do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-404/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — proceedings brought by Marie Matoušková, acting as court commissioner (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 1(1)(b) — Substantive scope — Inheritance settlement agreement between the surviving spouse and minor children represented by a guardian ad litem — Classification — Requirement for approval of such an agreement by the court — Measure relating to parental responsibility or measure relating to succession)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: enforcement of ruling, guardianship, inheritance, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, law of succession, matrimonial law, mutual recognition principle, parental responsibility, young person








C_2015389EN.01001001.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/10





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — proceedings brought by Marie Matoušková, acting as court commissioner
(Case C-404/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 1(1)(b) - Substantive scope - Inheritance settlement agreement between the surviving spouse and minor children represented by a guardian ad litem - Classification - Requirement for approval of such an agreement by the court - Measure relating to parental responsibility or measure relating to succession))
(2015/C 389/11)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Marie Matoušková, acting as court commissioner

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the approval of an agreement for the sharing-out of an estate concluded by a guardian ad litem on behalf of minor children constitutes a measure relating to the exercise of parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) of that regulation and thus falls within the scope of the latter, and not a measure relating to succession, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(f) thereof, excluded from the scope thereof.


(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
Case C-650/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux — France) — Thierry Delvigne v Commune de Lesparre-Médoc, Préfet de la Gironde (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 39 and 49 — European Parliament — Elections — Right to vote — Citizenship of the European Union — Retroactive effect of the more lenient criminal law — National legislation providing for the deprivation of the right to vote in the case of a criminal conviction by a final judgment delivered before 1 March 1994)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, European citizenship, European election, penalty, right to vote








C_2015389EN.01000301.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux — France) — Thierry Delvigne v Commune de Lesparre-Médoc, Préfet de la Gironde
(Case C-650/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 39 and 49 - European Parliament - Elections - Right to vote - Citizenship of the European Union - Retroactive effect of the more lenient criminal law - National legislation providing for the deprivation of the right to vote in the case of a criminal conviction by a final judgment delivered before 1 March 1994))
(2015/C 389/03)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Thierry Delvigne

Defendants: Commune de Lesparre-Médoc, Préfet de la Gironde

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39(2) and the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes, by operation of law, from those entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament persons who, like the applicant in the main proceedings, were convicted of a serious crime and whose conviction became final before 1 March 1994.


(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
Case C-71/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) — United Kingdom) — East Sussex County Council v Information Commissioner (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2003/4/EC — Articles 5 and 6 — Public access to environmental information — Charge for supplying environmental information — Reasonable amount — Costs of maintaining a database and overheads — Access to justice — Administrative and judicial review of a decision imposing a charge)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, database, environmental protection, judicial review, overheads, payment, right to information








C_2015389EN.01000602.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/6





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) — United Kingdom) — East Sussex County Council v Information Commissioner
(Case C-71/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/4/EC - Articles 5 and 6 - Public access to environmental information - Charge for supplying environmental information - Reasonable amount - Costs of maintaining a database and overheads - Access to justice - Administrative and judicial review of a decision imposing a charge))
(2015/C 389/07)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: East Sussex County Council

Defendant: Information Commissioner

Other parties: Property Search Group, Local Government Association

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the charge for supplying a particular type of environmental information may not include any part of the cost of maintaining a database, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, used for that purpose by the public authority, but may include the overheads attributable to the time spent by the staff of the public authority on answering individual requests for information, properly taken into account in fixing the charge, provided that the total amount of the charge does not exceed a reasonable amount.










2.


Article 6 of Directive 2003/4 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the reasonableness of a charge for supplying a particular type of environmental information is the subject only of limited administrative and judicial review as provided for in English law, provided that the review is carried out on the basis of objective elements and, in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, relates to the question whether the public authority making the charge has complied with the conditions in Article 5(2) of that directive, which is for the referring tribunal to ascertain.






(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
Case T-61/14: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Balaguer (icexpresso + energy coffee) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community trade mark icexpresso + energy coffee — Earlier Community word marks X-PRESSO MONSTER, HAMMER M X-PRESSO MONSTER ESPRESSO + ENERGY and MIDNIGHT M X-PRESSO MONSTER ESPRESSO + ENERGY — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015398EN.01004201.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/42





Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Balaguer (icexpresso + energy coffee)
(Case T-61/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark icexpresso + energy coffee - Earlier Community word marks X-PRESSO MONSTER, HAMMER M X-PRESSO MONSTER ESPRESSO + ENERGY and MIDNIGHT M X-PRESSO MONSTER ESPRESSO + ENERGY - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 398/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Luis Yus Balaguer (Movera, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2013 (Case R 821/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Mr Luis Yus Balaguer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Monster Energy Company to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).






(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
Case C-489/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Family Division — United Kingdom) — A v B (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Lis pendens — Articles 16 and 19(1) and (3) — Judicial separation proceedings in a first Member State and divorce proceedings in a second Member State — Jurisdiction of the court first seised — Concept of ‘established’ jurisdiction — Lapse of the first proceedings and commencement of fresh divorce proceedings in the first Member State — Consequences — Time difference between the Member States — Effects on the procedure for seising the courts)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: divorce, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial separation, jurisdiction, matrimonial law, mutual recognition principle, parental responsibility








C_2015389EN.01001101.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/11





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Family Division — United Kingdom) — A v B
(Case C-489/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Lis pendens - Articles 16 and 19(1) and (3) - Judicial separation proceedings in a first Member State and divorce proceedings in a second Member State - Jurisdiction of the court first seised - Concept of ‘established’ jurisdiction - Lapse of the first proceedings and commencement of fresh divorce proceedings in the first Member State - Consequences - Time difference between the Member States - Effects on the procedure for seising the courts))
(2015/C 389/12)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Family Division

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A

Defendant: B

Operative part of the judgment

In the case of judicial separation and divorce proceedings brought between the same parties before the courts of two Member States, Article 19(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which the proceedings before the court first seised in the first Member State expired after the second court in the second Member State was seised, the criteria for lis pendens are no longer fulfilled and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the court first seised must be regarded as not being established.


(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
European Parliament resolution of 6 October 2015 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 11 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (disasters in Bulgaria and Greece in 2015) (COM(2015)0370 — C8-0198/2015 — 2015/2151(BUD))
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Committee on Budgets, Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: Bulgaria, Greece, aid to disaster victims, bad weather, commitment of expenditure, financial aid, flood, fund (EU), general budget (EU), payment appropriation








C_2017349EN.01008801.xml










17.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/88





P8_TA(2015)0330
Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund: disasters in Bulgaria and Greece in 2015
European Parliament resolution of 6 October 2015 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 11 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (disasters in Bulgaria and Greece in 2015) (COM(2015)0370 — C8-0198/2015 — 2015/2151(BUD))
(2017/C 349/19)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2015)0370 — C8-0198/2015),










—


having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (1),










—


having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,










—


having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (3), and in particular point 11 thereof,










—


having regard to the letter from the Committee on Regional Development,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0253/2015),












1.


Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;












2.


Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;












3.


Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.






(1)  OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

(2)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.

(3)  OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.



ANNEX


DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL


on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund


(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2015/1872.)
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 October 2015 on the draft Council decision authorising Member States to ratify, in the interests of the European Union, the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, of the International Labour Organisation as regards Articles 1 to 4 of the Protocol with regard to matters relating to judicial cooperation in criminal matters (06731/2015 — C8-0078/2015 — 2014/0258(NLE))
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, European social policy, International Labour Organisation, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, slavery








C_2017349EN.01008301.xml










17.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/83





P8_TA(2015)0325
ILO Forced Labour Convention: judicial cooperation in criminal matters ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 October 2015 on the draft Council decision authorising Member States to ratify, in the interests of the European Union, the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, of the International Labour Organisation as regards Articles 1 to 4 of the Protocol with regard to matters relating to judicial cooperation in criminal matters (06731/2015 — C8-0078/2015 — 2014/0258(NLE))
(Consent)
(2017/C 349/14)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (06731/2015),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 82(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0078/2015),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0226/2015),












1.


Gives its consent to the draft Council decision;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7761 — Permira/OTPP/GFKL Group/Lowell Group) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2015329EN.01000102.xml










6.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7761 — Permira/OTPP/GFKL Group/Lowell Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 329/02)
On 30 September 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7761. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-517/14 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications — Registration of the designation ‘Edam Holland’ — Producers using the name ‘Edam’ — Absence of a legal interest in bringing proceedings)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, consumer information, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, semi-soft cheese








C_2016038EN.01001402.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/14





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie
(Case C-517/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications - Registration of the designation ‘Edam Holland’ - Producers using the name ‘Edam’ - Absence of a legal interest in bringing proceedings))
(2016/C 038/19)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. (represented by: M. Loschelder and V. Schoene, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, J. Guillem Carrau and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie (represented by: P. van Ginneken and G. Béquet, advocaten)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. shall pay the costs.










3.


The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie shall bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 26 of 26.1.2015.