Case C-717/25, Gradnja montažnih hiš: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 11 November 2025 – IF v GRADNJA MONTAŽNIH HIŠ d.o.o.
Date: 2025-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, claim, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, legal expenses, limitation of legal proceedings, right to an effective remedy








C_202600299EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/299


26.1.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 11 November 2025 – IF v GRADNJA MONTAŽNIH HIŠ d.o.o.


(Case C-717/25, Gradnja montažnih hiš)

(C/2026/299)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: IF

Respondent: GRADNJA MONTAŽNIH HIŠ d.o.o.

Questions referred







1.


Is the first paragraph of Article 47 of [the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], relating to the right to an effective legal remedy, read in conjunction with Article 67(1) and (4) [of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union] to be interpreted as precluding the national legislation set out in the third paragraph of Article 9 of the [Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju (Law on Enforcement and Security)] which, in accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation No 805/2004, (1) applies in a case where an enforcement procedure based on a judgment handed down in another Member State and certified as a European Enforcement Order is being conducted before a court in the Republic of Slovenia, and in accordance with which the limitation period for bringing an appeal against an order whereby a court decides on the costs, for a creditor, of the response to an objection amounts to 8 days, with such a limitation period also applying in a case where a party from another Member State, who does not understand the language in which the order was made and the language in which it is necessary to lodge the appeal, but has an authorised representative in the Republic of Slovenia, on whom that order was also served, in practice had only 4 working days available to him or her for the preparation and bringing of the appeal against that order?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:










2.


What would be the shortest limitation period for bringing an appeal against an order whereby a decision is made regarding the costs of a creditor’s response to an objection that would be appropriate to ensure that there would be no conflict between those provisions in that regard?










3.


Would a limitation period for the bringing of an appeal which is less than 19 days after service of an order whereby a decision is made regarding the costs of a creditor’s response to an objection be appropriate to ensure that there would be no conflict between those provisions in that regard?






(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/299/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)