Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2013:136
Date: 2013-03-06
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 13 June 2013 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure –Regulation No 1896/2006 — Adversarial procedure — None (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1896/2006, Arts 1(1)(a) and 12(3)) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation No 1896/2006 — Opposition to the European order for payment not containing any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin — Effects — Entering of an appearance of the defendant within the meaning of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 — None — Opposition containing arguments relating to the substance — No effect (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1896/2006, Arts 6 and 17; Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 24) 1. The objective of Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure is, inter alia, to simplify, speed up and reduce the costs of litigation in cross-border cases concerning uncontested pecuniary claims. The simplified and uniform procedure established by that regulation is not adversarial. The defendant is not aware that the European order for payment has been issued until it is served on him. It is only then that he has the option either to pay the amount indicated in that order to the claimant or to oppose the order in the court of origin. (see paras 28, 29) 2. Article 6 of Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, read in conjunction with Article 17 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a statement of opposition to a European order for payment that does not contain any challenge to 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 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and the fact that the defendant has, in the statement of opposition lodged, put forward arguments relating to the substance of the case is irrelevant in that regard. Where a defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin in his statement of opposition to the European order for payment, that opposition cannot produce, in regard to that defendant, effects other than those that flow from Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006. Those effects consist in the termination of the European order for payment procedure and in leading — unless the claimant has explicitly requested that the proceedings be terminated in that event — to the automatic transfer of the case to ordinary civil proceedings. Moreover, such a statement of opposition coupled with those arguments cannot be regarded, for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction under Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, as the first defence put forward in the ordinary civil proceedings that follow the European order for payment procedure. To consider such a statement of opposition as being equivalent to the first defence would be tantamount to acknowledging that the European order for payment procedure and the subsequent ordinary civil proceedings, in principle, constitute the same procedure. However, such an interpretation would be difficult to reconcile with the fact that the first of those procedures follows the rules laid down by Regulation No 1896/2006, whereas the second continues in accordance with the rules of ordinary civil procedure, as is evident from Article 17(1) of that regulation. Such an interpretation would also fail on account of the fact that those civil proceedings will not necessarily be conducted in the same court as that in which the European order for payment procedure is pursued. Lastly, such an interpretation would run counter to the objective of the statement of opposition to the European order for payment. There is no provision in Regulation No 1896/2006 — nor, in particular, in Article 16(3) thereof — that requires the defendant to specify the reasons for his opposition; therefore that opposition is intended not to serve as a framework for a defence on the merits but to enable the defendant to contest the claim. (see paras 31, 38-40, 43, operative part)