CELEX: 62015CC0354
Language: en
Date: 2016-09-08
Title: Opinion of Advocate General Bobek delivered on 8 September 2016.#Andrew Marcus Henderson v Novo Banco SA.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 — Articles 8, 14 and 19 — Postal service of a document instituting the proceedings — No translation of the document — Annex II - Standard form — None — Consequences — Service by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt — Failure to return acknowledgement of receipt — Receipt of document by a third party — Conditions of validity of the proceedings.#Case C-354/15.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
      BOBEK
      delivered on 8 September 2016 (
            1
         )
      
         Case C‑354/15
      
      
         Andrew Marcus Henderson
      
      
         v
      
      
         Novo Banco, SA
      
      (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora (Court of Appeal of Évora, Portugal))
      ‛Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 1393/2007 — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Service by postal services — Registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt — Equivalent — Service of proceedings on a third party — Form in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007’
      
         I – Introduction
      
      
               1.
            
            
               A Portuguese bank introduced proceedings against a debtor residing in Ireland. The service of those proceedings encountered three problems. First, the acknowledgement of receipt of the proceedings was not returned to the Portuguese court. Second, the document served was allegedly received at the residence of the debtor but by a third party. Third, the document served was not accompanied by the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (
                     2
                  ) (‘the Annex II form’) which should have informed the addressee of his right to refuse service of the document.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In the main proceedings, the service of the document described above was still considered to be valid. This was for three reasons. First, upon request of the national court, the Portuguese postal service confirmed, by letter to the court, the date and time of the delivery of the document in Ireland. Second, the national court concluded that receipt of service of proceedings by a third party triggered a presumption of service upon the addressee and that presumption was not rebutted. Third, it considered that the absence of the Annex II form, although problematic, was remedied by the fact that the addressee did not object to the omission of the Annex II form in the period foreseen for that purpose in national law.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               In the present case, the referring court inquires whether those national rules on the service of proceedings comply with the requirements of Regulation No 1393/2007.
            
         
         II – Applicable law
      
      A – EU law
      
      
               4.
            
            
               Pursuant to recital 2 of Regulation No 1393/2007, ‘the proper functioning of the internal market entails the need to improve and expedite the transmission of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters for service between the Member States’.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               According to recital 6 of the same regulation, ‘efficiency and speed in judicial procedures in civil matters require that judicial and extrajudicial documents be transmitted directly and by rapid means between local bodies designated by the Member States …’
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Article 8(1), read in combination with Article 8(4), of Regulation No 1393/2007, lays down the obligation to enclose the Annex II form when serving judicial documents including where service is done by postal services. The purpose of the Annex II form is to provide the addressee with information about his right to refuse to accept the document to be served at the time of service or by returning the document within one week if it is not written in, or accompanied by a translation into, either of the following languages: (a) a language which the addressee understands; or (b) the official language of the Member State addressed or, if there are several official languages in that Member State, the official language or one of the official languages of the place where service is to be effected.
            
         
               7.
            
            
               Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1393/2007 states that ‘if the addressee has refused to accept the document pursuant to paragraph 1, the service of the document can be remedied through the service on the addressee in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation of the document accompanied by a translation into a language provided for in paragraph 1. In that case, the date of service of the document shall be the date on which the document accompanied by the translation is served in accordance with the law of the Member State addressed. However, where according to the law of a Member State, a document has to be served within a particular period, the date to be taken into account with respect to the applicant shall be the date of the service of the initial document determined pursuant to Article 9(2)’.
            
         
               8.
            
            
               Article 9 of Regulation No 1393/2007 concerns the date of service. Pursuant to Article 9(1), read in combination with Article 9(3), the date of service of a document shall, in principle, be the date on which that document is served in accordance with the law of the Member State addressed.
            
         
               9.
            
            
               Under Article 9(2) ‘where according to the law of a Member State a document has to be served within a particular period, the date to be taken into account with respect to the applicant shall be that determined by the law of that Member State’.
            
         
               10.
            
            
               Article 14 of Regulation No 1393/2007 reads as follows: ‘Each Member State shall be free to effect service of judicial documents directly by postal services on persons residing in another Member State by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or equivalent.’
            
         
               11.
            
            
               Article 19 of Regulation No 1393/2007 concerns a defendant not entering an appearance. The relevant part of Article 19(1) provides that: ‘Where a writ of summons or an equivalent document has had to be transmitted to another Member State for the purpose of service under the provisions of this Regulation and the defendant has not appeared, judgment shall not be given until it is established that:
               …
               and that … the service or the delivery was effected in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend.’
            
         B – National law
      
      
               12.
            
            
               Under Article 230 of the Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure, ‘the CCP’), service by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt is deemed to have been effected on the day when the acknowledgement of receipt is signed, and is deemed to have been effected on the addressee even if the acknowledgement of receipt has been signed by a third party. The letter is deemed to have been duly delivered to the addressee unless proven otherwise by the addressee.
            
         
               13.
            
            
               Pursuant to Article 365(3) and Article 293(2) of the CCP, in interim proceedings, the period of time within which the right of defence must be exercised is 10 days. Article 366(3) of the CCP specifies that that period is extended by 10 days on account of distance.
            
         
               14.
            
            
               If the service of proceedings is not accompanied by an Annex II form, under Portuguese law and judicial practice, this constitutes a failure to comply with an essential procedural requirement with the result that service is invalid under Article 191(1) of the CCP.
            
         
               15.
            
            
               However, under Article 191(2) of the CCP, the period within which a claim of invalidity for failure to comply with an essential procedural requirement may be made is the period for filing a notice of opposition, namely, in the present case, 20 days from the date of service. Invalidity is deemed to have been remedied if it is not claimed within that period.
            
         
         III – Facts, national procedure and the questions referred
      
      
               16.
            
            
               In 2008, Novo Banco, SA (the respondent) concluded with Mr Henderson (the appellant) two financial lease contracts for shop premises in the municipality of Portimão, Portugal. The appellant failed to pay the rents for these premises due in March and August 2012 respectively, and continued to default on the rents thereafter. Subsequently, the respondent terminated both contracts.
            
         
               17.
            
            
               The appellant refused to return the properties. The respondent brought proceedings against the appellant in Portugal requesting, inter alia, interim measures, specifically the return of the properties.
            
         
               18.
            
            
               At the time proceedings were brought, the appellant resided in Ireland. The proceedings seem to have been served by registered letter to the appellant’s Irish address.
            
         
               19.
            
            
               However, the acknowledgement of receipt was not returned to the national court. Therefore, the national court made a request for information to the Portuguese postal services (Correios, Telégrafos e Telefonos, ‘the CTT’). The CTT responded by letter confirming that ‘according to the computer records of the postal operator in the destination country, Ireland ...’, the letter containing the notice of proceedings was delivered to the addressee on 22 July 2014. Attached to the CTT’s letter were copies of the relevant entry in the item tracking system of the Irish postal service, indicating the item number of the served document, its bar code, and its delivery history, stating the date and the place of the delivery, and displaying the name and the signature of the person who received that delivery. That person signed ‘A. Henderson’. (
                     3
                  )
            
         
               20.
            
            
               The service of proceedings was not accompanied by the Annex II form.
            
         
               21.
            
            
               The appellant did not file a notice of opposition within the time limit foreseen by Portuguese national law. The interim measure requested by the respondent was therefore granted.
            
         
               22.
            
            
               Subsequently, the appellant challenged the judgment granting the interim measure before the referring court, seeking an order for the proceedings to be served on him again. He considered that the original service of proceedings did not comply with the applicable procedural requirements. The appellant pointed out that the acknowledgement of receipt had not been returned to the court. He further stressed that it had not been established who actually took service of the proceedings. He also challenged the absence of the Annex II form which deprived him of the information regarding his right to refuse service of the proceedings, given that he was served in Portuguese only — a language that he does not understand. He contended that the service of proceedings should have been accompanied by a translation into English or Irish, the only languages accepted in Ireland for service of proceedings.
            
         
               23.
            
            
               The appeal before the referring court was dismissed. The appellant subsequently filed, before the same court, an application for rectification of the second-instance judgment, considering the second-instance judgment to be incompatible with case-law of the Court, without referring to any specific case-law.
            
         
               24.
            
            
               In those circumstances, the Tribunal da Relação de Évora (Court of Appeal of Évora, Portugal ) stayed proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice:
               
                        ‘(1)
                     
                     
                        Where a Portuguese court hearing a civil action against an individual residing in another Member State of the European Union has ordered that notice of service of those proceedings be served on that individual by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, and the corresponding acknowledgement of receipt has not been returned, may the Portuguese court consider, in the light of the above Regulation [EC No 1393/2007] and the principles underlying it, that such service was effected, on the basis of the documents of the postal authority of the state in which the addressee of the letter resides which prove that the registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt was delivered to the addressee?
                     
                  
                        (2)
                     
                     
                        Does the application of Article 230 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, in the case referred to in the first question, infringe the Regulation and the principles underlying it?
                     
                  
                        (3)
                     
                     
                        Does the application of Article 191(2) of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure in the present case infringe the Regulation and principles underlying it?’
                     
                  
         
               25.
            
            
               Written observations were submitted by the Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish Governments as well as by the Commission. The Portuguese Government and the Commission presented oral arguments at a hearing held on 7 July 2016.
            
         
         IV – Assessment
      
      
               26.
            
            
               In this Opinion, I will first consider the relevant evidentiary requirements under Regulation No 1393/2007 to prove that service of proceedings by postal services took place (A). Second, I will focus on the issue whether service to the addressee’s residence acknowledged by a third party is compatible with the regulation (B). Finally, I will answer the question of whether the failure to enclose the Annex II form in documents served can be remedied by the absence of opposition to that fact within a given period of time (C).
            
         A – Acknowledgement of receipt or equivalent
      
      
               27.
            
            
               By the first preliminary question, the referring court asks whether Regulation No 1393/2007 permits a national judge, in a situation where the service of proceedings was carried out by post but where the acknowledgement of receipt was not returned, to take into account other evidence in order to assess the validity of that service. More specifically, the referring court asks whether the acknowledgement of receipt can be replaced by a document issued by the postal services which confirms that the registered letter was delivered to the addressee.
            
         
               28.
            
            
               Regulation No 1393/2007 provides for an exhaustive list of means by which proceedings can be served. (
                     4
                  ) Regulation No 1393/2007 does not establish any hierarchy among those means. (
                     5
                  )
            
         
               29.
            
            
               Pursuant to Article 14 of the regulation, one of the possible means of service is by postal services. However, Article 14 merely indicates how service by postal services should be done: service must be by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or equivalent. (
                     6
                  ) It does not go on to outline the details of this method of service. In contrast to the forms set out in Annex I to Regulation No 1393/2007 (to be used for communications between the transmitting and receiving agencies when service is effected through them (
                     7
                  )), neither Article 14, nor any other provision of Regulation No 1393/2007, provides further details on how receipt is to be acknowledged under that regulation.
            
         
               30.
            
            
               Thus, because neither Article 14 nor any other provision of the regulation provides further details on the particular format of an ‘acknowledgement of receipt’, the specifics remain a matter to be determined by national law. (
                     8
                  )
            
         
               31.
            
            
               Furthermore, Article 14 expressly refers to the possibility of providing an ‘equivalent’ to an acknowledgement of receipt. In other words, an ‘acknowledgement of receipt’ may not be even necessary where there is other appropriate and reliable evidence confirming the service of the document on the addressee. (
                     9
                  )
            
         
               32.
            
            
               In short, Article 14 remains a very open provision as regards the specific form of evidence that is required to prove that service by postal services has taken place.
            
         
               33.
            
            
               However, that openness and the national evidentiary diversity regarding proof of the delivery of documents that results, is, in my view, limited by the functionality and objectives of the system established by Regulation No 1393/2007 in two ways. First, the specific format of an acknowledgement of receipt or its equivalent must provide the national judge with enough evidentiary information to allow him or her to assess the validity of service. Second, the national judge must also be in a position to verify whether the addressee’s procedural rights were respected.
            
         
               34.
            
            
               As regards the first limitation, acknowledgement of receipt constitutes a standardised form of evidence, normally deemed to be sufficient to establish the fact of service of documents. It generally contains at least the information about the date and place of service as well as the person on whom the document was served. However, this evidentiary function of an acknowledgement of receipt, as well as the textual openness of Article 14 as demonstrated by the use of the term ‘equivalent’, lead me to conclude that the absence of a piece of paper entitled ‘acknowledgement of receipt’ does not automatically invalidate service. This is because the absence of such a piece of paper does not mean that the national judge cannot determine whether documents have in fact been served on the addressee. A judge can make that determination based on other elements of proof relating to that issue.
            
         
               35.
            
            
               The second limitation consists of the protection of the addressee’s procedural rights. The Court has underlined that the right to proper service of proceedings derives from the right to a fair hearing and fair trial. (
                     10
                  ) That protection cannot be undermined by the objective pursued by Regulation No 1393/2007 namely, efficient and speedy service of judicial and extrajudicial documents. (
                     11
                  )
            
         
               36.
            
            
               Furthermore, respect for the addressee’s procedural rights is of particular importance when considered in the broader context of other acts of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters (
                     12
                  ) such as Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (
                     13
                  ) (‘the Brussels I Regulation (recast)’) and Regulation (EC) No 805/2004. (
                     14
                  ) Indeed, whether or not a document commencing judicial proceedings has been properly served is key for the subsequent consideration of whether a resulting judgment should be recognised and enforced, as well as whether it can be certified as a European Enforcement Order for an uncontested claim within the meaning of Regulation No 805/2004. (
                     15
                  )
            
         
               37.
            
            
               Whether or not the two limits described above have been respected in relation to an acknowledgement of receipt or its equivalent for the purpose of Article 14 of Regulation No 1393/2007 is a factual assessment to be carried out by the national court in the concrete circumstances of each individual case.
            
         
               38.
            
            
               I do not wish to pre-empt in any way the evaluation to be carried out by the national court in the present case. But since the Court has been explicitly asked by the referring court in its first question to assess the relevance of a confirmation issued by the national postal services, outlined above in point 19 of this Opinion, I would suggest that, subject to further evidence collected by the national court, such a confirmation could be seen as being ‘equivalent’ to an acknowledgement of receipt.
            
         
               39.
            
            
               In the light of the foregoing, I conclude that Article 14 of Regulation No 1393/2007 should be interpreted as meaning that a national court may rely on a document other than an acknowledgement of receipt to decide that service of proceedings was effected on the addressee in compliance with that provision. To be considered as equivalent to an acknowledgement of receipt, the documents in question must allow the national judge to verify that the addressee has been served in a manner which protects his or her procedural rights.
            
         B – Service signed for by a third party at the residence of the addressee
      
      
               40.
            
            
               By the second question, the referring court is asking, in essence, whether Regulation No 1393/2007 allows for a national rule according to which the service of proceedings in a commercial matter is presumed valid on the day when the acknowledgement of receipt is signed by a third party at the addressee’s residence.
            
         
               41.
            
            
               It ought to be highlighted that the national rule described in the order for reference makes the presumption of service conditional upon the mere receipt by a third party. However, the factual context of this case reveals that the documents were served to the appellant’s address and allegedly signed at that address by a third party. I therefore understand the second preliminary question of the national court as concerning the compatibility of a national rule according to which service is deemed valid if effected on a third party at the addressee’s residence with Regulation No 1393/2007.
            
         
               42.
            
            
               As already outlined in the previous section, Regulation No 1393/2007 does not harmonise the details of service by postal services beyond the requirement that it be done by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or equivalent.
            
         
               43.
            
            
               As regards the determination of the date of service, Article 9 of Regulation No 1393/2007 states that that question is to be determined by the national legislation of the Member States. More specifically, the date of service is to be determined, in principle, according to the law applicable in the Member State addressed, which is Ireland in the present case.
            
         
               44.
            
            
               However, Regulation No 1393/2007 does not provide for any explicit rules on the validity of service on a third party. In this respect, I note the following.
            
         
               45.
            
            
               The standards applicable to the service of judicial documents in civil and commercial matters are generally less stringent than those applicable in administrative or criminal matters. In particular in the area of criminal procedure, (
                     16
                  ) it might be expected that the individual is to be indeed served in person, without any possible presumption or fiction of delivery. Conversely, a number of presumptions or even legal fictions may be found for service in civil and commercial matters in the laws of the Member States. Those presumptions or fictions in the civil and commercial context are generally considered as striking the appropriate balance in terms of legal certainty between the applicant and the addressee. (
                     17
                  )
            
         
               46.
            
            
               The fact that Regulation No 1393/2007 is silent on the matter of service acknowledged by a third person, together with the reference to the laws of the Member States in Article 9, leads to the conclusion that the regulation itself is not necessarily opposed to service in that way.
            
         
               47.
            
            
               There is, furthermore, indirect support for the proposition that Regulation No 1393/2007 is not opposed to service on a third party in Article 19(1)(b) of the regulation. Article 19(1)(b) lays down requirements and protections where a defendant has not entered an appearance. It specifies that judgment shall not be given in respect of such a defendant until it is established, for example, that the relevant document was actually delivered to the defendant or the defendant’s residence. (
                     18
                  )
            
         
               48.
            
            
               Without establishing a general rule of service under the Regulation No 1393/2007, it is clear that Article 19(1)(b) (similar to other instruments of EU law establishing procedural rules in civil and commercial matters (
                     19
                  )) envisages the possibility of service of documents on a third party, provided that the documents are served to the defendant’s residence.
            
         
               49.
            
            
               For these reasons, it is my opinion that Regulation No 1393/2007 does not preclude as such the validity of service of proceedings if that service is acknowledged by a third party at the addressee’s residence. That is, however, subject to two important qualifications.
            
         
               50.
            
            
               First, as aptly pointed out by the Commission at the hearing, service at the addressee’s residence means that the document has to be delivered to the specific dwelling of the addressee. Thus, for example, delivery to a person in a block of flats as opposed to the delivery at the doorstep of the specific flat would not be enough.
            
         
               51.
            
            
               Second, receipt has to be acknowledged by an adult person within the dwelling of the addressee who can be reasonably expected to ensure that the addressee actually receives the served document. That would, in my view, be the case for example with a relative or a person habitually sharing the residence with the addressee, or another adult person in a relationship of trust with the addressee.
            
         
               52.
            
            
               In conclusion, I would suggest that Regulation No 1393/2007 should be interpreted as meaning that it does not oppose a national rule according to which a service of proceedings is considered as effected upon the addressee where it is signed for by a third party, provided that this delivery occurs at the addressee’s residence and provided that the served document is delivered to an adult person who can be reasonably expected to hand it over to the addressee.
            
         C – Failure to provide the Annex II form
      
      
               53.
            
            
               By the third preliminary question, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether Regulation No 1393/2007 permits a national rule which provides that the omission of the Annex II form makes the service of proceedings invalid, but where that invalidity can be remedied if the addressee does not raise any objection relating to the absence of the Annex II form within a specific period of time. It follows from the order for reference that the rule at issue is Article 191(2) of the CCP.
            
         
               54.
            
            
               Pursuant to the case-law of the Court, the Annex II form constitutes a necessary element of service. The purpose of the form is to guarantee that the defendant is able to exercise his right to refuse the document served if the language requirements specified in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1393/2007 are not satisfied. The Court has also noted that Regulation No 1393/2007 does not contain any exceptions to the use of the Annex II form. Furthermore, the Court has been quite clear in stating that when the form has been omitted, it has to be sent to the addressee. (
                     20
                  )
            
         
               55.
            
            
               The Court formulated those conclusions in the context of service under Article 4 of Regulation No 1393/2007, that is, between the transmitting and receiving agencies of the Member States concerned. However, Article 8(4) of the regulation makes the rules relating to the use of the Annex II form clearly applicable to service by postal services.
            
         
               56.
            
            
               It follows that if the Annex II form is omitted from documents commencing proceedings served by post, it has to be delivered to the addressee without delay. Therefore, in my view, it is not possible to remedy the omission of the Annex II form by a lapse of time during which the addressee of the document served did not raise any objection to the absence of the form.
            
         
               57.
            
            
               The Annex II form is there to ensure that the addressee’s rights to defence are respected by informing him about his right to refuse service if the language requirements specified in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1393/2007 are not respected. If the appropriate translation is missing, the addressee may not understand the document served at all.
            
         
               58.
            
            
               If, in such a situation, the Annex II form is missing, the addressee may not know about his right to refuse service. The absence of knowledge can only be remedied by providing the knowledge lacking, but certainly not by mere lapse of time. Logically therefore, no procedural inferences can be drawn from the fact that the addressee did not object to the absence of the Annex II form within a given period of time, since the addressee may not even have been aware that he could object.
            
         
               59.
            
            
               It ought to be added that the obligation to serve the Annex II form applies in all circumstances, irrespective of whether the addressee understands the language in which the served documents are drafted. It is only once service has been carried out correctly (that is, including the Annex II form) that the competent court can assess whether a possible refusal on the part of the addressee was justified or not. (
                     21
                  )
            
         
               60.
            
            
               My conclusion is therefore that Regulation No 1393/2007 precludes a national rule providing that the irregularity in service stemming from the absence of the form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007 can be remedied by a lapse of time during which the addressee does not raise an objection to the absence of the form. That omission can only be remedied by service of the form on the addressee in conformity with the applicable provisions of Regulation No 1393/2007.
            
         
         V – Conclusion
      
      
               61.
            
            
               In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred by the Tribunal da Relação de Évora (Court of Appeal of Évora, Portugal) as follows:
               Question 1:
               Article 14 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 should be interpreted as meaning that a national court may rely on a document other than an acknowledgement of receipt to decide that service of proceedings was effected on the addressee in compliance with that provision. To be considered as an equivalent to an acknowledgement of receipt, the documents in question must allow the national judge to verify that the addressee has been served in a manner which protects his or her procedural rights.
               Question 2:
               Regulation No 1393/2007 should be interpreted as meaning that it does not oppose a national rule according to which a service of proceedings is considered as effected upon the addressee where it is signed for by a third party, provided that this delivery occurs at the addressee’s residence and provided that the served document is delivered to an adult person who can be reasonably expected to hand it over to the addressee.
               Question 3:
               Regulation No 1393/2007 precludes a national rule providing that the irregularity in service stemming from the absence of the form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007 can be remedied by a lapse of time during which the addressee does not raise an objection to the absence of the form. That omission can only be remedied by service of the form on the addressee in conformity with the applicable provisions of Regulation No 1393/2007.
            
         (
            1
         )	Original language: English.
      (
            2
         )	Regulation 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 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).
      (
            3
         )	The appellant’s first name is Andrew.
      (
            4
         )	Judgment of 19 December 2012, Alder (C‑325/11, EU:C:2012:824, paragraphs 30 to 32).
      (
            5
         )	See judgment of 9 February 2006, Plumex (C‑473/04, EU:C:2006:96, paragraph 22). That judgment concerned Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37), which was the legal predecessor to Regulation No 1393/2007.
      (
            6
         )	That constitutes a change from Regulation No 1348/2000. Article 14 of Regulation No 1348/2000 (which also provided for the possibility of effecting service by post) did not specify the particular method of postage by which documents had to be served.
      (
            7
         )	See Article 4(3), Article 6(1), (3) and (4), Article 7(2)(a) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1393/2007.
      (
            8
         )	That includes the applicable international standards such as those set out by the Universal Postal Union.
      (
            9
         )	As the Commission observes in its written submissions, the wording of Article 14 is not crystal clear (in particular as far as its wording in the various official languages is concerned) as to whether the notion of ‘equivalent’ refers only to an ‘acknowledgement of receipt’ or to the mode of transmission by ‘registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt’ as whole. However, in the context of the present case, that issue is not relevant because under both scenarios, what is sought is evidence equivalent to an acknowledgement of receipt which demonstrates that service on the addressee took place.
      (
            10
         )	Enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. See order of 28 April 2016, Alta Realitat (C‑384/14, EU:C:2016:316, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited). See also ECtHR, 31 May 2016, Gankin and Others v. Russia (CE:ECHR:2016:0531JUD000243006, paragraphs 28 and 39 and the case-law cited).
      (
            11
         )	See recitals 2 and 6 of Regulation No 1393/2007. See judgments of 16 September 2015, Alpha Bank Cyprus (C‑519/13, EU:C:2015:603, paragraphs 30 to 31), and of 19 December 2012, Alder (C‑325/11, EU:C:2012:824, paragraphs 34 to 36 and the case-law cited). See, by analogy, in the context of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1), judgment of 7 July 2016, Lebek (C‑70/15, EU:C:2016:524, paragraphs 33 to 34 and the case-law cited).
      (
            12
         )	Judgment of 8 May 2008, Weiss und Partner (C‑14/07, EU:C:2008:264, paragraph 50).
      (
            13
         )	Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
      (
            14
         )	Regulation 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).
      (
            15
         )	See, in the context of Regulation No 44/2001, ECtHR, 23 May 2016, Avotiņš v. Latvia (CE:ECHR:2016:0523JUD001750207, especially paragraphs 113 to 125).
      (
            16
         )	See, to this effect, judgment of 24 May 2016, Dworzecki (C‑108/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:346) concerning Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24).
      (
            17
         )	Regulation No 1393/2007 also takes into account the situation of the applicant as evidenced in the last sentence of Article 8(3). See, in this sense, judgment of 16 September 2015, Alpha Bank Cyprus (C‑519/13, EU:C:2015:603, paragraph 33).
      (
            18
         )	Emphasis added. In the alternative, the issuance of judgment is possible when the document was served by a method prescribed by the internal law of the Member State addressed for the service of documents in domestic actions upon persons who are within its territory (Article 19(1)(a) of Regulation No 1393/2007). Furthermore, in either of these cases it must be established that the service or the delivery was effected in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend.
      (
            19
         )	Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation No 805/2004 provides another example in this regard. That provision deals with the specific scenario of service without proof of receipt and provides for the possibility of service at the debtor’s personal address on persons who are living in the same household as the debtor or are employed there. Emphasis added.
      (
            20
         )	Judgment of 16 September 2015, Alpha Bank Cyprus (C‑519/13, EU:C:2015:603, paragraphs 45, 55, 72 and 76).
      (
            21
         )	See, to this effect, order of 28 April 2016, Alta Realitat (C‑384/14, EU:C:2016:316, paragraphs 75 to 76) and judgment of 16 September 2015, Alpha Bank Cyprus (C‑519/13, EU:C:2015:603, paragraph 54).