1.

Is Article 1(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a rule of national law such as Paragraph 371(1)(4) of the Estonian Code of Civil Procedure (under which a court may not admit an action inter alia where an order terminating proceedings which was made by an Estonian court in a dispute between the same parties concerning the same subject matter and on the same basis and which precludes further recourse to the courts in the same matter has become final) is an obstacle to the hearing of an action regarding a claim in respect of which a European order for payment has been issued and declared enforceable by a court of a Member State?

2.

If the first question is, in principle, to be answered to the effect that an obstacle exists, does the answer change where it appears that, after the European order for payment has been declared enforceable, service of the order for payment was not consistent with the minimum standards laid down in Articles 13 to 15 of Regulation No 1896/2006?

3.

If the second question is to be answered to the effect that an obstacle exists: May the court which issued and declared enforceable the European order for payment decide, of its own motion or upon application by the claimant, that the declaration of enforceability of the order for payment is invalid where it appears that, after the European order for payment has been declared enforceable, service of the order for payment was not consistent with the minimum standards laid down in Articles 13 to 15 of Regulation No 1896/2006?

4.

If the third question is to be answered in the affirmative: May the court which issued and declared enforceable the European order for payment, irrespective of the conduct, termination or outcome of the proceedings on enforcement before the court in the Member State of enforcement, decide on the invalidity of the declaration of enforceability of the order for payment?