Traduction de «statuer au fond » (Français → Anglais) :

The Court holds that, where the court second seised is the court of the Member State in which the property is situated and thus has exclusive jurisdiction, it is not required either to stay its proceedings or to decline jurisdiction in favour of the court first seised, but must give a ruling on the substance of the action before it.

(13) In order to ensure a close link between the proceedings for the Preservation Order and the proceedings on the substance of the matter, international jurisdiction to issue the Order should lie with the courts of the Member State whose courts have jurisdiction to rule on the substance of the matter.

1. Where the creditor has not yet obtained a judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument, jurisdiction to issue a Preservation Order shall lie with the courts of the Member State which have jurisdiction to rule on the substance of the matter in accordance with the relevant rules of jurisdiction applicable.

4. Expresses its concern over the lack of sufficient public financial resources, in particular at sub-national level, to implement the Europe 2020 Strategy adequately, owing to the impact of the economic crisis, and over the fact that a significant number of less-developed Member States and regions depend to a great extent on cohesion policy funding; considers that before taking any decision related to potential macro-economic sanctions, the huge dependence of certain Member States’ development on cohesion funding should be carefully considered;

4. Apart from the cases referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall lay down that, when the responsible authorities are in possession of the information referred to in paragraph 2, they may so inform the right holder, provided the latter is known, while complying with the rules on the protection of confidential information, in order to allow the right holder to institute proceedings leading to a decision on the merits of the case or to obtain provisional or precautionary measures.

1. Takes note of the Commission’s proposals but considers that they would leave the European Parliament virtually no say on any of the decisions to be taken on the guidelines of the future Coal and Steel Research Fund despite the fact that its administrative expenditure would have to be met from the general budget; wonders how the Parliament as one arm of the budgetary authority could approve this additional expenditure and give discharge to the Fund if it does not have any influence on the implementation of its activities; stresses that the Parliament cannot accept such a passive role, which is contradictory to present-day requirement ...[+++]s of transparency and accountability; considers that the legislative acts laying down the multiannual financial and technical guidelines of the Coal and Steel Research Fund should be brought under the co-decision procedure, whereby the Parliament would decide on these guidelines on equal terms with the Council;