Judgement of the Court;13 July 2006; in Case C-539/03, Roche Nederland BV and Others v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg
Article 6(1) 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 it does not apply in European patent infringement proceedings involving a number of companies established in various Contracting States in respect of acts committed in one or more of those States even where those companies, which belong to the same group, may have acted in an identical or similar manner in accordance with a common policy elaborated by one of them.
- 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
- Judgment of the Court; 27 September 1988; Athanasios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst and Co. and others; in Case 189/87
- Judgment of the Court; 15 May 1990; Kongress Agentur Hagen GmbH v Zeehaghe BV; in Case C-365/88
- Judgment of the Court; 13 July 1995; Danværn Production A/S v Schuhfabriken Otterbeck GmbH & Co; in Case C-341/93
- Judgment of the Court; 27 October 1998; Réunion européenne SA and Others v Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the Master of the vessel Alblasgracht V002; in Case C-51/97
- Judgement of the Court; 26 May 2005; in Case C-77/04, Groupement d’intérêt économique (GIE) Réunion européenne and Others, v Zurich España, Société pyrénéenne de transit d’automobiles (Soptrans)
- Judgement of the Court;13 July 2006; in Case C-539/03, Roche Nederland BV and Others v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg
- Article 7
- Article 12
- Article 13
- Article 16 no. 1
- 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