Joined Cases C‑119/13 and C‑120/13

eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG

and

Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH

v

Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy

and

Tetyana Bonchyk

(Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Invalid service — Effects — European order for payment declared enforceable — Opposition — Review in exceptional cases — Time-limits’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 4 September 2014

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of the relevant elements of EU law — Reformulation of questions

   (Art. 267 TFEU)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation No 1896/2006 — Failure to effect valid service — Infringement of the defendant’s rights of defence — Invalidity of the procedures for review and declaration of enforceability brought as a result of such an irregularity

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1896/2006, Arts 13 to 20)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 32, 33)

2.  Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure must be interpreted as meaning that the procedures laid down in Articles 16 to 20 thereof are not applicable where it appears that a European order for payment has not been served in a manner consistent with the minimum standards laid down in Articles 13 to 15 of that regulation. Where it is only after a European order for payment has been declared enforceable that such an irregularity is exposed, the defendant must have the opportunity to raise that irregularity, which, if it is duly established, will invalidate the declaration of enforceability.

   First, if the European order for payment has not been served in a manner which complies with those minimum standards, the defendant does not receive form F, by which he may oppose such an order and which is sent to him at the same time as form E which contains the order, and therefore is not properly informed of the existence and basis of the European order for payment issued against him. In such a case, the defendant does not necessarily have all the information necessary to enable him to decide whether or not to oppose that order. Such a situation cannot be compatible with the rights of the defence.

   Second, if there is no service, the period within which to send a statement of opposition in Article 16(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 does not start to run, with the result that validity of the procedures which depend on the expiry of that period, such as the declaration of enforceability referred to in Article 18 of the regulation or the application for review in Article 20 thereof even if they have already been initiated is called into question. More specifically, as regards the review procedure, it must be recalled that that procedure is applicable, only in the exceptional cases which are exhaustively listed in Article 20 of the regulation, a failure to effect service not being one of them.

   Given that Regulation No 1896/2006 is silent as to the possible remedies available to the defendant if it only becomes apparent after a European order for payment has been declared enforceable that that order has not been served in a manner which complies with those minimum standards, those procedural issues are governed by national law in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation No 1896/2006.

   (see paras 40-49, operative part)