do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-485/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie
Date: 2012-10-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to agriculture, farmer, interpretation of the law, proof, visual arts








C_2013026EN.01002302.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/23





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie
(Case C-485/12)
2013/C 26/44
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

Question referred

Must Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a physical inspection in the field will always need to take place before it can be decided on the basis of aerial photographs taken in connection with the assessment of a declaration that the declaration submitted by a farmer is inaccurate?


(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).
Case C-490/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Gálóczhi-Tömösváry Róbert v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal
Date: 2012-10-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, interpretation of the law, right to justice, unfair dismissal, worker information








C_2013079EN.01000303.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Gálóczhi-Tömösváry Róbert v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal
(Case C-490/12)
2013/C 79/06
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gálóczhi-Tömösváry Róbert

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that that provision is intended to guarantee the possibility of a legal remedy only for unlawful and unjustified dismissal?










2.


Does that provision mean that an employer is bound to provide the employee with reasons in writing on dismissal and the dismissal will then not be unjustified?










3.


Does failure to communicate reasons in itself make the measure unlawful or may the employer state reasons subsequently in the course of any employment litigation?