do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-364/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest, Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2011 — Abed El Karem El Kott Mostafa and Others v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, Hivatal, ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztosság
Date: 2011-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, aid to refugees, third country








C_2011347EN.01000701.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest, Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2011 — Abed El Karem El Kott Mostafa and Others v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, Hivatal, ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztosság
(Case C-364/11)
2011/C 347/10
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Abed El Karem El Kott Mostafa, Chadi Amin A Radi, Kamel Ismail Hazem

Defendants: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztosság

Questions referred







1.


Do the benefits of the Directive (1) mean recognition as a refugee, or either of the two forms of protection covered by the Directive (recognition as a refugee and the grant of subsidiary protection), according to the choice made by the Member State, or, possibly, neither automatically but merely inclusion within the scope ratione personae of the Directive?










2.


Does cessation of the agency’s protection or assistance mean residence outside the agency’s area of operations, cessation of the agency and cessation of the possibility of receiving the agency’s protection or assistance or, possibly, an involuntary obstacle caused by legitimate or objective reasons such that the person entitled thereto is unable to avail himself of that protection or assistance?






(1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).
Case T-371/11: Action brought on 11 July 2011 — Monier Roofing Components v OHIM (CLIMA COMFORT)
Date: 2011-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011269EN.01005401.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/54





Action brought on 11 July 2011 — Monier Roofing Components v OHIM (CLIMA COMFORT)
(Case T-371/11)
2011/C 269/119
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Monier Roofing Components GmbH (Oberursel, Germany) (represented by F. Ekey, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2011 in Case R 2026/2010-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CLIMA COMFORT’ for goods in class 17 — application No 9175324.

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as (i) the Board of Appeal proceeded on the basis of erroneous physical findings, without hearing the applicant in that respect; (ii) the Board of Appeal was under a duty to establish the facts of its own motion; and (iii) the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the quality and intended purpose of the goods in question and in its findings as to the significance of the sign ‘CLIMA COMFORT’ in relation to the goods in question.
Case C-368/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) on 11 July 2011 — criminal proceedings against Raffaele Arrichiello
Date: 2011-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, freedom to provide services, game of chance, interpretation of the law, sporting event








C_2011282EN.01001101.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) on 11 July 2011 — criminal proceedings against Raffaele Arrichiello
(Case C-368/11)
2011/C 282/20
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy).

Party to the main proceedings

Raffaele Arrichiello.

Questions referred

What is the interpretation to be given to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC concerning freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the sector of bets on sporting events, for the purposes of determining whether or not the above-mentioned provisions of the treaty authorise national legislation establishing a monopoly regime in favour of the State and a system of concessions and authorisations which, in the case of a certain number of concessions, makes provision for: a) the existence of a general tendency to protect the holders of concessions granted in an earlier period, on the basis of a procedure which unlawfully excluded some operators; b) the presence of provisions de facto guaranteeing the maintenance of commercial positions acquired on the basis of a procedure which unlawfully excluded some operators (such as, for example, a prohibition on new concessionaires installing their windows at less than a certain distance from those already existing); and c) the setting of hypotheses for the expiry of the concession and acquisition of guarantees of a very high amount, such hypotheses including that in which the concessionnaire directly or indirectly operates cross-border gaming activities similar to those forming the subject-matter of the concession?
Case C-367/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 11 July 2011 — Déborah Prete v Office National De L’emploi
Date: 2011-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, interpretation of the law, recognition of studies, unemployment insurance








C_2011282EN.01001002.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 11 July 2011 — Déborah Prete v Office National De L’emploi
(Case C-367/11)
2011/C 282/19
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Déborah Prete

Respondent: Office National De L’emploi

Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 12, 17, 18 and, so far as necessary, 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, as consolidated at Amsterdam on 2 October 1997, preclude a provision of national law under which, in the manner of Article 36(1)(2)(j) of the Belgian Royal Decree of 25 November 1991 laying down unemployment regulations, entitlement to tideover allowance for a young European Union national, who does not have the status of a ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 39 of the Treaty, has completed secondary studies in the European Union but not at an educational establishment run, subsidised or approved by one of the communities in Belgium and has obtained either a document issued by one of those communities establishing the equivalence of those studies to the study certificate issued by the competent authority of one of those communities for studies completed in those Belgian educational establishments, or else a document giving access to higher education, is conditional upon the young person in question having previously completed six years’ studies at an educational establishment run, approved or subsidised by one of the communities in Belgium, if that condition is exclusive and absolute?










2.


If so, do the circumstances of the young person described in the first question, who has not completed six years’ studies at a Belgian educational establishment, resides in Belgium with her Belgian spouse and is registered as a job-seeker with a Belgian employment service, constitute factors to be taken into consideration in order to appraise that young person’s link to the Belgian employment market, having regard to Articles 12, 17, 18 and, if appropriate, 39 of the Treaty? To what extent must the length of those periods of residence, marriage and registration as a job-seeker be taken into consideration?