PIL instrument(s)
European Enforcement Order (EEO)
Case number and/or case name
200.183.910/01
ECLI
ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2016:969
Link to original version
Details of the court
Netherlands, Second Instance
Articles referred to by the court
European Enforcement Order (EEO)
Article 13
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph c
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph d
Paragraph 2
Article 14
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph c
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph d
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph e
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph f
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph a Indent i
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph a Indent ii
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph a Indent iii
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph b
Article 2
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph c
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph d
Paragraph 3
Article 6
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph c
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph d
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Article 3
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph c
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph d
Paragraph 2
Article 10
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 4
Article 18
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph c
Paragraph 2
Date of the judgement
16 March 2016
Appeal history
None

C/03/210888/KG RK 15/884 Limburg District Court (location Maastricht)
CJEU's case law cited by the court
Summary
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.

This website was written by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team
It is now maintained at the University of Antwerp by the ICT Department - Research Application's Data Management Team