Case C‑300/14

Imtech Marine Belgium NV

v

Radio Hellenic SA

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Conditions for certification — Rights of the debtor — Review of the judgment’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 17 December 2015

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Creation of a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Regulation No 805/2004 — Certification of a judgment as a European Enforcement Order — Certification that may be applied for at any time — Certification may only be carried out by a national judge — Act of issuing the certificate may be left to the registrar

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Creation of a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Regulation No 805/2004 — Certification of a judgment as a European Enforcement Order — Review of the judgment in exceptional cases — Conditions for certifying a judgment delivered in absentia — Possibility of a full review, in law and in fact, of that judgment under national law — Possibility of the periods for challenging a judgment on an uncontested claim being extended where certain extraordinary circumstances arise

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Creation of a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Regulation No 805/2004 — Certification of a judgment as a European Enforcement Order — Review of the judgment in exceptional cases — No obligation to establish in national law a review procedure such as that referred to in Article 19 of that regulation — Consequences of the absence of such a procedure in national law — Not possible to certify judgments under the conditions referred to in that review procedure

Article 19 of Regulation No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, read in the light of Article 288 TFEU, must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to establish in their national law a review procedure such as that referred to in Article 19 of that regulation. According to recital 19 of Regulation No 805/2004, that regulation does not imply an obligation for the Member States to adapt their national legislation to the minimum procedural standards set out therein, or, therefore, to establish a specific review procedure within the meaning of Article 19. The only consequence of the lack of a review procedure is that a judgment cannot be certified as a European Enforcement Order under the conditions referred to in that article. In those circumstances, a Member State which, in accordance with the wording of that regulation, chooses not to adapt its legislation cannot be in breach of Article 288 TFEU. (see paras 28-31, operative part 1)

In order to respect the debtor’s rights of defence and the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to certify a judgment delivered in absentia as a European Enforcement Order, the court ruling on such an application must satisfy itself that its national law effectively and without exception allows for a full review, in law and in fact, of such a judgment in the two situations referred to in that provision and that it allows the periods for challenging a judgment on an uncontested claim to be extended, not only in the event of force majeure, but also where other extraordinary circumstances beyond the debtor’s control prevented him from contesting the claim in question. (see paras 38, 42, operative part 2)