Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62013CN0121

Case C-121/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft v Xceed Holding Ltd.

SL C 164, 8.6.2013, p. 10–10 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
14/03/2013
Date lodged:
14/03/2013
Author:
Sud
Form:
Pravosudna informacija
Authentic language:
njemački
Type of procedure:
Prethodno pitanje
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
Link

8.6.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft v Xceed Holding Ltd.

(Case C-121/13)

2013/C 164/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft

Defendant: Xceed Holding Ltd.

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 the answer to Question 1 is 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?

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

Top