EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014CN0196

Case C-196/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2014  — Horst Hoeck v Hellenic Republic

OJ C 194, 24.6.2014, p. 17–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

24.6.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/17


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2014 — Horst Hoeck v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-196/14)

2014/C 194/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Aachen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Horst Hoeck

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 1 of 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 (1) to be interpreted as precluding entirely an action brought against the Hellenic Republic as defendant and instituted before the Landgericht Aachen, by which the applicant seeks interest from the defendant for the period 2011/2012 in respect of bonds (government bonds) — issued by the defendant and purchased by the applicant in July 2011 — which were the subject-matter of the exchange offer made by the defendant at the end of February 2012 to, among others, the applicant, and which the applicant rejected, with the result that the defendant none the less exchanged the bonds/government bonds held by the applicant for new ones?

2.

Is Article 1 of 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 to be interpreted as precluding entirely an action brought against the Hellenic Republic as defendant and instituted before the Landgericht Aachen, by which the applicant, as an alternative avenue of recourse, seeks payment from the defendant amounting to the nominal value of its bonds/government bonds purchased by the applicant, including unpaid interest, by reason of the forced exchange described in Question 1?

3.

Are the main proceedings before the Landgericht Aachen [in Case] 12 O 177/13 to be assigned to civil or commercial law, with the result that Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters are applicable?

4.

Alternatively, does the case concern an administrative matter or a matter of State liability, to which the provisions cited in Questions 1, 2 and 3 are not applicable?


(1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.


Top