On 1 August 2011, the appellant wrote to the sub-district court judge to certify the judgment in absentia as a European Enforcement Order (EEO), in connection with the move of the respondent to Belgium. In the contested decision, the sub-district court judge rejected the request. Pursuant to Article 6 (1), opening lines and under (d) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a European enforcement order for uncontested claims (EEO Regulation) in this case, a European Enforcement Order certification is conditional on the decision on the uncontested claim being given in the Member State where the debtor is domiciled. For the answer to the question whether the judgment was given in the Member State of the debtor's domicile is decisive whether the debtor was domiciled in the Member State where the court is located at the time when it was summoned before the court that issued the earlier decision. The point is that the debtor was able to defend himself against the claim in the Member State where he was domiciled at the time the claim was brought. The documents show that the respondent was domiciled in the Netherlands at the time she was summoned before the sub-district court that issued the judgment in absentia of 17 June 2008. The default judgment was also served on her in person there on 25 June 2008. The subsequent relocation of the respondent to a foreign country does not stand in the way of the recognition of that judgment as EEO.