- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-615/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against UY (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Directive 2012/13/EU — Article 6 — Right to be informed of a charge — Criminal prosecution for driving a vehicle without a driving licence — Driving prohibition resulting from a previous penalty order of which the person concerned is unaware — Notification of that order to the person concerned by service on a legal representative only — Acquisition of the force of res judicata — Possible negligence on the part of the person concerned)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0615
62018CA0615
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 240/8
(Case C-615/18) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Directive 2012/13/EU - Article 6 - Right to be informed of a charge - Criminal prosecution for driving a vehicle without a driving licence - Driving prohibition resulting from a previous penalty order of which the person concerned is unaware - Notification of that order to the person concerned by service on a legal representative only - Acquisition of the force of res judicata - Possible negligence on the part of the person concerned)
(2020/C 240/09)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Party in the main proceedings
In the presence of:
Staatsanwaltschaft Offenburg
Operative part of the judgment
Article 6 of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as:
—not precluding the legislation of a Member State under which a two-week period for lodging an objection against a penalty order imposing a driving ban on a person begins to run from service of the order on their authorised person, provided that, as soon as that person becomes aware of it, they can benefit from the two-week period for lodging an objection to the order and where appropriate, following or in the context of the procedure for a person’s position being restored to the status quo ante without having to show that they have taken the necessary steps to inform themselves as soon as possible from their authorised person of the existence of that order, and that the effects of that order are suspended during that period,
—precluding the legislation of a Member State under which a person residing in another Member State is liable to a criminal penalty if he or she fails to comply with an order imposing a driving ban from the date on which it acquired the force of res judicata, even though that person was unaware of the existence of such an order on the date on which he or she infringed that ban.
(*) Language of the case: German.
ECLI:EU:C:2020:240
JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Gratsias
Passer
Smulders
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 March 2025.
Registrar
President of the Chamber
ECLI:EU:C:2025:140