# C_2005229EN.01000802.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in ASML Netherlands BV v SEMIS Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH

(Case C-283/05)

(2005/C 229/17)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between ASML Netherlands BV and SEMIS Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH on the following questions:

| 1. | Is the phrase ‘... unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so’ in Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Regulation’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘possibility’ of such a challenge is in any event dependent on the due service on the defendant in accordance with the applicable law on service of an office copy of an appealable default judgment delivered in a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the phrase ‘... unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so’ in Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Regulation’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘possibility’ of such a challenge is in any event dependent on the due service on the defendant in accordance with the applicable law on service of an office copy of an appealable default judgment delivered in a Member State?

when it was possible for him to do so

1

| 2. | If question 1 is answered in the negative:
  Would the service of an office copy of the order on the application for a declaration of enforceability in Austria of the default judgement of the regional court in 's-Hertogenbosch of 16 July 2004 ... and for an execution order following the foreign order for execution declared enforceable necessarily already have put the defendant and judg- ment debtor (= the defendant in the original proceedings) on notice not only of the existence of that judgment but also of the availability of a legal remedy under the legal order of the State in which the judgment was delivered, so that it would be aware as a result of the possibility of challenging the judgment which is a prior condition for the applicability of the exception to the bar to recognition under Article 34(2) of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is answered in the negative:

Would the service of an office copy of the order on the application for a declaration of enforceability in Austria of the default judgement of the regional court in 's-Hertogenbosch of 16 July 2004 ... and for an execution order following the foreign order for execution declared enforceable necessarily already have put the defendant and judg- ment debtor (= the defendant in the original proceedings) on notice not only of the existence of that judgment but also of the availability of a legal remedy under the legal order of the State in which the judgment was delivered, so that it would be aware as a result of the possibility of challenging the judgment which is a prior condition for the applicability of the exception to the bar to recognition under Article 34(2) of the Regulation?

---

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

1

---