided that such conduct amounts to a tacit admission of the claim 
or of the facts alleged by the creditor under the law of the Member State of origin; 
or [(d)] the debtor has expressly agreed to it in an authentic instrument. 
9. Under Paragraph 29(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the version in 
force on the date of the judgment, namely 26 June 2009, unless the court takes 
other measures, the president of the chamber may appoint a guardian for a party 
whose place of residence is unknown, whom it has not been possible to serve at a 
known address abroad, who is afflicted with mental deficiency or for other 
reasons of health is not merely temporarily unable to take part in proceedings, or 
who is not capable of expressing himself intelligibly. In view of the fact that the 
defendant was of unknown place of residence at the time of the court decision, he 
appointed a guardian for the defendant to protect her interests, although the 
guardian did not act in the proceedings. [Or. 4] 
10. Under Article 6 of the EEO Regulation, a judgment on an uncontested claim 
delivered in a Member State, upon application at any time to the court of origin, is 
to be certified as a European enforcement order if: 
(a) the judgment is enforceable in the Member State of origin; and 
(b) the judgment does not conflict with the rules on jurisdiction as laid 
down in sections 3 and 6 of Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001; 
and 
(c) the court proceedings in the Member State of origin met the 
requirements as set out in Chapter III where a claim is uncontested 
within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) or (c); and 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 1. 6. 2018 — CASE C-518/18 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
(d) the judgment was given in the Member State of the debtor’s domicile 
within the meaning of Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, in 
cases where a claim is uncontested within the meaning of 
Article 3(1)(b) or (c); 
and it relates to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose 
which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, and the debtor is a 
consumer. 
Grounds for making the reference 
11. In applying Article 3 of the Regulation, the court doubts whether a claim 
may be regarded as uncontested where the debtor has never objected to it, in 
compliance with the relevant procedural requirements under the law of the 
Member State of origin, in the course of the court proceedings, if the debtor did 
not appear at the hearing concerning that claim, in combination with a situation in 
which the defendant was represented by a guardian appointed because of her 
unknown place of residence. 
12. In accordance with the procedural rules, the court appointed a guardian for 
the defendant on the ground of her unknown place of residence. The appointment 
of the guardian was preceded by action of the court attempting to ascertain the 
defendant’s place of residence, among other things inquiring of relatives and 
inquiring of official bodies of the Czech Republic, but with negative results. The 
defendant was thus not absent from the court hearing of her own will but for the 
reason that she did not know of the pending proceedings because of her unknown 
place of residence. In that situation the court did not consider that the 
requirements of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 805/2004 were satisfied for the 
claim to be regarded as ‘uncontested’, the court not entertaining any doubt as to 
that conclusion. 
13. In view of the fact that in its ruling of 26 September 2017 […] the 
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic regarded the approach of the District 
Court, České Budějovice, in the proceedings for certification of the judgment as a 
European enforcement order as incompatible with the constitution, and in view of 
the fact that the present court has doubts as to whether the claim in the present 
case may be regarded as uncontested, it is appropriate to refer the above question 
to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. 
14. Under the third subparagraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union, if a question of the interpretation of acts of the EU 
institutions is raised in a case pending before a court of a Member State against 
whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court is 
required to ask the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. 
15. Under the Czech procedural rules, the referring court is a court against 
whose decision in the main proceedings no legal remedies are available, with the 
RD 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
exception of a constitutional complaint (compare Paragraph 202(2) of the Code of 
Civil Procedure). [Or. 5] 
16. [national procedural matters] […]