CELEX: 62013CA0119
Language: en
Date: 2014-09-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-119/13 and C-120/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding — Germany) — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy (C-119/13), Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH v Tetyana Bonchyk (C-120/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Invalid service — Effects — European order for payment declared enforceable — Opposition — Review in exceptional cases — Time-limits)

10.11.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 395/10
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding — Germany) — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy (C-119/13), Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH v Tetyana Bonchyk (C-120/13)
      (Case C-119/13 and C-120/13) (1)
      
      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Invalid service - Effects - European order for payment declared enforceable - Opposition - Review in exceptional cases - Time-limits))
      (2014/C 395/12)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Referring court
      
      Amtsgericht Wedding
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicants: eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG (C-119/13), Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH (C-120/13)
      
         Defendants: Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy (C-119/13), Tetyana Bonchyk (C-120/13)
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure must be interpreted as meaning that the procedures laid down in Articles 16 to 20 thereof are not applicable where it appears that a European order for payment has not been served in a manner consistent with the minimum standards laid down in Articles 13 to 15 of that regulation.
      Where it is only after a European order for payment has been declared enforceable that such an irregularity is exposed, the defendant must have the opportunity to raise that irregularity, which, if it is duly established, will invalidate the declaration of enforceability.
      
         (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.