Key facts of the case:
The Local Court Wedding issued an European order for payment at the request of the applicant. The order was deliverd by registered letter, return receipt requested. After 4 month a declaration of enforceability was given which the defendant requested to be judicially reviewed by the Local Court. She claimded that the delivery was not effective as the payment was not delivered by a court officer which according to French law would have been necessary. She based her request on Article 20 EuMVVO which allows a review in case the delivery was effective and the 30 days time-line for objection was expired. The Local Court considered Article 20 not applicalble as the delivery was not effective and referred to the corresponding legal position of the ECJ. According to the ECJ the legal basis for protection has to be stipulated in national law. After reviewing the applicability of possible legal norms the Local Court came to the conclusion that the German law does not provide a norm being directly applicable and in order to avoid a legal protection gap it suggested the application by analogy of Section 11 (1) RPflG, 732 ZPO. While doing so the Court referred to Article 19, 103 (1) Basis Law, Article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The Court considered the preconditions for an application by analogy to be fulfilled. According to the Court this is not only the result from the decision of the ECJ of 04.09.2014, but also from the general principles to ensure access to court and legal hearing (Art. 19 (4), 103 (1) of the Basic Law, Art. 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights, Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights) that it would be unbearable if there was no legal protection for the constellations raised here.
Die Voraussetzungen für eine Analogie liegen nach dem Dafürhalten des Gerichts vor. Nicht nur aus der Entscheidung des EuGH vom 4.09.2014, sondern auch aus den allgemeinen Prinzipien zur Rechtsweggarantie und zum rechtlichen Gehör (Art. 19 Abs. 4, 103 Abs. 1 GG, Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK, Art. 47 Europäische Grundrechtecharta) folgt, dass es unerträglich wäre, wenn es für die hier aufgeworfenen, offenbar nicht einmal seltenen Konstellationen überhaupt keinen gerichtlichen Rechtsschutz gäbe.