C-289/17 - Collect Inkasso and Others, preliminary ruling Tartu Maakohus - Estonia - Main contents
| Zaak | C-289/17 |
|---|---|
| Vorming van de rechtbank |
|
| Aanvrager | Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS Defendants: Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov Questions referred 1.1. Must Article 17(a) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that all the information listed in Article 17(a) of the Regulation must be clearly stated in or together with the document instituting the proceedings, the equivalent document or any summons to a court hearing? Specifically, is certification of a judgment as a European Enforcement Order under Articles 3(1)(b), 6(1)(c) and 17(a) of the regulation excluded if the debtor has not been notified of the address of the institution to which to respond but he has been notified of all the other information listed in Article 17(a)? 1.2. Must Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that, if the proceedings in the Member State of origin do not meet the procedural requirements as set out in Articles 17 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, for such non-compliance to be cured all the information listed in Article 18(1)(b) must have been notified to the debtor in due time in or together with the judgment? Specifically, is the issue of a European Enforcement Order excluded if the debtor has not been notified of the address of the institution with which a challenge must be lodged but he has been notified of all the other information listed in Article 18(1)(b)? ____________1 OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15. |
| Verweerder | Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov Questions referred 1.1. Must Article 17(a) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that all the information listed in Article 17(a) of the Regulation must be clearly stated in or together with the document instituting the proceedings, the equivalent document or any summons to a court hearing? Specifically, is certification of a judgment as a European Enforcement Order under Articles 3(1)(b), 6(1)(c) and 17(a) of the regulation excluded if the debtor has not been notified of the address of the institution to which to respond but he has been notified of all the other information listed in Article 17(a)? 1.2. Must Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that, if the proceedings in the Member State of origin do not meet the procedural requirements as set out in Articles 17 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, for such non-compliance to be cured all the information listed in Article 18(1)(b) must have been notified to the debtor in due time in or together with the judgment? Specifically, is the issue of a European Enforcement Order excluded if the debtor has not been notified of the address of the institution with which a challenge must be lodged but he has been notified of all the other information listed in Article 18(1)(b)? ____________1 OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15. |
| Datum indiening verzoekschrift | 19-05-2017 |
| Datum van levering | 28-02-2018 |
This case-file is compiled each night drawing from aforementioned source(s) through automated processes. We have invested a great deal in optimising the programming underlying these processes. However, we cannot guarantee the source(s) we draw our information from nor the resulting case-file is without fault.