27.10.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/3

(Case C-619/10) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Enforcement - Grounds for challenge - Document instituting proceedings not served on the defendant - Review by the court in which enforcement is sought - Scope - Value of the information in the certificate - Infringement of public policy - Judgment lacking reasoning)

(2012/C 331/05)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trade Agency Ltd

Defendant: Seramico Investments Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstâkâs tiesas Senâts — Interpretation of Article 34(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Grounds for refusing recognition — Right to an effective remedy — Defendant claiming to have received neither service of the application initiating proceedings nor the default judgment — Power of the enforcing court to determine whether the application initiating proceedings had been served on the defendant in default when service is accompanied by a certificate as provided for by Article 54 of the regulation — Decision of the court of the Member State of origin given in default of appearance without consideration of the merits of the application

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, to which Article 45(1) thereof refers, read in conjunction with recitals 16 and 17 in the preamble, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the defendant brings an action against the declaration of enforceability of a judgment given in default of appearance in the Member State of origin which is accompanied by the certificate provided for by Article 54 of that regulation, claiming that he has not been served with the document instituting the proceedings, the court of the Member State in which enforcement is sought hearing the action has jurisdiction to verify that the information in that certificate is consistent with the evidence.

2.Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, to which Article 45(1) thereof refers, must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in which enforcement is sought may refuse to enforce a judgment given in default of appearance which disposes of the substance of the dispute but which does not contain an assessment of the subject-matter or the basis of the action and which lacks any argument of its merits, only if it appears to the court, after an overall assessment of the proceedings and in the light of all the relevant circumstances, that that judgment is a manifest and disproportionate breach of the defendant’s right to a fair trial referred to in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on account of the impossibility of bringing an appropriate and effective appeal against it.

Language of the case: Latvian

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011