do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-225/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2010 — Juan Pérez García, José Arias Neira, Fernando Barrera Castro, Dolores Verdun Espinosa, successor to José Bernal Fernández v Familienkasse Nürnberg
Date: 2010-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cumulative pension entitlement, family benefit, interpretation of the law, occupational migration, residence, survivor's benefit








C_2010221EN.01001701.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2010 — Juan Pérez García, José Arias Neira, Fernando Barrera Castro, Dolores Verdun Espinosa, successor to José Bernal Fernández v Familienkasse Nürnberg
(Case C-225/10)
()
2010/C 221/27
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Juan Pérez García, José Arias Neira, Fernando Barrera Castro, Dolores Verdun Espinosa, successor to José Bernal Fernández

Defendant: Familienkasse Nürnberg

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 77(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that family allowances need not be granted by the former State of employment to persons who receive pensions for old age, invalidity or an accident at work or occupational disease under the legislation of more than one Member State and whose pension entitlement is based on the legislation of the former State of employment (national pension entitlement) if provision is made in the State of residence for a comparable, higher benefit, which is, however, incompatible with another benefit for which the person concerned, having been given the choice, has opted?










2.


Is Article 78(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be interpreted as meaning that family allowances for orphans of a deceased employed or self-employed person who was subject to the legislation of several Member States and who enjoyed a notional entitlement to an orphan’s pension based on the legislation of the former State of employment (potential national pension entitlement) need not be granted by the former State of employment if provision is made in the State of residence for a comparable, higher benefit, which is, however, incompatible with another benefit for which the person concerned, having been given a choice, has opted?










3.


Does the same apply to a benefit under Article 77 or Article 78 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 for which provision is generally made in the children’s State of residence, but for which the person concerned, as someone who is not being given a choice, cannot opt?






(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1997 L 149, p. 2)
Council Decision of 10 May 2010 appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency
Date: 2010-05-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Chemicals Agency, appointment of members








C_2010125EN.01000601.xml










13.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 125/6





COUNCIL DECISION
of 10 May 2010
appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency
2010/C 125/04
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency (1), and in particular Article 79 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that the Council should appoint as Members of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency one representative from each Member State.










(2)


By Decision of 7 June 2007 (2) the Council appointed 27 members of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency.










(3)


The Bulgarian Government has informed the Council of its intention to replace the Bulgarian representative on the Management Board and has submitted a nomination for a new representative, who should be appointed for a period which runs until 31 May 2011,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Mr Boyko Marinov MALINOV of Bulgarian nationality, born on 30 August 1964, shall be appointed member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency in place of Ms Ekaterina Spasova GECHEVA-ZAHARIEVA for the period from 14 May 2010 to 31 May 2011.
Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
Article 3
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 10 May 2010.


For the Council


The President

Á. GONZÁLEZ-SINDE REIG




(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 134, 16.6.2007, p. 6.
Case C-226/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 11 May 2010 — Hannelore Adams v Germanwings GmbH
Date: 2010-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, consumer protection, indemnification, interpretation of the law








C_2010209EN.01001501.xml










31.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 11 May 2010 — Hannelore Adams v Germanwings GmbH
(Case C-226/10)
()
2010/C 209/23
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hannelore Adams

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Question referred

Does Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) apply to a passenger with a confirmed reservation for an outward and a return flight who does not present herself for boarding for the return flight owing to the following circumstances:






—


The operating air carrier denied the passenger, who had presented herself punctually for boarding for the outward flight, boarding against her will and announced its intention of denying her boarding on the return flight.










—


Boarding was denied because of the operating air carrier’s mistaken assumption that, because of a chargeback, it was entitled to a processing fee, which the passenger had not yet paid?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.