This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CN0120
Case C-120/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk
Case C-120/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk
Case C-120/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk
OJ C 164, 8.6.2013, p. 9–9
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
8.6.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 164/9 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk
(Case C-120/13)
2013/C 164/15
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Amtsgericht Wedding
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H.
Defendant: Tetyana Bonchyk
Questions referred
|
1. |
Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
|
2. |
Furthermore, if the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |