CELEX: C2006/331/19
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-283/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — ASML Netherlands BV v Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS) (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement — Article 34(2) — Judgment given in default of appearance — Ground for refusal — Meaning of the requirement that it must be possible for a defendant in default of appearance to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment — Failure to serve the judgment)

30.12.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 331/12
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — ASML Netherlands BV v Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS)
   (Case C-283/05) (1)
   
   (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Recognition and enforcement - Article 34(2) - Judgment given in default of appearance - Ground for refusal - Meaning of the requirement that it must be ‘possible’ for a defendant in default of appearance to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment - Failure to serve the judgment)
   (2006/C 331/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Gerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: ASML Netherlands BV
   
      Defendant: Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Recognition of a default judgment — Possibility of challenge of the decision by the defaulting defendant — No duly effected service or notification
   Operative part of the judgment
   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 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.
   
      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.