# C_2012184EN.01000301.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

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

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Massimo Sperindeo

Defendant:

Questions referred

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? |
| --- | --- |

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?

1

2

| 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? |
| --- | --- |

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? |
| --- | --- |

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.

1

(2)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

2

---