15.1.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/3

(Case C-545/17)

(2018/C 013/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mariusz Pawlak

Respondent: Prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego

Questions referred

1.Must the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, in conjunction with Article 8 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that rules of national procedural law, such as those laid down in Article 165(2) of the Law establishing the Code of Civil Procedure (Ustawa Kodeks postępowania cywilnego) of 17 November 1964 (consolidated text: Dziennik Ustaw of 2016, item 1822, as amended; hereinafter: ‘the KPC’), under which only the posting of a procedural document at a national post office of the designated operator, that is to say, the operator required to provide a universal postal service, is equivalent to lodgement of that document with the court, and the possibility of according such effect to the posting of a procedural document at the post office of another postal operator which provides a universal service, but is not a designated operator, is excluded, constitute a special right?

2.If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, be interpreted as meaning that the benefits — arising from the conferral of a special right on the designated operator in breach of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC — must also accrue to other postal operators, with the result that the posting of a procedural document at a national post office of an operator which provides a universal service but is not the designated operator must be regarded as equivalent to lodgement of that document with the court, on the basis of rules corresponding to those arising from the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 21 June 2007 in Jonkman and Others, C-231/06 to C-233/06, (ECLI:EU:C:2007:373)?

3.If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, be interpreted as meaning that a party to proceedings which is an emanation of a Member State can rely on the fact that a provision of national law, such as Article 165(2) of the KPC, is contrary to the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC?

(1) OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14, as amended.