do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-2/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupreau SAS
Date: 2013-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, footwear industry, interpretation of the law








C_2013071EN.01001101.xml










9.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupreau SAS
(Case C-2/13)
2013/C 71/17
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières

Respondent: Humeau Beaupreau SAS

Question referred

In the process of manufacturing footwear, must the operations of shaping the counter of an upper and of roughing of that upper and an outer sole, prior to their assembly, be classified as ‘assembly operations’ or ‘working operations for completion into the finished state’, within the meaning of point VII of the Explanatory Notes to General Rule 2(a) on the Interpretation of the Harmonised System?
Case C-4/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse v Susanne Fassbender-Firman
Date: 2013-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU employment policy, Germany, application of EU law, family benefit, interpretation of the law








C_2013101EN.01000902.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse v Susanne Fassbender-Firman
(Case C-4/13)
2013/C 101/20
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse

Respondent: Susanne Fassbender-Firman

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 76(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted to the effect that the competent institution of the Member State of employment enjoys discretion in applying Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 if an application for benefits is not made in the Member State of residence of the members of the family?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative: on the basis of which discretionary considerations may the institution competent for family benefits in the Member State of employment apply Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 as if benefits had been granted in the Member State of residence of the members of the family?










3.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative: To what extent is the discretionary decision by the competent institution subject to judicial review?






(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 1971 L 149, p. 2; Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1.
Case C-1/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Cartier Parfums Lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA v Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transport SARL, Inko Trade SRO, Jaroslave Mateja, Groupama Transport
Date: 2013-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, enforcement of ruling, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction








C_2013063EN.01001302.xml










2.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Cartier Parfums Lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA v Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transport SARL, Inko Trade SRO, Jaroslave Mateja, Groupama Transport
(Case C-1/13)
2013/C 63/22
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Cartier Parfums Lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA

Defendants: Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transport SARL, Inko Trade SRO, Jaroslave Mateja, Groupama Transport

Question referred

Must Article 27(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, if neither party has claimed that it lacks jurisdiction or if the court has accepted its jurisdiction by a decision which is irrevocable for any reason whatsoever, including the exhaustion of legal remedies?


(1)  OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1.