Pebros Servizi Srl v Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.
Date: 2016-06-16
24


It should be noted, in that regard, that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, although Article 267 TFEU does not make the reference to the Court subject to there having been an inter partes hearing in the proceedings in the course of which the national court refers the questions for a preliminary ruling, a national court may refer a question to the Court only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature (judgment of 25 June 2009 in Roda Golf & Beach Resort, C‑14/08, EU:C:2009:395, paragraphs 33 and 34 and the case-law cited).
25


Such is the case for a procedure leading to the certification of a court decision as a European Enforcement Order. In that regard, the Court has already had occasion to state that that procedure requires a judicial examination of the conditions laid down by Regulation No 805/2004 in order to assess whether the minimum standards intended to safeguard the debtor’s rights of defence have been respected (judgment of 17 December 2014 in Imtech Marine Belgium, C‑300/14, EU:C:2015:825, paragraph 46 and 47).
28


In that regard, it should be noted that although the terms ‘give judgment’, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, encompass the whole procedure leading to the referring court’s judgment, they must be interpreted broadly in order to prevent many procedural questions from being regarded as inadmissible and from being unable to be the subject of interpretation by the Court and the latter from being unable to interpret all procedural provisions of EU law that the referring court is required to apply (see, to that effect, judgments of 17 February 2011 in Weryński, C‑283/09, EU:C:2011:85, paragraphs 41 and 42, and of 11 June 2015 in Fahnenbrock and Others, C‑226/13, C‑245/13, C‑247/13 and C‑578/13, EU:C:2015:383, paragraph 30).
32


In that regard, it suffices to note that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, since questions on the interpretation of EU law enjoy a presumption of relevance, the Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, inter alia, judgment of 11 June 2015 in Fahnenbrock and Others, C‑226/13, C‑245/13, C‑247/13 and C‑578/13, EU:C:2015:383, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).
36


The Court has consistently held that it follows from the need for uniform application of EU law and from the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of that law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, having regard to the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (judgment of 5 December 2013 in Vapenik, C‑508/12, EU:C:2013:790, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).
44


Furthermore, as regards the minimum procedural standards set out in Chapter III of that regulation and referred to in the previous paragraph of the present judgment, those standards, compliance with which is necessary, under Article 6(1)(c) of that regulation, so that a judgment on an uncontested claim delivered in a Member State may be certified as a European Enforcement Order, seek to ensure, in accordance with recital 12 of that regulation, that the debtor is informed, first, about the court action against him, the requirements for his active participation in the proceedings to contest the claim and, secondly, the consequences of his non-participation in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence. In the specific case of a decision delivered in default, for the purposes of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 805/2004, those minimum procedural standards seek to ensure the existence of adequate guarantees of respect for the rights of the defence.