Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo.
Date: 2013-06-13
28. Furthermore, the objective of Regulation No 1896/2006, as is apparent from Article 1(1)(a) thereof, is, inter alia, to simplify, speed up and reduce the costs of litigation in cross-border cases concerning uncontested pecuniary claims. Although that regulation neither replaces nor harmonises existing domestic mechanisms for the recovery of uncontested claims, it establishes, for the attainment of that objective, a uniform instrument for the recovery of such claims, guaranteeing a level playing field for creditors and debtors throughout the European Union (Case C‑215/11 Szyrocka [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 30).
30. The defendant’s option of lodging a statement of opposition is thus designed to compensate for the fact that the system established by Regulation No 1896/2006 does not provide for the defendant’s participation in the European order for payment procedure, by enabling him to contest the claim after the European order for payment has been issued.
31. However, 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.
37. It is admittedly apparent from Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh [1981] ECR 1671, paragraph 16, in relation to the interpretation of Article 18 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), a provision which in essence is identical to Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, that the challenge to jurisdiction may not occur after the making of the submissions which under national procedural law are considered to be the first defence addressed to the court seised.
38. However, unlike the circumstances giving rise to that judgment, in which the defendant had put forward arguments on the substance of the case in ordinary civil proceedings, the arguments on the substance of the case were put forward in the main proceedings in this instance in the context of a statement of opposition to a European order for payment. 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.
41. It follows from this that the fact that the defendant put forward arguments on the substance of the case in his statement of opposition to the European order for payment does not mean that he entered an appearance within the meaning of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001.
42. Contrary to the submissions of Goldbet and the Czech Government, that interpretation does not disregard the objective of Regulation No 1896/2006 of speeding up litigation. As is apparent from Article 1(1)(a) of the regulation, that objective is relevant only in so far as the claim remains uncontested, which is no longer the case when the defendant lodges a statement of opposition to the European order for payment.
43. It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the questions referred is that Article 6 of Regulation No 1896/2006, 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, 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.
Costs