Judgement of the Court; 28 April 2005; in Case C-104/03; St. Paul Dairy Industries NV v Unibel Exser BVBA
Article 24 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and 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 a measure ordering the hearing of a witness for the purpose of enabling the applicant to decide whether to bring a case, determine whether it would be well founded and assess the relevance of evidence which might be adduced in that regard is not covered by the notion of ‘provisional, including protective, measures’.
- DIGI - GUARD
- Diversity of Enforcement Titles in cross-border Debt Collection in EU
- Train to Enforce
- Remedies concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgements according to Brussels I Recast
- LAWtrain
- Developments and trend in the regulation of the attorney's profession with the emphasis on Slovenia and Germany
- Civil vs "Common Law" – the assessment of »rules« of evidence law (testing the admissibility of electronic evidence in common law and continental law systems)
- Dimensions of Evidence in European Civil Procedure
- Simplification of Debt Collection in the EU
- Role of Faculty of Law
- Conferences and other activities
- Project results
- 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
- Article 16 no. 4
- Article 16 no. 5
- Article 17
- Article 18
- Article 19
- Article 21
- Article 22
- Article 23
- Article 24
- Judgment of the Court; 21 May 1980; Bernard Denilauler v SNC Couchet Frères; in Case 125/79
- Judgment of the Court; 31 March 1982; C.H.W. v G.J.H; in Case 25/81
- Judgment of the Court; 26 March 1992; Mario Reichert, Hans-Heinz Reichert and Ingeborg Kockler v Dresdner Bank AG; in Case C-261/90
- Judgment of the Court; 17 November 1998; Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line v Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another; in Case C-391/95
- Judgment of the Court; 27 April 1999; Hans-Hermann Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek BV; in Case C-99/96
- Judgement of the Court; 28 April 2005; in Case C-104/03; St. Paul Dairy Industries NV v Unibel Exser BVBA
- 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
- European Enforcement Order
- Medicine, Law and Society
- CRP Service