Judgement of the Court; 18 May 2006; in Case C 343/04; Land Oberösterreich v ČEZ a.s.
Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended most recently by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that an action which, like that brought under Paragraph 364(2) of the Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Austrian Civil Code) in the main proceedings, seeks to prevent a nuisance affecting or likely to affect land belonging to the applicant, caused by ionising radiation emanating from a nuclear power station situated on the territory of a neighbouring State to that in which the land is situated, does not fall within the scope of that provision.
- Reforma dokaznega prava v digitalni dobi
- Raznolikost izvršilnih naslovov pri čezmejni izterjavi dolgov v EU
- Train to Enforce
- Pravna sredstva v zvezi z izvrševanjem tujih sodnih odločb po Bruselj Ia (prenovitev)
- LAWTrain
- Razvoj in trendi v pravni ureditvi odvetništva v Sloveniji in Nemčiji
- Kontinentalno pravo proti "Common law" - presoja "pravil" dokaznega prava (testiranje dopustnosti elektronskih dokazov v anglosaškem in kontinentalnem pravnem sistemu)
- Razsežnosti dokazovanja v evropskem civilnem postopku
- Poenostavljena izterjava denarnih obveznosti v EU
- Vloga Pravne fakultete
- Konference in ostale aktivnosti
- Rezultati projekta
- Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000
- Brussels Regulation
- Brussels Convention
- Protocol on the interpretation of the Brussels Convention
- Brussels Convention
- Article 1
- Article 2
- Article 3
- Article 5 no. 1
- Article 5 no. 2
- Article 5 no. 3
- Article 5 no. 5
- Article 6
- Article 7
- Article 12
- Article 13
- Article 16 no. 1
- Judgment of the Court; 14 December 1977; Theodorus Engelbertus Sanders v Ronald van der Putte; Netherlands; in Case 73-77
- Judgment of the Court; 15 January 1985; Erich Rösler v Horst Rottwinkel; Germany; in Case 241/83
- Judgment of the Court; 6 July 1988; R. O. E. Scherrens v M. G. Maenhout and others; Netherlands, in Case 158/87
- Judgment of the Court; 10 January 1990; Mario P. A. Reichert and others v Dresdner Bank; France; in Case C-115/88
- Judgment of the Court; 26 February 1992; Elisabeth Hacker v Euro-Relais GmbH; Germany; in Case C-280/90
- Judgment of the Court; 17 May 1994; George Lawrence Webb v Lawrence Desmond Webb; United Kingdom; in Case C-294/92
- Judgment of the Court; 9 June 1994; Norbert Lieber v Willi S. Göbel and Siegrid Göbel; Germany; in Case C-292/93
- Judgement of the Court; 27 January 2000; in Case C-8/98; Dansommer A/S and Andreas Götz
- Order of the Court; 5 April 2001; in Case C-518/99; Richard Gaillard and Alaya Chekili
- Judgement of the Court; 13 October 2005; in Case C-73/04; Brigitte and Marcus Klein v Rhodos Management Ltd
- Judgement of the Court; 18 May 2006; in Case C 343/04; Land Oberösterreich v ČEZ a.s.
- Article 16 no. 4
- Article 16 no. 5
- Article 17
- Article 18
- Article 19
- Article 21
- Article 22
- Article 23
- Article 24
- Article 25
- Article 26
- Article 27 no. 1
- Article 27 no. 2
- Article 27 no. 3
- Article 30
- Article 31
- Article 33
- Article 36
- Article 37
- Article 38
- Article 39
- Article 40
- Article 46
- Article 47
- Article 50
- Article 52
- Article 54
- Article 55
- Article 56
- Article 57
- Brussels Regulation
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
- Council regulation (EC) No 1348/2000
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
- Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
- Evropski izvršilni naslov
- Medicina, pravo in družba
- CRP Vročanje