- 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-555/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — K.H.K. v B.A.C., E.E.K. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 — European Account Preservation Order — Article 5(a) — Obtention procedure — Article 4(8) to (10) — Definition of ‘judgment’, ‘court settlement’ and ‘authentic instrument’ — National order for payment against which an objection may be lodged — Article 18(1) — Time limits — Article 45 — Exceptional circumstances — Definition)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0555
62018CA0555
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
13.1.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 10/17
(Case C-555/18) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 - European Account Preservation Order - Article 5(a) - Obtention procedure - Article 4(8) to (10) - Definition of ‘judgment’, ‘court settlement’ and ‘authentic instrument’ - National order for payment against which an objection may be lodged - Article 18(1) - Time limits - Article 45 - Exceptional circumstances - Definition)
(2020/C 10/20)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: K.H.K.
Debtors: B.A.C., E.E.K.
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 4(10) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an order for payment, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is not enforceable, does not constitute an ‘authentic instrument’ within the meaning of that provision.
2.Article 5(a) of Regulation No 655/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that ongoing proceedings for an order for payment, such as those in the main proceedings, may be regarded as proceedings ‘on the substance of the matter’ within the meaning of that provision.
3.Article 45 of Regulation No 655/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that judicial vacations are not covered by the concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.
(*) Language of the case: Bulgarian.