In its decision of 15 October 2015, the District Court rejected the request, briefly stated, because the cumulative conditions as set out in Art. 6(1)(d) of the EEO Regulation have not been met. With Delfin, the court understands the decision in such a way that [the respondent] is regarded by the court as "consumer" as referred to in Art. 6(1)(d) second and third indent EEO Regulation. Delfin has disputed that the defendant must be regarded as a consumer in the context of the guarantee agreement at issue. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, in view of the above-mentioned judgments of the ECJ, and in particular in view of the circumstance that the present guarantee agreement has been concluded for business or professional use that the respondent is not a consumer within the meaning of Art. 6(1)(d) of the EEO Regulation can be regarded as such the EEO Regulation should not apply and to the extent that in principle the contested decision qualifies for annulment. The Court of Appeal will now consider whether the (other) conditions for authentication as contained in Art. 6(1) of the EEO Regulation have been met. With regard to the notification or notification of the summons, Art. 12 (1) EEO Regulation is not met with regard to the applicable formal requirements, which as such precludes the certification as a European Enforcement Order.