CELEX: 62017CN0289
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-289/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus (Estonia) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS v Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov

31.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 249/20
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus (Estonia) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS v Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov
   (Case C-289/17)
   (2017/C 249/31)
   Language of the case: Estonian
   
      Referring court
   
   Tartu Maakohus
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS
   
      Defendants: Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.1.
            
            
               Must Article 17(a) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that all the information listed in Article 17(a) of the Regulation must be clearly stated in or together with the document instituting the proceedings, the equivalent document or any summons to a court hearing? Specifically, is certification of a judgment as a European Enforcement Order under Articles 3(1)(b), 6(1)(c) and 17(a) of the regulation excluded if the debtor has not been notified of the address of the institution to which to respond but he has been notified of all the other information listed in Article 17(a)?
            
         
               1.2.
            
            
               Must Article 18(1)(b) 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 be interpreted as meaning that, if the proceedings in the Member State of origin do not meet the procedural requirements as set out in Articles 17 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, for such non-compliance to be cured all the information listed in Article 18(1)(b) must have been notified to the debtor in due time in or together with the judgment? Specifically, is the issue of a European Enforcement Order excluded if the debtor has not been notified of the address of the institution with which a challenge must be lodged but he has been notified of all the other information listed in Article 18(1)(b)?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15.