THAT RULE CLAIMS FOR THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS EXPRESSED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY AGAINST DEBTORS ESTABLISHED ON THE TERRITORY OF ONE OF THE CONTRACTING STATES PARTIES TO THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THAT CONVENTION MADE SUCH AN EXCEPTION NECESSARY .
7 THE FILE ON THE CASE ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ORDINARY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS REMAIN AVAILABLE TO CREDITORS WHO ARE UNABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIMPLIFIED ' ' MAHNVERFAHREN ' ' . THOSE ORDINARY PROCEEDINGS HAVE TO BE INSTITUTED BY A CREDITOR WHO , HAVING OBTAINED AN ORDER TO PAY AT THE OUTCOME OF THE ' ' MAHNVERFAHREN ' ' , MEETS WITH OPPOSITION FROM THE DEBTOR .
8 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT BY THE NATIONAL COURT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS ASKING WHETHER ARTICLE 7 OF THE TREATY PRECLUDES A NATIONAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH , WHILST AFFORDING ANY CREDITOR ESTABLISHED ON THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUE FOR PAYMENT OF A DEBT IN WHATEVER CURRENCY IT IS EXPRESSED BY TAKING ORDINARY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURTS , PROVIDES FOR A SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR RECOVERY WHICH IS NOT AVAILABLE TO A CREDITOR PROSECUTING A CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF A DEBT EXPRESSED IN A FOREIGN CURRENCY AGAINST A DEBTOR ESTABLISHED ON NATIONAL TERRITORY .
9 ARTICLE 7 OF THE TREATY PROHIBITS ANY DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY WITHIN THE FIELD OF APPLICATION OF THE TREATY . THAT ARTICLE FORBIDS NOT ONLY OVERT DISCRIMINATION BY REASON OF NATIONALITY BUT ALSO ALL COVERT FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION WHICH , BY THE APPLICATION OF OTHER CRITERIA OF DIFFERENTIATION , LEAD IN FACT TO THE SAME RESULT .
10 THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT A NATIONAL LAW WHICH SUBJECTS ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE CURRENCY IN WHICH DEBTS ARE EXPRESSED MIGHT IN FACT PLACE CREDITORS ESTABLISHED IN THE OTHER MEMBER STATES IN A LESS FAVOURABLE POSITION THAN CREDITORS ESTABLISHED ON NATIONAL TERRITORY AND THUS CONSTITUTE A BARRIER TO TRADE IN THE COMMON MARKET WHICH WOULD PRINCIPALLY AFFECT THE NATIONALS OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATES .
11 THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT , WHICH HAS SUBMITTED WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , HAS MAINTAINED THAT A LAW SUCH AS THE ONE AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE DISCRIMINATORY , SINCE THE DISTINCTION BASED ON THE CURRENCY IN WHICH THE DEBT IS EXPRESSED IS JUSTIFIED ON OBJECTIVE GROUNDS , THE ELECTRONIC PROCESSING PROVIDED FOR BY THE GERMAN LEGISLATION WITH A VIEW TO SIMPLIFYING THE ' ' MAHNVERFAHREN ' ' BEING IMPOSSIBLE IN THE CASE OF DEBTS EXPRESSED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY .
12 THAT ARGUMENT IS NOT CONVINCING . ALTHOUGH GERMAN LEGISLATION MAKES THE ' ' MAHNVERFAHREN ' ' AVAILABLE FOR OBTAINING PAYMENT OF DEBTS EXPRESSED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY FROM DEBTORS ESTABLISHED ON THE TERRITORY OF THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATES PARTIES TO THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION , AND ALTHOUGH IT IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT THAT THE