Peter Klomps v Karl Michel. [1981] EUECJ R-166/80 (16 June 1981)

Peter Klomps v Karl Michel. [1981] EUECJ R-166/80 (16 June 1981)

Article 27(2) of the Brussels Convention requires that the document instituting proceedings, such as the order for payment, be served in sufficient time to allow the defendant to arrange for his defence; the enforcing court must independently assess whether this condition is met, regardless of findings by the court of origin, and the relevant period is that for objection to the order for payment, not subsequent enforcement orders.

Citation
[1981] EUECJ R-166/80
Parties
Applicant: Peter Klomps; Respondent: Karl Michel
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
16 June 1981
Procedural Posture
Reference for a Preliminary Ruling / Preliminary Ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Outcome
Questions answered; interpretation of Articles 27(2) and 52 of the Brussels Convention provided.
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments, Service of Process, Default Judgments, Jurisdiction, Interpretation of Brussels Convention
Civil Procedure Private International Law Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments Service of Process Default Judgments Jurisdiction Interpretation of Brussels Convention

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Klomps

Applicant

Karl Michel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference for a Preliminary Ruling / Preliminary Ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Communities

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of 'the document which instituted the proceedings' under Article 27(2) of the Brussels Convention
  2. 2 Whether service of the order for payment (Zahlungsbefehl) or enforcement order (Vollstreckungsbefehl) constitutes service of the document instituting proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the time for objection to the order for payment is the relevant period for arranging a defence

Ratio Decidendi

Article 27(2) of the Brussels Convention requires that the document instituting proceedings, such as the order for payment, be served in sufficient time to allow the defendant to arrange for his defence; the enforcing court must independently assess whether this condition is met, regardless of findings by the court of origin, and the relevant period is that for objection to the order for payment, not subsequent enforcement orders.

Court Disposition

Questions answered; interpretation of Articles 27(2) and 52 of the Brussels Convention provided.