Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd / Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH / LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. / LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL. / Soltech Energy GbR / Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V. / Energy3000 solar GmbH – Court of First Instance – Munich Local Division, 14 April 2025, Case no. UPC_ CFI_119/2025
Introduction
This decision from the Munich Local Division concerns service of a statement of claim via registered post, where the defendant did not collect the letter from the post office.
Soltech Energy GbR (“Soltech”), the fourth defendant in proceedings brough by the claimants, “Jinko Solar”, in February this year, was served the statement of claim by Deutsche Post. The document was returned to the Court in March 2025, and the following status message appeared at Deutsch Post (translated into English):
“The recipient has been notified. The item is ready for collection at the local Deutsche Post office“.
Soltech did not collect it. After two weeks, the document was returned to the Court, and the phrase “nicht abgeholt” (translated into English as “unclaimed“) was written on the postage. The bottom of the item was open and the post office had sealed it in a transparent envelope.
Jinko Solar requested that the court recognise the attempted service on Defendant 4 was valid and completed in accordance with the UPC Rules of Procedure, or alternatively, authorise substituted service pursuant to Rule 275 RoP by an alternative method as proposed by Jinko Solar, with the aim of securing procedural efficiency and fairness.
Decision
Dr. Matthias Zigann issued a decision, acting as judge-rapporteur.
The judge referred to Rule 271.6(b) RoP, which states a statement of claim is deemed to be served on the defendant “where service takes place by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or equivalent such letter shall be deemed to be served on the addressee on the tenth day following posting unless it has failed to reach the addressee, has in fact reached him on a later date or the acknowledgement of receipt or equivalent has not been returned. Such service shall, except where paragraph 8 applies, be deemed effective even if acceptance of the letter has been refused.”
In this situation, the judge noted Soltech was informed of the delivery, the statement of claim was made available for collection at Deutsche Post, Soltech did not collect it within the following 2 weeks, nor did they enquire about it later at Deutsch Post. Acceptance of the letter was therefore refused.
The judge also noted no notification refusing service pursuant to Rule 271.8 RoP was filed by Soltech, which may have applied if the statement of claim was not written in or accompanied by a translation into a language the defendant understands, or the language where the service was to be effected.
Therefore the statement of claim was deemed to have been served via registered letter on Soltech on the 10th day after posting.
Final remarks
This decision demonstrates that there is no ability for defendants to delay service of proceedings by failing to acknowledge and collect registered mail waiting for them at the post office. If they try to do this, service will be deemed to have taken place 10 days after posting by registered mail.
If a defendant considers they are entitled to refuse service based on the language used in the statement of claim, an alternative method to delaying service may be to notify such refusal to the Registry within 2 weeks of attempted service.
The full order can be read here.
