Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2025:923
Date: 2025-11-27
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Portugal

Translation C-643/24 – 1 
Case C-643/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
30 September 2024 
Referring court: 
Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
4 September 2024 
Appellant: 
Manuel Costa & Filhos, Lda. 
Respondent: 
Oü Wine Port of Paldiski 
… 
Appeal 
I 
Oü Wine Porto of Paldiski, having its registered office at […], Tallinn [Estonia], 
brought enforcement proceedings for the payment of a specific sum against 
Manuel Costa & Filhos, Limitada [(‘Manuel Costa & Filhos’], having its 
registered office at Rua […], Vizela [Portugal]. 
The enforcement was based on the judgment given by the Court of First Instance, 
Harju (Estonia), sitting at Tallinn, in case number […], on 12 April 2022, certified 
as a European Enforcement Order in accordance with 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]. 
The judgment ordered the judgment debtor [now the appellant] to pay to Oü Wine 
Port of Paldiski: 
1. the sum of EUR 38 732.84, plus court costs in the amount of EUR 2 418.97; 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-643/24 
 
2  
2. default interest on the sum of EUR 38 732.84, at the rate provided for in the 
second sentence of Paragraph 113(1)of the [Estonian] Law on Obligations, 
from 23 November 2021 until payment in full of the principal claim; 
3. default interest on those court costs, that is to say, on the sum of 
EUR 2 418.97, at the rate provided for in the second sentence of 
Paragraph 113(1)of the above-mentioned Law on Obligations, from the date 
of judgment until its enforcement. 
II 
The judgment debtor opposed the enforcement. It argued, in short, that it had not 
been served with any documents regarding the proceedings in which the judgment 
was given, that it only became aware of the judgment at the time of the 
enforcement and that, therefore, it had not been able to apply to have it set aside. 
The judgment creditor [now the respondent] contested the judgment debtor’s 
opposition to the enforcement, arguing, in short, that: 
• as a result of the claim made, the [Estonian] court, on 21 January 2022, 
served Manuel Costa & Filhos [with notice of the claim], at its registered 
office, located at Rua […], Vizela, so that, if it so wished, it could have 
lodged an objection within 28 days, as evidenced by the acknowledgement 
of receipt of 21 January 2022; 
• that company, contrary to what it maintains, was duly served, since the 
acknowledgement of receipt was not only received at its registered office, 
but was also signed and dated by […], its legal representative; 
• despite having been served, that company did not lodge an objection within 
the stipulated time limit and, therefore, it did not contest the existence, 
validity or enforceability of the claim; 
• on 24 March 2022, that court served Manuel Costa & Filhos with an 
assessment of the court costs, and informed that company that it had a period 
of five days in which to respond to or challenge those costs, as evidenced by 
the acknowledgement of receipt of 24 March 2022; 
• once again, service was effected at the registered office of that company and 
the acknowledgement of receipt was signed on 24 March 2022 by an official 
[of the company]; 
• given that that company did not make any representations regarding the 
taxation of those costs, the [Estonian] court gave judgment on 12 April 
2022, ordering Manuel Costa & Filhos to pay, to the [judgment creditor], the 
sum of EUR 38 732.84, plus court costs in the amount of EUR 2 418.97, 
together with the relevant default interest at the rate provided for in the 
second sentence of Paragraph 113(1) of the Law on Obligations, from 
MANUEL COSTA & FILHOS 
 
3 
23 November 2021 until payment in full of the enforcing party’s principal 
claim; 
• on 20 April 2022, the judgment was served on the judgment debtor, which 
acknowledged its receipt, as evidenced by the acknowledgement of receipt 
of 20 April 2022. 
III 
After hearing the arguments, the [Portuguese] court of first instance immediately 
ruled on the merits of [the enforcement]. It upheld the opposition and, 
consequently, ordered that the enforcement be stayed. In that regard, it held that 
service on the Portuguese company of notice of the claim made in the declaratory 
proceedings conducted in Estonia was invalid in accordance with Article 191(1) 
of the Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure) and that one of the 
grounds for opposing the enforcement of a judgment was precisely the invalidity 
of the service of notice of the claim in declaratory proceedings (Article 729(d) of 
the Code of Civil Procedure). According to the judgment of that court, the 
invalidity resulted from the fact that 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] was applicable to the service on the Portuguese company of notice of the 
claim in the declaratory proceedings. In accordance with Article 8(1) of that 
regulation, the process served on the Portuguese company should have been 
accompanied by the notification, using the standard form set out in Annex II [to 
that regulation], of the fact that that company could refuse to accept the document 
to be served, either at the time of service or by returning the document to the court 
of the State of origin within one week, if the document was not written in, or 
accompanied by a translation into, one of the languages provided for in points (a) 
and (b) of that article. Since Manuel Costa & Filhos was not sent the standard 
form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, and was, therefore, not 
informed of its right to refuse to accept service of a judicial document written 
solely in Estonian – a translation into Portuguese being necessary in that case – 
the service of that document was not effected in an appropriate manner, which 
gave rise to its invalidity in accordance with Article 191(1) of the Code of Civil 
Procedure. 
IV 
Facts regarded as proven in relation to the opposition to the enforcement 
1. Oü Wine Port of Paldiski brought enforcement proceedings number […], 
which have been joined to the present proceedings, against Manuel Costa & 
Filhos, to recover the sum of EUR 41 831.47 (forty-one thousand eight 
hundred and thirty-one euros and forty-seven cents). 
2. The judgment creditor seeks to enforce a judgment given in its favour by the 
Court of First Instance, Harju, sitting at Tallinn, in case number […], on 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-643/24 
 
4  
12 April 2022, in which the judgment debtor was ordered to pay to Oü Wine 
Port of Paldiski […]: 
(a) the sum of EUR 38 732.84, plus court costs in the amount of 
EUR 2 418.97; 
(b) default interest on the sum of EUR 38 732.84, at the rate provided for 
in the second sentence of Paragraph 113(1)of the [Estonian] Law on 
Obligations, from 23 November 2021 until payment in full of the 
principal claim; 
(c) default interest on the court costs, that is to say, on the sum of 
EUR 2 418.97, at the rate provided for in the second sentence of 
Paragraph 113(1)of the above-mentioned Law on Obligations, from 
the date of judgment until its enforcement. 
3. The judgment referred to in paragraph 2 was served on the judgment debtor 
on 20 April 2022. 
4. As a result of the claim made, the [Estonian] court, on 21 January 2022, 
served Manuel Costa & Filhos [with notice of the claim], at its registered 
office, located at Rua […], Vizela, so that, if it so wished, it could lodge an 
objection within 28 days. 
5. The acknowledgement of receipt was received at the registered office of that 
company and also signed and dated by its legal representative. 
6. That company did not lodge an objection. 
7. On 24 March 2022, the same court served Manuel Costa & Filhos with an 
assessment of the court costs, informing it that it had a period of five days in 
which to respond to or challenge those costs. 
8. The acknowledgement of receipt was received at the registered office of that 
company. 
9. That company did not make any representations in that regard. 
10. On 22 June 2022, Manuel Costa & Filhos was informed by registered letter 
that the judgment was an enforceable instrument. 
11. The judgment creditor brought enforcement proceedings, enclosing the 
certificate of the judgment mentioned in paragraph 2 and the European 
Enforcement Order certificate, in accordance with Regulation No 805/2004. 
12. The service of documents on the judgment debtor by the Court of First 
Instance, Harju, sitting at Tallinn, was effected in the Estonian language. 
MANUEL COSTA & FILHOS 
 
5 
13. The judgment debtor and the judgment creditor had businesses exporting 
wines to the Estonian market. 
14. The documents served were not accompanied by the standard form set out in 
Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007. 
The judgment creditor/enforcing party (Oü Wine Porto of Paldiski) disagreed with 
the judgment [of the Portuguese court of first instance] and brought an appeal 
before the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Court of Appeal, Porto, Portugal), 
which, by a judgment of 11 April 2024, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment 
of the court of first instance and ordered that the enforcement procedure should 
continue. In that regard, it held that, in order to determine whether the fact that the 
service effected on Manuel Costa & Filhos by registered letter with an 
acknowledgement of receipt was not accompanied by the Annex II referred to in 
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1393/2007 resulted in that service being invalid, it 
was important to take into account the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of 
the European Union, given that that is the body having jurisdiction to interpret EU 
law and ensure its uniform application and the national courts and tribunals are 
bound by the settled interpretation given by its case-law, in accordance with the 
primacy of EU law. 
Accordingly, relying on the interpretation of Article 8(1) of the above-mentioned 
regulation established by the Court of Justice in Cases […] C-519/13, C-354/15 
and C-346/21, the Court of Appeal, Porto found that, when effecting service by 
registered letter with an acknowledgement of receipt, the failure to send the form 
stipulated in that provision did not result in the invalidity of the service effected 
on Manuel Costa & Filhos. 
VI 
The judgment debtor/party opposing the enforcement disagreed with the judgment 
of the Court of Appeal, Porto and brought a further appeal before the Supremo 
Tribunal de Justiça (Supreme Court, Portugal) seeking to have that judgment set 
aside. To that end, it argues, in short, that the judgment under appeal is contrary to 
the correct interpretation of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1393/2007. 
VII 
The issues raised in the appeal before the Supreme Court are as follows: 
• Whether the fact that the company Manuel Costa & Filhos was served in the 
declaratory proceedings conducted in Estonia by registered letter with an 
acknowledgement of receipt, without that letter being accompanied by the 
standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, gave rise to 
the invalidity of that service, in accordance with the second part of 
Article 191(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-643/24 
 
6  
• Whether, in the context of enforcement based on a judgment certified as a 
European Enforcement Order in accordance with Regulation No 805/2004, 
the judgment debtor may oppose the enforcement on the ground provided 
for in Article 729(d of the Code of Civil Procedure, read in conjunction with 
Article 696(e) of that code. 
VIII 
The following provisions of Portuguese law are relevant: 
Article 729(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 
If the enforcement is based on a judgment, the opposition may only be based on 
one of the following grounds: 
(d) lack of participation by the defendant in the declaratory proceedings, 
where any of the circumstances provided for in Article 696(e) of the 
Code of Civil Procedure arises. 
Article 696(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure 
A final judgment may only be subject to appeal where: 
(e) the proceedings [have] been conducted under the default procedure, 
due to the absolute failure of the defendant to participate, and it is 
proven that: 
(i) the defendant was not served with notice of the proceedings or the 
service effected was invalid; 
(ii) the defendant was not aware that notice had been served due to 
circumstances which are not attributable to the defendant; 
(iii) the defendant was not able to file a defence for reasons of force 
majeure. 
Article 191(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 
Without prejudice to Article 188, the service effected shall be invalid where the 
formal requirements prescribed by law have not been satisfied. 
The following provisions of EU law are also relevant: 
Article 8 of 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, and Article 20(1) of 
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. 
MANUEL COSTA & FILHOS 
 
7 
X 
The questions raised in the appeal, thus, relate to the interpretation of Article 8(1) 
of Regulation No 1393/2007 and of Article 20(1) of Regulation No 805/2004. 
The Court of Justice has already ruled, in the context of the interpretation of 
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1393/2007, on the consequences of not having 
informed the addressee of a document to be served, using the standard form set 
out in Annex II [to that regulation], that he or she could refuse to accept that 
document if it was not written in one of the languages provided for in Article 8(1) 
of that regulation or accompanied by a translation into one of those languages. 
Indeed, in the cases identified in the judgment under appeal (Cases […] C-519/13, 
C-354/15 and C-346/21) and in the order of 28 April 2016, made in Case-384/14, 
the Court held that Article 8(1) of the above-mentioned regulation must be 
interpreted as precluding national legislation in accordance with which, where a 
judicial document served on an addressee residing in the territory of another 
Member State is not written in, or accompanied by a translation into, either a 
language which the addressee 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 omission of the standard form set out in Annex II to 
that regulation entails the invalidity of the service, even if such invalidity has to be 
argued by that addressee within a certain period of time or from the start of the 
proceedings and before any defence is raised in respect of the substance of the 
case. According to the Court of Justice, that regulation requires such an omission 
to be rectified in accordance with the provisions laid down in that regulation, by 
communicating the standard form set out in Annex II to that regulation to the 
person concerned. 
However, the situation in the present case appears to be different from those 
examined in the decisions given in the above-mentioned cases. Indeed, in those 
cases, the question of the omission of the standard form set out in Annex II to 
Regulation No 1393/2007 was raised in the declaratory proceedings, that is to say, 
at a point at which it was still possible to rectify the omission in accordance with 
the provisions laid down in that regulation, by communicating the standard form 
set out in Annex II to the person concerned, whereas, in the present case, the issue 
arises in the context of the enforcement of a judgment certified as a European 
Enforcement Order, that is to say, at a point when the declaratory proceedings 
have been concluded and it is not possible to rectify the omission as provided for 
in that regulation. 
The question arises, therefore, as to whether, in the present situation – in which it 
is not possible to rectify the failure to send the standard form set out in Annex II, 
since the declaratory proceedings have already given rise to a final judgment 
ordering payment – Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1393/2007 still precludes 
service effected by registered letter with an acknowledgement of receipt being 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-643/24 
 
8  
[declared] invalid on account of it not being accompanied by the standard form set 
out in Annex II to that regulation. 
That question arises in view of the right to a defence of the addressee of the 
document, in accordance with the requirements of a fair trial, enshrined in the 
second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union and in Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of 
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950. 
There does not appear to be any case-law in which the Court of Justice has ruled 
on that question and the response to that question is essential in order to adjudicate 
on the appeal. 
Moreover, in providing that ‘a judgment certified as a European Enforcement 
Order shall be enforced under the same conditions as a judgment handed down in 
the Member State of enforcement’, Article 20(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 could 
be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of enforcement based on a European 
Enforcement Order, the judgment debtor may oppose the enforcement relying on 
the same grounds on which he or she could rely in the case of enforcement based 
on a judgment given in the Member State of enforcement. That was the 
interpretation set out in the judgment of the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães 
(Court of Appeal, Guimarães, Portugal), of 22 October 2020, given in case 
number […] and published on www.dgsi.pt, according to which, in the light of 
Portuguese legislation (Article 729(d), read in conjunction with the second part of 
Article 696(e)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure), the judgment debtor may oppose 
the enforcement on the ground that he or she did not participate in the declaratory 
proceedings and that service effected by registered letter with an 
acknowledgement of receipt was invalid because it was not accompanied by the 
standard form set out in Annex II to the relevant regulation. 
Nevertheless, doubts remain as to whether the interpretation set out above is 
compatible with the objectives that led to the creation of the European 
Enforcement Order (Article 1 of Regulation No 805/2004) and with the minimum 
requirements for the service of documents applicable to the proceedings in which 
the judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order was handed down 
(Articles 13 and 14 of that regulation), which, according to recital 14 of that 
regulation, are characterised by either full certainty (Article 13) or a very high 
degree of likelihood (Article 14) that the document served has reached its 
addressee. 
Given that there does not appear to be any case-law of the Court of Justice 
regarding that question and in view of the fact that the response to that question is 
essential in order to adjudicate on the appeal, it also appears appropriate to refer a 
question to the Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of Article 20(1). 
XI 
[…] [Suggested wording of the questions referred] 
MANUEL COSTA & FILHOS 
 
9 
XII 
This court rules as follows: 
Pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 
the following questions shall be referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling: 
1. In the event that, from a procedural perspective, the failure to send the 
standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 139[3]/2007 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November [2007] cannot be 
rectified, on account of the declaratory proceedings having already given 
rise to a final judgment ordering payment, does Article 8(1) of that 
regulation, taking into account the right to a defence of the addressee of that 
document in accordance with the requirements of a fair trial, enshrined in 
the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union and in Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection 
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 
4 November 1950, preclude national legislation which considers service 
effected by registered letter with an acknowledgement of receipt to be 
invalid when it was not accompanied by the standard form set out in 
Annex II to that regulation? 
2. Must Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004, which provides that ‘a 
judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order shall be enforced 
under the same conditions as a judgment handed down in the Member State 
of enforcement’, be interpreted as meaning that the judgment debtor may 
oppose enforcement based on a European Enforcement Order relying on the 
same grounds on which he or she could rely in the case of enforcement 
based on a judgment handed down in the Member State of enforcement, in 
particular on the ground that he or she did not participate in the declaratory 
proceedings and that the service, effected by registered letter with an 
acknowledgement of receipt, was invalid because it was not accompanied by 
the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 139[3]/2007? 
3. In view of the objectives which led to the creation of the European 
Enforcement Order (Article 1 of Regulation No 805/2004) and of the 
minimum requirements for the service of documents applicable to the 
proceedings in which the judgment certified as a European Enforcement 
Order was handed down (Articles 13 and 14 of that regulation), which, 
according to recital 14 of that regulation, are characterised by either full 
certainty (Article 13) or a very high degree of likelihood (Article 14) that the 
document served had reached its addressee, does Regulation No 805/2004 
preclude national legislation, such as that contained in Article 729(d), read 
in conjunction with Article 696[(e)(i)], of the [Código de Processo Civil 
(Code of Civil Procedure)], according to which the judgment debtor may 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-643/24 
 
10  
oppose the enforcement on the ground that he or she did not participate in 
the declaratory proceedings and that the service, effected by registered letter 
with an acknowledgement of receipt, was invalid because it was not 
accompanied by the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation 
No 139[3]/2007? 
* 
The proceedings shall be stayed, […], until a preliminary ruling has been given on 
the questions referred. 
* 
To be notified [National procedure] […] 
Lisbon, 4 September 2024