EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CA0245
Case C-245/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Late statement of opposition — Article 20(2) — Application for review of the European order for payment — Objection to the jurisdiction of the court of origin — European order for payment wrongly issued having regard to the requirements laid down in the regulation — Not ‘clearly’ wrongly issued — No ‘exceptional’ circumstances)
Case C-245/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Late statement of opposition — Article 20(2) — Application for review of the European order for payment — Objection to the jurisdiction of the court of origin — European order for payment wrongly issued having regard to the requirements laid down in the regulation — Not ‘clearly’ wrongly issued — No ‘exceptional’ circumstances)
Case C-245/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Late statement of opposition — Article 20(2) — Application for review of the European order for payment — Objection to the jurisdiction of the court of origin — European order for payment wrongly issued having regard to the requirements laid down in the regulation — Not ‘clearly’ wrongly issued — No ‘exceptional’ circumstances)
OJ C 414, 14.12.2015, p. 5–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 22/10/2015
- Date lodged:
- 21/05/2014
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- German
- Type of procedure:
- Reference for a preliminary ruling
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62014CJ0245
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
14.12.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 414/5 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH
(Case C-245/14) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Late statement of opposition - Article 20(2) - Application for review of the European order for payment - Objection to the jurisdiction of the court of origin - European order for payment wrongly issued having regard to the requirements laid down in the regulation - Not ‘clearly’ wrongly issued - No ‘exceptional’ circumstances))
(2015/C 414/07)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Handelsgericht Wien
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Thomas Cook Belgium NV
Defendant: Thurner Hotel GmbH
Operative part of the judgment
Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 936/2012 of 4 October 2012, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a defendant on whom a European order for payment has been served in accordance with that regulation from being entitled to apply for a review of that order by claiming that the court of origin incorrectly held that it had jurisdiction on the basis of allegedly false information provided by the claimant in the application form.
