Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo [2013] EUECJ C-144/12 (13 June 2013)

Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo [2013] EUECJ C-144/12 (13 June 2013)

A statement of opposition to a European order for payment that does not challenge 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 Regulation No 44/2001, and the inclusion of arguments on the substance in such a statement is irrelevant for this purpose.

Citation
[2013] EUECJ C-144/12
Parties
Claimant: Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH; Defendant: Mr Sperindeo
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
13 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling / Reference From National Court to Court of Justice of the European Union
Outcome
Preliminary ruling issued; interpretation provided.
Legal Topics
European Order for Payment, Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments, Appearance and Opposition Procedures
Civil Procedure European Union Law European Order for Payment Jurisdiction Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments Appearance and Opposition Procedures

Case Brief

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH

Claimant

Mr Sperindeo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling / Reference From National Court to Court of Justice of the European Union

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a statement of opposition to a European order for payment that does not contest jurisdiction constitutes entering an appearance under Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001
  2. 2 Whether arguments on the substance in such a statement affect jurisdiction under Article 24

Ratio Decidendi

A statement of opposition to a European order for payment that does not challenge 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 Regulation No 44/2001, and the inclusion of arguments on the substance in such a statement is irrelevant for this purpose.

Court Disposition

Preliminary ruling issued; interpretation provided.

Orders

  • Article 6 of Regulation No 1896/2006, read with Article 17, means that a statement of opposition not contesting jurisdiction does not constitute entering an appearance under Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, regardless of arguments on the substance.