- 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-494/23, Mahá: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 August 2023 — QE, IJ v DP, EB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0494
62023CN0494
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
EN
Series C
C/2023/746
(Case C-494/23, Mahá (*)
(C/2023/746)
Language of the case: Czech
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: QE, IJ
Defendants: DP, EB
Questions referred
1.Must Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (*) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters be interpreted as meaning that the proceedings concerning the substitution of the defendant’s consent to the release of an item from judicial custody, which are proceedings incidental to proceedings on judicial custody commenced with the deposit in such custody of an item seized by law enforcement authorities, fall under the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision?
2.Should the first question be answered in the affirmative, must Article 8, point 2, of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters be interpreted as meaning that an application for the substitution of consent to the release of an item from judicial custody filed by one of the parties to the judicial custody proceedings concerning that item, against another party to those judicial custody proceedings, constitutes an application [in proceedings] as provided for in the provision concerned?
(*) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
(*) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/746/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)