Case C-324/12

Novontech-Zala kft.

v

Logicdata Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien)

‛Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Opposition lodged out of time — Article 20 — Review in exceptional cases — No ‘extraordinary’ or ‘exceptional’ circumstances’

Summary — Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 21 March 2013

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure

   (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation No 1896/2006 — Opposition out of time — Review in exceptional cases — Conditions — Cumulative nature

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1896/2006, Art. 20(1)(b))

3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation No 1896/2006 — Opposition out of time — Review in exceptional cases — Scope — Wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant’s representative — Not included

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1896/2006, Art. 20(1)(b) and (2))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 15)

2.  As is apparent from the wording of Article 20(1)(b) of Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, in order for the defendant to have grounds to apply for the review of a European order for payment pursuant to that provision, it is necessary, in the absence of force majeure, that three cumulative conditions be satisfied, namely, first, there must be extraordinary circumstances by reason of which the defendant was prevented from challenging the claim within the period prescribed for that purpose, second, there should be no fault on the part of the defendant and, third, the defendant must act promptly. The fact that one of those conditions is not fulfilled means that the defendant cannot argue that it satisfies the conditions laid down in that provision.

   (see para. 24)

3.  The failure to observe the time-limit within which to lodge a statement of opposition to a European order for payment, by reason of the wrongful conduct of the defendant’s representative, does not justify a review of that order for payment, since such failure to observe the time-limit does not constitute extraordinary circumstances, within the meaning of Article 20(1)(b), or exceptional circumstances, within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure.

   (see para. 25, operative part)

Case C-324/12

Novontech-Zala kft.

v

Logicdata Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien)

‛Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Opposition lodged out of time — Article 20 — Review in exceptional cases — No ‘extraordinary’ or ‘exceptional’ circumstances’

Summary — Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 21 March 2013

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure

   (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation No 1896/2006 — Opposition out of time — Review in exceptional cases — Conditions — Cumulative nature

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1896/2006, Art. 20(1)(b))

3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation No 1896/2006 — Opposition out of time — Review in exceptional cases — Scope — Wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant’s representative — Not included

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1896/2006, Art. 20(1)(b) and (2))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 15)

2.  As is apparent from the wording of Article 20(1)(b) of Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, in order for the defendant to have grounds to apply for the review of a European order for payment pursuant to that provision, it is necessary, in the absence of force majeure, that three cumulative conditions be satisfied, namely, first, there must be extraordinary circumstances by reason of which the defendant was prevented from challenging the claim within the period prescribed for that purpose, second, there should be no fault on the part of the defendant and, third, the defendant must act promptly. The fact that one of those conditions is not fulfilled means that the defendant cannot argue that it satisfies the conditions laid down in that provision.

   (see para. 24)

3.  The failure to observe the time-limit within which to lodge a statement of opposition to a European order for payment, by reason of the wrongful conduct of the defendant’s representative, does not justify a review of that order for payment, since such failure to observe the time-limit does not constitute extraordinary circumstances, within the meaning of Article 20(1)(b), or exceptional circumstances, within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure.

   (see para. 25, operative part)