Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2006:787
Date: 2006-12-14
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Concepts: Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

Summary of the Judgment Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 34, para. 2) Article 34(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that it is ‘possible’ for a defendant to bring proceedings to challenge a default judgment against him only if he was in fact acquainted with its contents, because it was served on him in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence before the courts of the State in which the judgment was given. In order for the defendant to have the opportunity to mount a challenge, he should be able to acquaint himself with grounds of the default judgment in order to challenge them effectively, the mere fact that the person concerned is aware of the existence of that judgment being insufficient in that regard. However, due service of a default judgment, that is to say, compliance with all the rules applicable to those formalities, does not constitute a necessary condition in order to justify the conclusion that it was possible for the defendant to bring proceedings. In that regard, the broad logic of Regulation No 44/2001 does not require service of a default judgment to be subject to conditions more stringent than those provided for as regards service of the document instituting proceedings. It is service of the document instituting proceedings and the default judgment, as in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable the defendant to arrange for his defence which afford him the opportunity to ensure that his rights are respected before the courts of the State in which the judgment was given. As far as concerns the document instituting proceedings, Article 34(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 removes the necessary condition for due service laid down in Article 27(2) of the Brussels Convention. Therefore, a mere formal irregularity, which does not adversely affect the rights of defence, is not sufficient to prevent the application of the exception to the ground justifying non-recognition and non-enforcement. (see paras 34-35, 41, 43-47, 49, operative part)