EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-627/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda — Slovak Republic) — ZSE Energia a.s. v RG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 — European Small Claims Procedure — Articles 2(1) and 3(1) — Scope — Concept of ‘parties’ — Cross-border disputes)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0627

62017CA0627

November 22, 2018
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

21.1.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/12

(Case C-627/17) (*)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 - European Small Claims Procedure - Articles 2(1) and 3(1) - Scope - Concept of ‘parties’ - Cross-border disputes))

(2019/C 25/14)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZSE Energia a.s.

Defendant: RG

intervener: ZSE Energia CZ, s.r.o.

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘parties’ covers solely the applicant and the defendant in the main proceedings.

2.Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 861/2007, as amended by Regulation No 517/2013, must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, in which the applicant and the defendant have their domicile or their habitual residence in the same Member State as the court or tribunal seised, does not come within the scope of that regulation.

(*) Language of the case: Slovak.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia