, ▁and ▁once ▁by ▁post . ▁Pl um ex ▁appe aled ▁a ▁judgment ▁obtained ▁by ▁the ▁pla int iffs ▁to ▁the ▁Hof ▁van ▁B ero ep ▁claim ing ▁that ▁proced ural ▁time ▁limits ▁should ▁only ▁run ▁from ▁the ▁date ▁of ▁service ▁under ▁Articles ▁ 4 ▁to ▁ 1 1 , ▁and ▁not ▁the ▁date ▁of ▁service ▁by ▁post ▁which ▁had ▁occurred ▁earlier . ▁ ▁The ▁Hof ▁van ▁B ero ep ▁then ▁dismiss ed ▁Pl um ex ' s ▁appeal , ▁and ▁the ▁company ▁subsequently ▁appe aled ▁the ▁decision ▁in ▁the ▁Hof ▁van ▁Cass atie . ▁The ▁higher ▁Court ▁referred ▁the ▁decision ▁as ▁a ▁matter ▁of ▁community ▁law ▁to ▁the ▁EC J . ▁ ▁The ▁EC J ' s ▁judgment ▁was ▁essentially ▁that ▁no ▁hierarchy ▁of ▁methods ▁of ▁service ▁existed ▁between ▁the ▁different ▁methods ▁of ▁service ▁allowed ▁under ▁the ▁reg ulation , ▁and ▁that ▁the ▁time ▁limit ▁must ▁log ically ▁run ▁from ▁the ▁first ▁date ▁of ▁service ▁regardless ▁of ▁which ▁method ▁has ▁been ▁employed . ▁ ▁Notes ▁ ▁External ▁links ▁Reg ulation ▁( EC ) ▁No ▁ 1 3 9 3 / 2 0 0 7 ▁( current ) ▁Council ▁reg ulation ▁( EC ) ▁No ▁ 1 3 4 8 / 2 0 0 0 ▁of ▁ 2 9 ▁May ▁ 2 0 0 0 ▁Not ▁in ▁force , ▁replaced ▁by ▁reg ulation ▁ 1 3 9 3 / 2 0 0 7 / EC : ▁EU - Den mark ▁agreement ▁Service ▁Reg ulation ▁at ▁the ▁Jud icial ▁Atlas ▁Jud gment ▁of ▁the