- 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-196/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov — Romania) — SR v EW (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 — Article 5 — Translation of the document — Translation costs borne by the applicant — Concept of ‘applicant’ — Service, by the court before which proceedings have been brought, of judicial documents on interveners in the proceedings)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CA0196
62021CA0196
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
25.7.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 284/11
(Case C-196/21) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Article 5 - Translation of the document - Translation costs borne by the applicant - Concept of ‘applicant’ - Service, by the court before which proceedings have been brought, of judicial documents on interveners in the proceedings)
(2022/C 284/10)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: SR
Defendant: EW
Interveners: FB, CX, IK
Operative part of the judgment
Article 5(2) 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, where a court orders the transmission of judicial documents to third parties that apply for leave to intervene in the proceedings, that court cannot be regarded as being the ‘applicant’ within the meaning of that provision.
Language of the case: Romanian.