do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-14/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, San Javier — Spain) — Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Preliminary references — Jurisdiction of the Court — Definition of dispute — Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 — Service of extrajudicial documents in the absence of legal proceedings — Notarial act)
Date: 2009-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial proceedings








C_2009205EN.01000701.xml










29.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/7





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, San Javier — Spain) — Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL
(Case C-14/08) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Preliminary references - Jurisdiction of the Court - Definition of ‘dispute’ - Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 - Service of extrajudicial documents in the absence of legal proceedings - Notarial act)
2009/C 205/10
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, San Javier

Parties to the main proceedings

Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, San Javier — Interpretation of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37) — Service of extrajudicial documents exclusively by and to private persons using the physical and personal resources of courts of the European Union outside of any court proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

The service of a notarial act, in the absence of legal proceedings, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2002 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters.


(1)  OJ C 92, 12.04.2008.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5410 — FORFARMERS/CEFETRA) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural machinery, animal nutrition, economic concentration, exchange of information, fertiliser, livestock farming, merger control, motor fuel, pesticide, private stock








C_2009145EN.01000801.xml










25.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/8





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5410 — FORFARMERS/CEFETRA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 145/05
On 14 May 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in Dutch language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5410. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case F-61/09: Action brought on 25 June 2009 — Strack v Commission
Date: 2009-06-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), disclosure of information, health care, medical data








C_2009193EN.01003601.xml










15.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/36





Action brought on 25 June 2009 — Strack v Commission
(Case F-61/09)
2009/C 193/60
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tetterborn, Lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s decision to refuse the applicant access to various files

Form of order sought







—


Annul the implied and express decisions by the defendant, in particular those regarding the access granted to various files on 12 September 2008, 3 October 2008 and 14 November 2008, the decision of Mr Jansen of 19 September 2008 and, in so far as necessary, the decision of 25 March 2009 on the rejection of complaint No R/554/08 made by the applicant, in so far as they refuse or restrict full access by the applicant to all available data and documents concerning him held by the defendant, and to complete personal, medical and other files maintained in accordance with correct procedures and uniform standards and in a language and form which are readily understandable and accessible for him — which therefore comply with Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations and have been completed as necessary to that end — and which thereby reject, at least in part, the applicant’s requests of, inter alia, 10 July 2008, 19 September 2008 and 28 November 2008;










—


Order the defendant to pay to the applicant an appropriate sum in damages on account of the unlawful conduct described in this action, at a level to be fixed at the discretion of the court but which should amount to at least EUR 2 500;










—


Order the defendant to pay each month to the applicant a sum in damages from the time of service of this action until complete access is actually provided to all the data and documents which are the subject of this action and to his properly maintained personal and medical file, the sum to be paid each month to be fixed at the discretion of the court but which should amount to at least EUR 200;










—


Order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the necessary costs and expenses incurred when inspecting the files on further occasions as required, on the same basis as the defendant’s right to mission expenses, in the alternative to reimburse on the same basis those costs already incurred by the applicant as a result of his travel to Luxembourg on 12 September 2008 and 14 November 2008;










—


Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.