do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-496/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 6 November 2014  — The Romanian State v Tamara Văraru and Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, maternity benefit, social-security contribution, social-security harmonisation








C_2015046EN.01002102.xml










9.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 6 November 2014 — The Romanian State v Tamara Văraru and Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării
(Case C-496/14)
(2015/C 046/27)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: The Romanian State, represented by the Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu in the name and on behalf of the Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

Respondents: Tamara Văraru and Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

Question referred

Are Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 20, 21(1), 24(1), 34(1) and (2) and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Ordonanță de Urgență a Guvernului No 111/2010, which provides that the second-born, third-born and so on of multiple births, the first-born of multiple births and children born as single births are to be treated differently?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland) (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).
Case C-395/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Urban waste water — Directive 91/271/EEC — Articles 3 and 4 — Obligation to collect — Obligation to treat)
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, infringement of EU law, wastewater, water treatment








C_2015007EN.01000902.xml










12.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/9





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-395/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Urban waste water - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3 and 4 - Obligation to collect - Obligation to treat))
(2015/C 007/12)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Gillet and A. Lepièce, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by not ensuring the collection and treatment of urban waste waters of the agglomerations of Aywaille, Baelen, Blegny, Chastre, Grez-Doiceau, Jodoigne, Lasne, Obourg, Oreye, Orp, Raeren, Sart-Dames-Avelines, Soiron, Sombreffe and Yvoir-Anhée, and by not ensuring the treatment of urban waste waters of the agglomerations of Bassenge, Chaumont-Gistoux, Chièvres, Crisnée, Dalhem, Dinant, Écaussinnes, Estinnes, Feluy-Arquennes, Fexhe-Slins, Fosses-la-Ville, Godarville, Hannut, Havré, Jurbise, Le Rœulx, Leuze, Lillois-Witterzée, Profondeville, Rotheux-Neuville, Saint-Georges-sur-Meuse, Saint-Hubert, Sirault, Sprimont, Villers-la-Ville, Villers-le-Bouillet, Virginal-Hennuyères, Walcourt, Welkenraedt, Wépion, Wiers, Gaurain-Ramecroix and Hélécine, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
Case T-750/14: Action brought on 6 November 2014  — Segimerus v OHIM — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO)
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, insurance company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015026EN.01003601.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/36





Action brought on 6 November 2014 — Segimerus v OHIM — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO)
(Case T-750/14)
(2015/C 026/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Segimerus Ltd (Preston, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Segimerus Ltd

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ELGO’ — Community trade mark No 1 0 2 92  498

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 August 2014 in Case R 473/2014-4

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division and refer the proceedings back to the Opposition Division;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the proceedings back to the Board of Appeal;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.