Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 June 2026.#Thüringer Aufbaubank v LN.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 – European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims – Article 25 – Authentic instruments – Certification as a European Enforcement Order – Enforcement proceedings – Article 21(2) – Review as to its substance prohibited in the Member State of enforcement of the certification – Notarial instrument formally drawn up before the entry into force of that regulation – Temporal scope of that regulation disregarded by the competent authorities of the Member State of origin.#Case C-14/25.

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)

25 June 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 – European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims – Article 25 – Authentic instruments – Certification as a European Enforcement Order – Enforcement proceedings – Article 21(2) – Review as to its substance prohibited in the Member State of enforcement of the certification – Notarial instrument formally drawn up before the entry into force of that regulation – Temporal scope of that regulation disregarded by the competent authorities of the Member State of origin )

In Case C‑14/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria), made by decision of 28 February 2024, received at the Court on 15 January 2025, in the proceedings

Thüringer Aufbaubank

v

LN,

THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of O. Spineanu-Matei (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Piçarra and N. Fenger, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Szpunar,

Registrar: E. Sartori, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 12 November 2025,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        Thüringer Aufbaubank, by A.F. Gorton, Rechtsanwalt,

–        the German Government, by J. Möller, M. Hellmann and A. Sahner, acting as Agents,

–        the European Commission, by S. Noë, N. Schaeffer and F. Wilman, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 February 2026,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 21(2) and Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15).

2        The request has been made in proceedings between Thüringer Aufbaubank, a company which has its registered office in Erfurt (Germany), and LN, concerning the enforcement, in Austria, of an authentic instrument certified as a European Enforcement Order in Germany.

 Legal context

 European Union law

3        Recital 7 of Regulation No 805/2004 is worded as follows:

‘This Regulation should apply to judgments, court settlements and authentic instruments on uncontested claims and to decisions delivered following challenges to judgments, court settlements and authentic instruments certified as European Enforcement Orders.’

4        In the wording of Article 1 of that regulation, entitled ‘Subject matter’:

‘The purpose of this Regulation is to create a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims to permit, by laying down minimum standards, the free circulation of judgments, court settlements and authentic instruments throughout all Member States without any intermediate proceedings needing to be brought in the Member State of enforcement prior to recognition and enforcement.’

5        Article 3 of that regulation, entitled ‘Enforcement titles to be certified as a European Enforcement Order’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘This Regulation shall apply to judgments, court settlements and authentic instruments on uncontested claims.

A claim shall be regarded as uncontested if:

…

(d)      the debtor has expressly agreed to it in an authentic instrument.’

6        In accordance with Article 4 of that regulation, entitled ‘Definitions’:

‘For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

…

2.      “claim”: a claim for payment of a specific sum of money that has fallen due or for which the due date is indicated in the judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument;

…’

7        Under Article 5 of Regulation No 805/2004, entitled ‘Abolition of exequatur’:

‘A judgment which has been certified as a European Enforcement Order in the Member State of origin shall be recognised and enforced in the other Member States without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition.’

8        Article 10 of that regulation, entitled ‘Rectification or withdrawal of the European Enforcement Order certificate’, is worded as follows:

‘1.      The European Enforcement Order certificate shall, upon application to the court of origin, be

(a)      rectified where, due to a material error, there is a discrepancy between the judgment and the certificate;

(b)      withdrawn where it was clearly wrongly granted, having regard to the requirements laid down in this Regulation.

2.      The law of the Member State of origin shall apply to the rectification or withdrawal of the European Enforcement Order certificate.

…’

9        Article 21 of that regulation, entitled ‘Refusal of enforcement’, provides:

‘1.      Enforcement shall, upon application by the debtor, be refused by the competent court in the Member State of enforcement if the judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in any Member State or in a third country, provided that:

(a)      the earlier judgment involved the same cause of action and was between the same parties; and

(b)      the earlier judgment was given in the Member State of enforcement or fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State of enforcement; and

(c)      the irreconcilability was not and could not have been raised as an objection in the court proceedings in the Member State of origin.

2.      Under no circumstances may the judgment or its certification as a European Enforcement Order be reviewed as to their substance in the Member State of enforcement.’

10      Article 23 of that regulation, entitled ‘Stay or limitation of enforcement’, states:

‘Where the debtor has

–        challenged a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order, including an application for review within the meaning of Article 19, or

–        applied for the rectification or withdrawal of a European Enforcement Order certificate in accordance with Article 10,

the competent court or authority in the Member State of enforcement may, upon application by the debtor:

(a)      limit the enforcement proceedings to protective measures; or

(b)      make enforcement conditional on the provision of such security as it shall determine; or

(c)      under exceptional circumstances, stay the enforcement proceedings.’

11      In accordance with Article 25 of Regulation No 805/2004, entitled ‘Authentic instruments’:

‘1.      An authentic instrument concerning a claim within the meaning of Article 4(2) which is enforceable in one Member State shall, upon application to the authority designated by the Member State of origin, be certified as a European Enforcement Order, using the standard form in Annex III.

2.      An authentic instrument which has been certified as a European Enforcement Order in the Member State of origin shall be enforced in the other Member States without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its enforceability.

3.      The provisions of Chapter II, with the exception of Articles 5, 6(1) and 9(1), and of Chapter IV, with the exception of Articles 21(1) and 22, shall apply as appropriate.’

12      Article 26 of that regulation, entitled ‘Transitional provision’, provides:

‘This Regulation shall apply only to judgments given, to court settlements approved or concluded and to documents formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments after the entry into force of this Regulation.’

13      Under Article 33 of that regulation, entitled ‘Entry into force’:

‘This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 January 2005.

It shall apply from 21 October 2005, with the exception of Articles 30, 31 and 32, which shall apply from 21 January 2005.’

 Austrian law

14      Paragraph 54b of the Exekutionsordnung (Enforcement Procedures Code) provides that enforcement is to be authorised by simplified procedure where the applicant relies on an Austrian enforcement title, a foreign enforcement order equivalent to the latter, in particular pursuant to an act of EU law, or a foreign enforcement title having been subject to exequatur proceedings.

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

15      On 14 February 2022, Thüringer Aufbaubank applied to the Bezirksgericht Judenburg (District Court, Judenburg, Austria) for enforcement measures in respect of assets belonging to LN on the basis of a claim of EUR 25 000, together with interest, and in reliance on a notarial instrument formally drawn up in Germany on 28 May 1999, which became enforceable on 1 June 1999 and concerned the creation of a charge over immoveable property in the total amount of 6 488 600 German marks (DEM) (approximately EUR 3 317 568).

16      In support of its application, Thüringer Aufbaubank produced that notarial instrument and a European Enforcement Order certificate issued on 19 January 2021 by the competent German authorities using the standard form in Annex III to Regulation No 805/2004.

17      On 24 March 2022, LN lodged an objection against the judgment authorising the requested enforcement.

18      By judgment of the same date, the Bezirksgericht Judenburg (District Court, Judenburg) dismissed the objection by holding that the simplified procedure for enforcement provided for in Paragraph 54b of the Enforcement Procedures Code was applicable.

19      Hearing an appeal against that judgment brought by LN, the Landesgericht Leoben (Regional Court, Leoben, Austria) varied that decision and ordered a stay of the enforcement and the annulment of the measures already taken.

20      That court took the view that the notarial instrument formally drawn up in Germany in 1999 did not fall within the temporal scope of Regulation No 805/2004 as the latter applied only to authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered after its entry into force, that is, 21 January 2005. Accordingly, the recognition and enforcement of that notarial instrument in Austria was not governed by that regulation but by the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36) and is subject to exequatur proceedings.

21      According to that court, the issuing of a European Enforcement Order certificate by the German authorities could not prevent the review, in the Member State of enforcement, of that certification where the temporal scope of Regulation No 805/2004 had been manifestly disregarded.

22      Thüringer Aufbaubank brought an appeal on a point of law (Revision) before the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria), which is the referring court.

23      In order to rule on that appeal, that court asks, in essence, whether the competent courts or authorities of the Member State of enforcement may examine how the temporal application of Regulation No 805/2004 was established by the competent courts or authorities of the Member State of origin when issuing a European Enforcement Order.

24      In that regard, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) states that it follows from the scheme of that regulation that the certification as a European Enforcement Order must be reviewed exclusively in the Member State of origin, without creating a lack of legal protection for the debtor, with any errors in the issuing of such a certificate capable of being challenged by the latter in that Member State.

25      However, the referring court sets out a line of national doctrine criticising the impossibility of reviewing the European Enforcement Order certificate in the Member State of enforcement and according to which it should be permissible to find, in that Member State, that the material or temporal scope of that regulation was manifestly disregarded. Article 21(2) of that regulation may not, therefore, be interpreted as prohibiting such a review.

26      According to that court, the notarial instrument at issue in the main proceedings, formally drawn up on 28 May 1999 by a German notary, does not fall within the temporal scope of Regulation No 805/2004 which, as follows from Article 26 thereof, covers authentic instruments issued after the entry into force of that regulation, that is, 21 January 2005. That court observes that the decisive criterion for establishing whether an authentic instrument falls within the temporal scope of that regulation is the date on which it was drafted or on which it was registered, and not the date on which the European Enforcement Order certificate was issued.

27      In those circumstances the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Is Article 21(2) [of Regulation No 805/2004] in conjunction with Article 25 [thereof] 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?’

 Consideration of the question referred

28      By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 21(2) of Regulation No 805/2004, read in conjunction with Article 25 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a review as to its substance, in the Member State of enforcement, of the certification as a European Enforcement Order of an authentic enforceable instrument by the competent authority of the Member State of origin, even though that instrument was not formally drawn up or registered after the date of the entry into force of that regulation, in disregard of Article 26 thereof.

29      It should be pointed out, first of all, that Regulation No 805/2004 intends, as follows from Article 1 thereof, to ensure, by creating a European Enforcement Order, the free circulation of judgments, court settlements and authentic instruments in respect of uncontested claims.

30      Next, it should be clarified that, under Article 26 of Regulation No 805/2004, the latter is applicable only to authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered after the entry into force of that regulation, that is, 21 January 2005. However, as follows from the second paragraph of Article 33 of that regulation, with the exception of certain provisions which are not relevant for the present case, the date of application of that regulation was set as 21 October 2005.

31      As a result, with the exception of those provisions, it is from that latter date that the courts and authorities of the Member States are required to apply Regulation No 805/2004, including the division of jurisdiction which the regulation establishes between the courts and authorities of the Member State of origin and those of the Member State of enforcement. A certification as a European Enforcement Order could therefore be carried out only from 21 October 2005 for authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered after 21 January 2005, with the criterion which makes it possible to determine whether an authentic instrument falls within the temporal scope of that regulation not being the date of issuing the European Enforcement Order certificate but the date of drawing up or registering the instrument.

32      It should further be pointed out that it follows from a combined reading of Article 3(1) and Article 4(2) of that regulation that a claim – defined as a claim for payment of a specific sum of money that has fallen due or for which the due date is indicated in an authentic instrument – is considered uncontested if the debtor has expressly agreed to it in that instrument.

33      An authentic instrument in respect of such a claim which is enforceable in a Member State is, in accordance with Article 25(1) of that regulation, to be certified as a European Enforcement Order, upon application to the authority designated by the Member State of origin, using the standard form in Annex III to Regulation No 805/2004.

34      In accordance with Article 25(3) of that regulation, Chapter IV thereof, which is dedicated to enforcement, is applicable mutatis mutandis to the enforcement of authentic instruments, with the exception of Article 21(1) concerning refusal of enforcement in the event of irreconcilability with an earlier judgment given, and Article 22 on agreements with third countries.

35      It follows that Article 21(2) of Regulation No 805/2004, whose interpretation is sought by the referring court, is applicable to the enforcement of an authentic instrument regarding an uncontested claim and certified as a European Enforcement Order.

36      Last, it should be pointed out that, as observed by the Advocate General in point 56 of his Opinion and the European Commission at the hearing before the Court, Article 26 of Regulation No 805/2004 sets out a requirement for the certification of an authentic instrument as a European Enforcement Order since that provision makes that certification subject to the requirement that that instrument be formally drawn up or registered after 21 January 2005. Reviewing whether that requirement has been met for a given instrument requires a legal classification by the competent court or authority in the Member State of origin.

37      In the light of those preliminary observations, for the purposes of interpreting Article 21(2) of Regulation No 805/2004, read in conjunction with Article 25 of that regulation, it is necessary, in accordance with settled case-law, to take into account not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the act of which it forms part (see judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck, 292/82, EU:C:1983:335, paragraph 12, and of 27 November 2025, Manuel Costa Filhos, C‑643/24, EU:C:2025:923, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

38      In the first place, as concerns the literal interpretation of those provisions, it should be pointed out that the wording of Article 21(2) of Regulation No 805/2004 varies between language versions.

39      Therefore, in accordance with the French-language version of Article 21(2), ‘en aucun cas’ (in no circumstances) may the authentic instrument or its certification as a European Enforcement Order be subject to a ‘réexamen au fond’ (review as to substance) in the Member State of enforcement.

40      The expression ‘en aucun cas’, which relates to the absolute nature of the prohibition, is used in several other language versions, in particular in the Bulgarian- (‘pri nikakvi obstoyatelstva’), Spanish- (‘en ningún caso’), Danish- (‘under ingen omstændigheder’), Greek- (‘se kamía períptosi’), English- (‘under no circumstances’), Croatian- (‘ni pod kojim uvjetima’), Italian- (‘in nessun caso’), Portuguese- (‘em caso algum’) or Romanian-language (‘în niciun caz’) version.

41      However, in other language versions such an expression is not used, namely in German (‘Weder die Entscheidung noch ihre Bestätigung als Europäischer Vollstreckungstitel dürfen im Vollstreckungsmitgliedstaat in der Sache selbst nachgeprüft werden.’) (‘Neither the judgment nor its certification as a European Enforcement Order may be reviewed as to its substance in the Member State of enforcement.’) and Swedish (‘Domen eller intyget om europeisk exekutionstitel får aldrig omprövas i sak i verkställighetsmedlemsstaten.’) (‘The judgment or the European Enforcement Order certificate may never be reviewed as to its substance in the Member State of enforcement.’). Those language versions differ in wording, referring either to the same idea of a complete prohibition of any review as to the substance by using the adverb ‘never’, as in the Swedish-language version, or to a prohibition expressed in a less categorical manner by using the negative conjunction ‘neither’ and the verb ‘may’ as a negation, as in the German-language version.

42      In that regard, it should be noted that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. The need for uniform interpretation and application of each provision of EU law precludes one linguistic version of the text being considered in isolation, and requires that the measure be interpreted by reference to the general scheme and purpose of the rules of which it forms part (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 November 1969, Stauder, 29/69, EU:C:1969:57, paragraphs 2 and 3, and of 29 January 2026, Meliá Hotels International, C‑286/24, EU:C:2026:49, paragraph 31).

43      As concerns the expression ‘réexamen au fond’ (review as to their substance), it is apparent from the Court’s case-law that prohibiting such a review implies the impossibility of reviewing the accuracy of the findings of law or fact having been made by the competent courts or authorities of the Member State of origin (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2024, Real Madrid Club de Fútbol, C‑633/22, EU:C:2024:843, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).

44      In the second place, as regards the context of Article 21(2) of Regulation No 805/2004, read in conjunction with Article 25 thereof, it should be borne in mind that the scheme of that regulation is based on a clear division of jurisdiction between the competent courts and authorities of the Member State of origin and those of the Member State of enforcement, which stems from the fact that the claim and the European Enforcement Order establishing it are based on the law of the Member State of origin, while the enforcement proceedings are governed by the law of the Member State of enforcement (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 February 2023, Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey, C‑393/21, EU:C:2023:104, paragraph 38).

45      As regards the enforcement measures in respect of an authentic instrument certified as a European Enforcement Order, Article 25(2) of Regulation No 805/2004 provides that such an instrument is to be enforced in the Member States without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its enforceability.

46      As is apparent from the reference in Article 25(3) of that regulation to Chapter IV thereof, which concerns enforcement, the competent courts or authorities of the Member State of enforcement, with whom an application for enforcement of an authentic instrument certified as a European Enforcement Order was lodged, are only entitled to limit or stay enforcement, under Article 23 of that regulation, in particular where the debtor has applied for the rectification or withdrawal of a European Enforcement Order certificate in the Member State of origin pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation No 805/2004, which is applicable to authentic instruments.

47      In particular, it follows from Article 10(1)(b) of that regulation that the European Enforcement Order certificate may be withdrawn if, in the light of the requirements provided for in that regulation, it was clearly wrongly granted by the competent court or authority of the Member State of origin.

48      That possibility of applying for the rectification or withdrawal of the European Enforcement Order certificate in the Member State of origin ensures thus that the abolition of checks in the Member State of enforcement, provided for by Regulation No 805/2004, cannot take effect without ensuring that guarantees of respect for the rights of the defence are implemented (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 November 2025, Manuel Costa Filhos, C‑643/24, EU:C:2025:923, paragraph 50).

49      In that regard, it should be pointed out that, as has been stated in paragraphs 30 and 31 of the present judgment, the certification as a European Enforcement Order of an authentic instrument formally drawn up or registered before the date of the entry into force of Regulation No 805/2004 disregards the temporal scope of that regulation, which is one of the requirements for the application of that regulation. Such a certificate was therefore wrongly granted within the meaning of Article 10(1)(b) of that regulation.

50      However, in view of the division of jurisdiction between the competent courts or authorities of the Member State of enforcement and those of the Member State of origin, on which Regulation No 805/2004 is based, as has been reiterated in paragraph 44 of the present judgment, it falls exclusively upon the latter to review the accuracy of the findings of law or fact having served as the basis for the certification of an authentic instrument as a European Enforcement Order and, if necessary, to withdraw a certificate wrongly granted.

51      It follows from the foregoing that a court of the Member State of enforcement may not review as to its substance the certification as a European Enforcement Order of an authentic instrument, even though that instrument was not formally drawn up or registered after the date of the entry into force of Regulation No 805/2004, in disregard of Article 26 thereof.

52      As has been stated in paragraph 46 of the present judgment, that court is nevertheless entitled to decide a stay or limitation of enforcement, where the requirements set out in Article 23 of that regulation are met and in the light of the concrete circumstances of the case in question.

53      In particular, under Article 23(c) of that regulation, where the debtor has applied, in the Member State of origin, for the withdrawal of the European Enforcement Order certificate on the ground that it was granted in disregard of Article 26 of Regulation No 805/2004, that court may, upon application by that debtor and under exceptional circumstances which the latter must prove, stay the enforcement proceedings.

54      In the third place, the interpretation of Article 21(2) of Regulation No 805/2004, read in conjunction with Article 25 of that regulation, which follows from the wording and context of that former provision, meets the objective pursued by that regulation. That objective consists, with due regard for the mutual trust in the administration of justice in the Member States on which the division of jurisdiction between, on the one hand, the courts and authorities of the Member State of origin and, on the other, those of the Member State of enforcement is based, seeks to ensure the free circulation, inter alia, of authentic instruments concerning uncontested claims, and to accelerate and simplify their enforcement, by abolishing the procedure for making those instruments enforceable, while ensuring the respect for the rights of the defence (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 November 2025, Manuel Costa Filhos, C‑643/24, EU:C:2025:923, paragraph 53).

55      In that regard, as has been observed, in essence, by the Advocate General in point 72 of his Opinion, to accept that compliance with Article 26 of Regulation No 805/2004 by the competent authorities of the Member State of origin when certifying an authentic instrument as a European Enforcement Order may be reviewed in the Member State of enforcement would go against that objective and would lead to a review of that certification as to its substance being allowed in that latter Member State, notwithstanding the express prohibition provided for in that regulation.

56      In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the authentic instrument at issue in the main proceedings was formally drawn up by a German notary on 28 May 1999. That instrument became enforceable in Germany on 1 June 1999, that is, before the entry into force of Regulation No 805/2004. On 19 January 2021, that instrument was certified as a European Enforcement Order on the basis of that regulation. As follows from paragraph 49 of the present judgment, such a certification was in disregard of the temporal scope of that regulation and the European Enforcement Order certificate may, therefore, be considered to have been wrongly granted.

57      In order to obtain a judicial finding of that disregard, the party opposing the enforcement has, in accordance with respect for the rights of the defence, the possibility of lodging an application for the withdrawal of that certificate with the competent authorities of the Member State of origin, in accordance with Article 10(1)(b) of Regulation No 805/2004, and, as the case may be, for a stay of enforcement with the court of the Member State of enforcement under Article 23(c) of that regulation, where the requirements set out in that latter provision are met.

58      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 21(2) of Regulation No 805/2004, read in conjunction with Article 25 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a review as to its substance, in the Member State of enforcement, of the certification as a European Enforcement Order in respect of an authentic enforceable instrument by the competent authority of the Member State of origin, even though that instrument was not formally drawn up or registered after the date of the entry into force of that regulation, in disregard of Article 26 thereof.

 Costs

59      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 21(2) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, read in conjunction with Article 25 thereof,

must be interpreted as precluding a review as to its substance, in the Member State of enforcement, of the certification as a European Enforcement Order in respect of an authentic enforceable instrument by the competent authority of the Member State of origin, even though that instrument was not formally drawn up or registered after the date of the entry into force of that regulation, in disregard of Article 26 thereof.

[Signatures]

---

*      Language of the case: German.