Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011CN0215

Case C-215/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 9 May 2011 — Iwona Szyrocka v SIGER Technologie GmbH

OJ C 219, 23.7.2011, p. 7–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.7.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/7


Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 9 May 2011 — Iwona Szyrocka v SIGER Technologie GmbH

(Case C-215/11)

2011/C 219/08

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Iwona Szyrocka

Defendant: SIGER Technologie GmbH

Question referred

1.

Is Article 7 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 (1) to be interpreted as:

(a)

governing exhaustively all the requirements which must be met by an application for a European order for payment, or

(b)

determining only the minimum requirements for such an application and requiring that the provisions of national law be applied to the formal requirements for an application in the case of matters not governed by that provision?

2.

If Question 1(b) is answered in the affirmative, where the application does not meet the formal requirements laid down in the law of the Member State (for example, the copy of the application intended for the opposing party has not been attached or the value of the subject-matter of the dispute is not specified), must a request for the claimant to complete the application be made pursuant to provisions of national law, in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation No 1896/2006, or pursuant to Article 9 thereof?

3.

Is Article 4 of Regulation No 1896/2006 to be interpreted as meaning that the features of a pecuniary claim that are referred to in that provision, that is to say the fact that it is of a specific amount and has fallen due at the time when the application for a European order for payment is submitted, relate only to the principal claim or also to the claim for default interest?

4.

On a correct interpretation of Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 1896/2006, where the law of a Member State does not provide for the automatic addition of interest is it possible, in a European order for payment procedure, to demand in addition to the principal:

(a)

all interest, including that known as ‘open interest’ (calculated from the day on which it falls due expressed as a specific date to a day of payment not specified by date, for example, ‘from 20 March 2011 to the day of payment’);

(b)

only interest calculated from the day on which it falls due expressed as a specific date to the day on which the application is submitted or the order for payment is issued;

(c)

only interest calculated from the day on which it falls due expressed as a specific date to the day on which the application is submitted?

5.

If Question 4(a) is answered in the affirmative, how must the court’s decision on interest be formulated in the order for payment form, in accordance with Regulation No 1896/2006?

6.

If Question 4(b) is answered in the affirmative, who must indicate the amount of interest: the party concerned or the court of its own motion?

7.

If Question 4(c) is answered in the affirmative, does the party concerned have an obligation to indicate the amount of calculated interest in the application?

8.

If the claimant does not calculate the interest claimed up until the day on which the application is submitted, must the court calculate that amount of its own motion, or must it then request the party concerned to complete the application pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation No 1896/2006?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.


Top