June 2026 at the CJEU – Update
In case C-14/25, Thüringer Aufbaubank, a request for a preliminary ruling lodged on 15 January 2025, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) is asking the 
Court to interpret several provisions of Regulation 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims:
Is Article 21(2) in conjunction with Article 25 of Regulation No 805/2004 […] to be interpreted as meaning that certification of an enforceable authentic instrument (in this case, an enforceable notarial instrument drawn up by a German notary) as a European Enforcement Order, issued by the competent authority in the Member State of origin using the standard form in Annex III to that regulation, may not be reviewed in the Member State of enforcement even where – having regard to the date on which the authentic instrument was drawn up – the temporal scope of that regulation has manifestly not been respected?
I reported here on the main dispute. Advocate General M. Szpunar published his opinion in last February 12. He proposed that the Court of Justice should answer as follows:
Article 21(2) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 […] read in conjunction with Article 25 thereof must be interpreted as meaning that certification of an enforceable authentic instrument as an EEO, issued by the competent authority in the Member State of origin using the standard form in Annex III to that regulation, may not be reviewed in the Member State of enforcement where, having regard to the date on which the authentic instrument was drawn up, the temporal scope of that regulation has manifestly not been respected.
The decision by judges N. Piçarra, N. Fenger and O. Spineanu-Matei (reporting) is due on Thursday, June 25th.
The same problem arises in cases of the European Cetrificate of Succession. I have seen two ECSes issued by German courts and one issued by a Dutch notary in cases, when the deceased passed away prior to the application date of the succession regulation. A very similar question arises there: on one hand the ECS should not be reviewed (that is at least my view – far form the actual practice), on the other hand – the ECS itself shows that the succession regulation is not applicable in the case.
Thanks, Martin. A similar request before the Court, this time regarding the material scope of application of Brussels I bis, is Case C-512/25, Staatsanwaltschaft am Rechnungshof Venedig: Are Articles 45, 46 and 53 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 1 to be interpreted as meaning that, in cases concerning the enforcement of a judgment given in a different Member State, the body responsible for enforcement in the Member State addressed must assume, without performing an independent examination, that the judgment falls within the material scope stipulated in Article 1 of that regulation, simply by virtue of the certificate issued by the court of origin pursuant to Article 53 of that regulation?