Case C-393/21, Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Article 23(c) — Stay of enforcement of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order — Exceptional circumstances — Concept)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial proceedings








C_2023127EN.01000701.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/7






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey GmbH
(Case C-393/21, (1) Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Article 23(c) - Stay of enforcement of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order - Exceptional circumstances - Concept)
(2023/C 127/08)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey GmbH

Intervening parties: Arik Air Limited, Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), antstolis Marekas Petrovskis

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 23(c) 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
must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ contained in that provision covers a situation in which continued enforcement proceedings in respect of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order, where the debtor has challenged that judgment or has brought an application for the rectification or withdrawal of the European Enforcement Order certificate in the Member State of origin, would expose the debtor to a real risk of particularly serious harm, the reparation of which would prove impossible or extremely difficult if that judgment were to be annulled or the European Enforcement Order certificate were to be rectified or withdrawn. That concept does not refer to circumstances connected with the judicial proceedings brought in the Member State of origin against the judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order or against the European Enforcement Order certificate.










2.


Article 23 of Regulation No 805/2004
must be interpreted as permitting the simultaneous application of the measures limiting the enforcement proceedings and requiring the provision of security laid down in subparagraphs (a) and (b), but not the simultaneous application of either one of those two measures and that staying the enforcement proceedings under subparagraph (c).










3.


Article 6(2) of Regulation No 805/2004, read in conjunction with Article 11,
must be interpreted as meaning that, where the enforceability of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order has been suspended in the Member State of origin and the certificate referred to in Article 6(2) has been produced before the court of the Member State of enforcement, that court is required to stay, on the basis of that judgment, the enforcement proceedings initiated in the latter State.






(1)  OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.