do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-459/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)
Date: 2011-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: computer, copyright, equal treatment, indemnification, information society








C_2011362EN.01001201.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)
(Case C-459/11)
2011/C 362/17
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH

Defendant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

Questions referred

The following questions concerning the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society are hereby referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:






1.


In interpreting national law, is account to be taken of the directive in respect of events which occurred after the directive entered into force on 22 June 2001, but before it became applicable on 22 December 2002?










2.


Do reproductions effected by means of PCs constitute reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive?










3.


If Question 2 is answered affirmatively: can the requirements laid down in the directive relating to fair compensation for exceptions or limitations to the right of reproduction under Article 5(2) and (3) of the directive, having regard to the fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 20 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, be fulfilled also where the appropriate reward must be paid not by the manufacturers, importers and traders of the PCs but by the manufacturers, importers and traders of another device or several other devices of a chain of devices capable of making the relevant reproductions?










4.


Does the possibility of applying technological measures under Article 6 of the directive abrogate the condition relating to fair compensation within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) thereof?










5.


Is the condition relating to fair compensation (Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the directive) and the possibility thereof (see recital 36 in the preamble to the directive) abrogated where the rightholders have expressly or implicitly authorised reproduction of their works?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 167, p. 10.
Case C-458/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Canon Deutschland GmbH
Date: 2011-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, equal treatment, indemnification, printer, reprography








C_2011362EN.01001101.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Canon Deutschland GmbH
(Case C-458/11)
2011/C 362/16
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

Defendants: Canon Deutschland GmbH

Questions referred

The following questions concerning the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society are hereby referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:






1.


In interpreting national law, is account to be taken of the directive in respect of events which occurred after the directive entered into force on 22 June 2001, but before it became applicable on 22 December 2002?










2.


Do reproductions effected by means of printers constitute reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive?










3.


If Question 2 is answered affirmatively: can the requirements laid down in the directive relating to fair compensation for exceptions or limitations to the right of reproduction under Article 5(2) and (3) of the directive, having regard to the fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 20 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, be fulfilled also where the appropriate reward must be paid not by the manufacturers, importers and traders of the printers but by the manufacturers, importers and traders of another device or several other devices of a chain of devices capable of making the relevant reproductions?










4.


Does the possibility of applying technological measures under Article 6 of the directive abrogate the condition relating to fair compensation within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) thereof?










5.


Is the condition relating to fair compensation (Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the directive) and the possibility thereof (see recital 36 in the preamble to the directive) abrogated where the rightholders have expressly or implicitly authorised reproduction of their works?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
Case T-475/11 P: Appeal brought on 5 September 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 June 2011 in Case F-67/10 Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2011-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, disability insurance, early retirement, indemnification








C_2011311EN.01004601.xml










22.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/46





Appeal brought on 5 September 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 June 2011 in Case F-67/10 Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-475/11 P)
2011/C 311/85
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant requests that the Court grant the present appeal, with all the legal consequences thus arising.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 June 2011, which dismissed as inadmissible an action seeking an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage purportedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s refusal to reimburse the appellant in respect of the recoverable costs allegedly incurred in the case which gave rise to the judgment delivered by the Tribunal on 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission.
The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.






1.


The rejection, on purported grounds of inadmissibility, of the ‘third head of claim’ (sic between paragraphs 13 and 14 of the order under appeal) made by the appellant in the application at first instance, and the ‘fourth head of claim’ (sic between paragraphs 19 and 20 of the order under appeal) made by the appellant in the application at first instance, was unlawful, including on the grounds of (a) incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the notion of ‘request’ within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 91 of those rules and illogical and unreasoned failure to have regard to the relevant case-law; (b) absolute failure to state reasons, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and irrelevant, self-evident, arbitrary, illogical, irrational and unreasonable reasoning;










2.


Distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and absolute failure to carry out any preliminary investigations;










3.


Failure to rule on a claim made by the appellant in the proceedings and consequent breach of the appellant’s right to be heard and rights of defence.
Case T-483/11: Action brought on 5 September 2011 — Sepro Europe v Commission
Date: 2011-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: miscarriage of justice, occupational safety, rights of the defence








C_2011331EN.01002501.xml










12.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/25





Action brought on 5 September 2011 — Sepro Europe v Commission
(Case T-483/11)
2011/C 331/48
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sepro Europe Ltd (Harrogate, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


Annul Commission Decision 2011/328/EU (1);










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and










—


Take such other or further measures as justice may require.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of appraisal, as it erred as a matter of law in justifying Commission Decision 2011/328/EU on the grounds of the alleged concerns regarding (i) worker exposure and (ii) environmental exposure.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the due process and the right of defence, as well as the principle of sound administration, as it wrongly took into account the alleged concern regarding isomer ratio which was only identified as a critical concern for the first time during the resubmission and at a very late stage of the procedure. As a result, the applicant was not given an opportunity to address the issue. Moreover, the defendant failed to take into consideration the proposal from the applicant for amendment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision 2011/328/EU is unlawful because it is disproportionate. Even if it were accepted that there are concerns which deserve further attention, the measure in question is disproportionate in the way it approaches the alleged worker exposure and environmental exposure concerns.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision 2011/328/EU is unlawful because it is inadequately reasoned, as the defendant failed to provide any evidence or reasoning to justify its disagreement with the amendment proposed by the applicant, thus affecting the calculation of estimated worker exposure levels, as well as with the use of high technology glasshouses.






(1)  Commission Implementing Decision of 1 June 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (notified under document C(2011) 3733) (OJ 2011 L 153, p. 192)
Case C-462/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dâmbovița — Secția civilă (Romania) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Victor Cozman v Teatrul Municipal Târgoviște
Date: 2011-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, fund (EU), pay cut








C_2011331EN.01001203.xml










12.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dâmbovița — Secția civilă (Romania) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Victor Cozman v Teatrul Municipal Târgoviște
(Case C-462/11)
2011/C 331/21
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Dâmbovița

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Victor Cozman

Defendant: Teatrul Municipal Târgoviște

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms be interpreted as allowing the salaries of staff paid from public funds to be reduced by 25 %, pursuant to Article 1(1) of Law No 118/2010 laying down certain measures necessary to restore budgetary balance?










2.


If the answer is in the affirmative, is entitlement to salary an absolute right which the State may not make subject to any limitations?
Case C-460/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Hewlett-Packard GmbH v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)
Date: 2011-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, equal treatment, information society, interpretation of the law, national law, printer








C_2011362EN.01001202.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Hewlett-Packard GmbH v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)
(Case C-460/11)
2011/C 362/18
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hewlett-Packard GmbH

Defendant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

Questions referred

The following questions concerning the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society are hereby referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:






1.


In interpreting national law, is account to be taken of the directive in respect of events which occurred after the directive entered into force on 22 June 2001, but before it became applicable on 22 December 2002?










2.


Do reproductions effected by means of printers constitute reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive?










3.


If Question 2 is answered affirmatively: can the requirements laid down in the directive relating to fair compensation for exceptions or limitations to the right of reproduction under Article 5(2) and (3) of the directive, having regard to the fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 20 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, be fulfilled also where the appropriate reward must be paid not by the manufacturers, importers and traders of the printers but by the manufacturers, importers and traders of another device or several other devices of a chain of devices capable of making the relevant reproductions?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
Case C-457/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH and Others
Date: 2011-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, equal treatment, indemnification, information society, interpretation of the law








C_2011362EN.01001002.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH and Others
(Case C-457/11)
2011/C 362/15
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

Defendants: Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH, Epson Deutschland GmbH, Xerox GmbH

Questions referred

The following questions concerning the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society are hereby referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:






1.


In interpreting national law, is account to be taken of the directive in respect of events which occurred after the directive entered into force on 22 June 2001, but before it became applicable on 22 December 2002?










2.


Do reproductions effected by means of printers constitute reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive?










3.


If Question 2 is answered affirmatively: can the requirements laid down in the directive relating to fair compensation for exceptions or limitations to the right of reproduction under Article 5(2) and (3) of the directive, having regard to the fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 20 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, be fulfilled also where the appropriate reward must be paid not by the manufacturers, importers and traders of the printers but by the manufacturers, importers and traders of another device or several other devices of a chain of devices capable of making the relevant reproductions?










4.


Does the possibility of applying technological measures under Article 6 of the directive abrogate the condition relating to fair compensation within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) thereof?










5.


Is the condition relating to fair compensation (Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the directive) and the possibility thereof (see recital 36 in the preamble to the directive) abrogated where the rightholders have expressly or implicitly authorised reproduction of their works?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.