ASML (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) [2006] EUECJ C-283/05 (14 December 2006)

ASML (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) [2006] EUECJ C-283/05 (14 December 2006)

The exception to the ground for non-recognition in Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 requires that the defendant in default must have been served with the judgment, not merely informed of its existence, to ensure effective exercise of rights of defence.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EUECJ C-283/05
Parties
Applicant: ASML Netherlands BV; Respondent: Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
14 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Reference for Preliminary Ruling / Opinion of Advocate General
Outcome
Interpretation of Article 34(2) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001: exception requires service of judgment on defendant.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Rights of the Defence, Default Judgments, Regulation (ec) No 44/2001, Regulation (ec) No 1348/2000
Civil Procedure Judicial Cooperation Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments Service of Process Rights of the Defence Default Judgments Regulation (ec) No 44/2001 Regulation (ec) No 1348/2000

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ASML Netherlands BV

Applicant

Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference for Preliminary Ruling / Opinion of Advocate General

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 regarding non-recognition of default judgments
  2. 2 Whether exception to non-recognition requires service of judgment or mere awareness

Ratio Decidendi

The exception to the ground for non-recognition in Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 requires that the defendant in default must have been served with the judgment, not merely informed of its existence, to ensure effective exercise of rights of defence.

Court Disposition

Interpretation of Article 34(2) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001: exception requires service of judgment on defendant.

Orders

  • Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 must be interpreted as requiring service of the judgment for the exception to apply.