2025-01-22 - LD Munich - air up group v. Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology - UPC_CFI_508/2023

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: Munich LD Panel 1 held that the rules on service in the RoP must be interpreted in accordance with the principle of effective legal protection (Art. 6, 13 ECHR; ECJ C-222/84), so that good service under R. 275.2 RoP must always be possible. After six months' silence by the competent Chinese authority — despite postal delivery and direct email follow-ups — the Panel treated the Chinese authority's conduct as a serious and definitive refusal of service, incompatible with the Hague Service Convention. Because R. 274 service had failed for the application for provisional measures and there was no indication the decision by default could be served under R. 274 either, the Court held that a fresh R. 274 attempt on the default decision was not required before resorting to R. 275.2 RoP. R. 275.1 alternative-means service remained obligatory, but all factual and legal alternatives were exhausted: China had objected under Art. 10(a) Hague Service Convention (following UPC_CoA_69/2024), no other address was known, and informal email had gone unanswered. The Panel therefore declared that publication on the UPC website with parties' names and file number, plus email notification to andy-long@joy-fit.cn (previously used in pre-litigation correspondence), constitutes good service under R. 275.2 RoP. Published headnotes crystallise both propositions.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Case File

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_508/2023