This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007CA0014
Case C-14/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Annexes to the document not translated — Consequences)
Case C-14/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Annexes to the document not translated — Consequences)
Case C-14/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Annexes to the document not translated — Consequences)
OJ C 158, 21.6.2008, p. 5–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
21.6.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 158/5 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin
(Case C-14/07) (1)
(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Annexes to the document not translated - Consequences)
(2008/C 158/07)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR
Defendant: Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin
Joined party: Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 8(1) of 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) — Refusal to accept an application served in another Member State and drawn up in the language of that Member State addressed on the ground that the annexes to the application are available only in the language of the Member State of transmission, the language designated by the parties as the language of correspondence in a contract concluded between them
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 8(1) of 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that the addressee of a document instituting the proceedings which is to be served does not have the right to refuse to accept that document, provided that it enables the addressee to assert his rights in legal proceedings in the Member State of transmission, where annexes are attached to that document consisting of documentary evidence which is not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands, but which has a purely evidential function and is not necessary for understanding the subject matter of the claim and the cause of action. It is for the national court to determine whether the content of the document instituting the proceedings is sufficient to enable the defendant to assert his rights or whether it is necessary for the party instituting the proceedings to remedy the fact that a necessary annex has not been translated. |
|
2. |
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the addressee of a document served has agreed in a contract concluded with the applicant in the course of his business that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission does not give rise to a presumption of knowledge of that language, but is evidence which the court may take into account in determining whether that addressee understands the language of the Member State of transmission. |
|
3. |
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 is to be interpreted as meaning that the addressee of a document served may not in any event rely on that provision in order to refuse acceptance of annexes to the document which are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands where the addressee concluded a contract in the course of his business in which he agreed that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes concern that correspondence and are written in the agreed language. |