English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Schuldnerschutz bei fehlender Zustellung eines EU-Mahnbescheids: Regelungslücken der EuMahnVO : (AG Wedding, 22.10.2014 - 70b C 17/14, unten S. 420, Nr. 40)

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons136976

Hess,  Burkhard
Department I, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons136941

Raffelsieper,  Katharina
Department I, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Hess, B., & Raffelsieper, K. (2015). Schuldnerschutz bei fehlender Zustellung eines EU-Mahnbescheids: Regelungslücken der EuMahnVO: (AG Wedding, 22.10.2014 - 70b C 17/14, unten S. 420, Nr. 40). Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 5, 401-403.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0029-4D13-7
Abstract
Regulation 1896/2006 does not provide for effective debtor protection in cases when a European Order for Payment was not properly served on the debtor. As a result of the unilateral nature of the procedure for issuing the order, the order will be declared enforceable if the defendant does not challenge it within a period of 30 days. However, the service of the payment order shall safeguard the right to a defense. When the defendant has never been informed about the ongoing procedure, he should be able to easily contest the Order for Payment even after it has been declared enforceable. Yet, the text of the Regulation does not provide for a remedy in this situation. In a reference for a preliminary ruling, the Local Court Berlin-Wedding asked the European Court of Justice which remedy should apply. The referring court suggested an application by analogy of the review proceedings provided for in Article 20 of Regulation 1896/2006 in order to ensure an effective right to a defense. Regrettably, the CJEU did not endorse this solution. It declared national procedural law applicable in accordance with Article 26 of the Regulation. As a consequence, parties are sent to the fragmented remedies of national procedural laws. As the efficiency and uniform application of Regulation 1896/2006 is no longer guaranteed, the European lawmaker is called to remedy the insufficient situation. This article addresses the final decision of the Local Court which implemented the CJEU’s judgment.