Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62012CN0144

    Case C-144/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 23 March 2012 — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo

    OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 3–3 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    23.6.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 184/3

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 23 March 2012 — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo

    (Case C-144/12)

    2012/C 184/04

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Oberster Gerichtshof

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH

    Defendant: Massimo Sperindeo

    Questions referred

    1.

    Is Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (Regulation No 1896/2006) to be interpreted as meaning that Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (2) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Regulation No 44/2001), which confers jurisdiction on a court before which a defendant enters an appearance, must also be applied in the European order for payment procedure?

    2.

    If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

    Is Article 17 of Regulation No 1896/2006 in conjunction with Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that the lodging of a statement of opposition to a European order for payment itself constitutes the entry of an appearance, provided that that statement does not contest the jurisdiction of the court of origin?

    3.

    If question 2 is answered in the negative:

    Is Article 17 of Regulation No 1896/2006 in conjunction with Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that the lodging of a statement of opposition confers jurisdiction by virtue of the entry of an appearance at most where that statement itself presents arguments on the substance of the case but does not contest the jurisdiction?

    (1)  OJ L 399, p. 1.

    (2)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

    Top