- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-223/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria — Spain) — Tecom Mican SL, José Arias Domínguez (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ — Private documents — Cross-border implications — Functioning of the internal market)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0223
62014CA0223
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
18.1.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 16/9
(Case C-223/14) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ - Private documents - Cross-border implications - Functioning of the internal market))
(2016/C 016/10)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Tecom Mican SL, José Arias Domínguez
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ referred to in that article encompasses not only documents drawn up or certified by a public authority or official but also private documents of which the formal transmission to an addressee residing abroad is necessary for the purposes of exercising, proving or safeguarding a right or a claim in civil or commercial law.
2.Regulation No 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that service of an extrajudicial document, pursuant to the detailed rules laid down by that regulation, can be effected even where the applicant has already effected an earlier service of that document through a means of transmission not provided for in the regulation, or through another of the means of transmission put in place by it.
3.Article 16 of Regulation No 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the conditions of that article are satisfied, it is not necessary to ascertain, on a case-by-case basis, whether the service of an extrajudicial document has cross-border implications and is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.
(1) OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.