This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CA0144
Case C-144/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Articles 6 and 17 — Opposition to the European order for payment without any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Article 24 — Entering of an appearance of the defendant before the court seised — Applicability in the context of the European order for payment procedure)
Case C-144/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Articles 6 and 17 — Opposition to the European order for payment without any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Article 24 — Entering of an appearance of the defendant before the court seised — Applicability in the context of the European order for payment procedure)
Case C-144/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Articles 6 and 17 — Opposition to the European order for payment without any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Article 24 — Entering of an appearance of the defendant before the court seised — Applicability in the context of the European order for payment procedure)
OJ C 225, 3.8.2013, p. 29–30
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
3.8.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 225/29 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo
(Case C-144/12) (1)
(Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Articles 6 and 17 - Opposition to the European order for payment without any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Article 24 - Entering of an appearance of the defendant before the court seised - Applicability in the context of the European order for payment procedure)
2013/C 225/48
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Oberster Gerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH
Defendant: Massimo Sperindeo
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1) and of Article 17 thereof, in conjunction with Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the court seised by virtue of the entering of an appearance by the defendant in the absence of any challenge to jurisdiction and of a defence on the merits — Whether applicable in the case of the European order for payment procedure — If so, whether the defendant may challenge the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State after having entered an appearance in the same case before a court of that State before which he lodged a statement of opposition to the order for payment and raised arguments on the substance of the case
Operative part of the judgment
Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, read in conjunction with Article 17 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a statement of opposition to a European order for payment that does not contain any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin cannot be regarded as constituting the entering of an appearance within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and the fact that the defendant has, in the statement of opposition lodged, put forward arguments relating to the substance of the case is irrelevant in that regard.