|
8.6.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 164/9 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy
(Case C-119/13)
2013/C 164/14
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Amtsgericht Wedding
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG
Defendant: Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy
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. |
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: If the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him, must the defendant respect certain time-limits in bringing his application for review? In that connection, must recourse be had in particular to the scheme established in Article 20(3) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
|
3. |
Also if Question 1 is answered 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? |