This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CN0324
Case C-324/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 9 July 2012 — Novontech-Zala Kft v LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH
Case C-324/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 9 July 2012 — Novontech-Zala Kft v LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH
Case C-324/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 9 July 2012 — Novontech-Zala Kft v LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH
OJ C 303, 6.10.2012, p. 13–13
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
6.10.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 303/13 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 9 July 2012 — Novontech-Zala Kft v LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH
(Case C-324/12)
2012/C 303/24
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Handelsgericht Wien
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant and defendant: Novontech-Zala Kft
Respondent and applicant: LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH
Questions referred
|
1. |
Does the failure on the part of a party’s lawyer to comply with the time limit for opposing a European order for payment constitute fault on the part of the defendant for the purposes of Article 20(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure? (1) |
|
2. |
If fault on the part of the lawyer representing the defendant is not to be regarded as fault on the part of the defendant itself, is the failure of the former to take note of the correct date of expiry of the time limit for opposing a European order for payment to be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation 1896/2006? |