Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2023 – Bulgarfrukt – Fruchthandels GmbH v Oranzherii Gimel II EOOD

(Case C-389/23, Bulgarfrukt)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bulgarfrukt – Fruchthandels GmbH

Defendant: Oranzherii Gimel II EOOD

Questions referred

Are Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 ¹ and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 ² to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides that a European order for payment must be annulled by the court in the context of proceedings in the event of failure to serve or to effect proper service on the defendant?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Must the aforementioned regulations be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides that enforcement of a European order for payment must be declared inadmissible in the event of failure to serve the order for payment or to effect proper service on the defendant?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Must Regulation No 1896/2006 be interpreted as meaning that a defendant who is aware that a European order for payment has been issued, but on whom that order has not yet been served or on whom service has not yet been properly effected, cannot yet effectively object to it?

____________

¹ 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 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).

¹ Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).