do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-159/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 April 2015 — Franz Lesar
Date: 2015-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU employment policy, European social policy, equal treatment, pension scheme, public service employee








C_2015254EN.01000201.xml










3.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 April 2015 — Franz Lesar
(Case C-159/15)
(2015/C 254/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Franz Lesar

Defendant: Beim Vorstand der Telekom Austria AG eingerichtetes Personalamt

Question referred

Are Articles 2(1), Article 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that they are not compatible with a national provision — such as that in issue in the main proceedings — under which periods of apprenticeship and periods of employment as a contract agent with the Federal Government for which contributions to the compulsory pension insurance scheme were to be paid for the purposes of obtaining a civil servants’ pension are:






(a)


to be credited as pensionable periods prior to entry into service if they are completed after the 18th birthday, whereby the Federal Government in this case receives an agreed transferred contribution in accordance with the provisions of social security law for crediting these periods from the social security agency; or, alternatively










(b)


not to be credited as pensionable periods prior to entry into service, if they are completed before the 18th birthday, whereby there is no agreed transfer to the Federal Government for such periods if they are not credited, and the insured party is reimbursed for any contributions made to the pension insurance scheme, especially considering that, in the event that these periods are subsequently required to be credited under EU law, there would be a possible claim for the refund of the sums reimbursed by the social security organisation from the civil servant as well as the subsequent creation of an obligation on the part of the social security organisation to pay an agreed contribution to the Federal Government.






(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
Case C-160/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 April 2015 — GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others
Date: 2015-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, computer piracy, copyright, hypertext








C_2015205EN.01001802.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 April 2015 — GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others
(Case C-160/15)
(2015/C 205/26)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GS Media BV

Defendants: Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Geertruida Dekke

Questions referred







1(a)


If anyone other than the copyright holder refers by means of a hyperlink on a website controlled by him to a website which is managed by a third party and is accessible to the general internet public, on which the work has been made available without the consent of the rightholder, does that constitute a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (1)?










1(b)


Does it make any difference if the work was also not previously communicated, with the rightholder’s consent, to the public in some other way?










1(c)


Is it important whether the ‘hyperlinker’ is or ought to be aware of the lack of consent by the rightholder for the placement of the work on the third party’s website mentioned in 1(a) above and, as the case may be, of the fact that the work has also not previously been communicated, with the rightholder’s consent, to the public in some other way?










2(a)


If the answer to question 1(a) is in the negative: in that case, is there, or could there be deemed to be, a communication to the public if the website to which the hyperlink refers, and thus the work, is indeed findable for the general internet public, but not easily so, with the result that the publication of the hyperlink greatly facilitates the finding of the work?










2(b)


In answering question 2(a), is it important whether the ‘hyperlinker’ is or ought to be aware of the fact that the website to which the hyperlink refers is not easily findable by the general internet public?










3.


Are there other circumstances which should be taken into account when answering the question whether there is deemed to be a communication to the public if, by means of a hyperlink, access is provided to a work which has not previously been communicated to the public with the consent of the rightholder?






(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC 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 (OJ 201 L 167, p. 10).
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/568 of 7 April 2015 amending Annex I to Implementing Decision 2012/725/EU as regards the definition of bovine lactoferrin (notified under document C(2015) 2173)
Date: 2015-04-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: foodstuff, labelling, market approval, milk protein, trade information








L_2015093EN.01007101.xml










9.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 93/71








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2015/568
of 7 April 2015
         
amending Annex I to Implementing Decision 2012/725/EU as regards the definition of bovine lactoferrin


(notified under document C(2015) 2173)


(Only the English text is authentic)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Implementing Decision 2012/725/EU (2) authorises the placing on the market of bovine lactoferrin as a novel food ingredient.












(2)


Annex I to Implementing Decision 2012/725/EU lays down the specifications for bovine lactoferrin. Those specifications contain a definition of bovine lactoferrin. This definition should be amended to better describe the authorised novel food ingredient.












(3)


Implementing Decision 2012/725/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Annex I to Implementing Decision 2012/725/EU, the definition of bovine lactoferrin is replaced by the following:






 



                        ‘Bovine lactoferrin (bLF) is a protein that occurs naturally in cow's milk. It is an iron-binding glycoprotein of approximately 77 kDa and consists of a single polypeptide chain of 689 amino acids.
bLF is isolated from skimmed milk or cheese whey via ion exchange and subsequent ultra-filtration steps. Finally it is dried by freeze drying or spraying and the large particles are sieved out.’
                     






Article 2
This Decision is addressed to Morinaga Milk Industry Co., Ltd, 33-1, Shiba 3-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8384, Japan.




Done at Brussels, 7 April 2015.


For the Commission

Vytenis ANDRIUKAITIS
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision 2012/725/EU of 22 November 2012 authorising the placing on the market of bovine lactoferrin as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Morinaga) (OJ L 327, 27.11.2012, p. 46).
Case F-52/15: Action brought on 7 April 2015 — ZZ. v Commission
Date: 2015-04-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damage, damages, retirement conditions








C_2015190EN.01003801.xml










8.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/38






Action brought on 7 April 2015 — ZZ. v Commission
(Case F-52/15)
(2015/C 190/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s application for an extension of his service and a claim for damages with interest in respect of the material harm allegedly suffered and the symbolic sum of EUR 1 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm alleged.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 25 June 2014 rejecting the applicant’s application for an extension of his service and, accordingly, confirming his automatic retirement on 31 October 2014;










—


Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting his claim, dated 10 December 2014 and served on the applicant on 29 December 2014;










—


Pay compensation for the material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decisions;










—


Award the applicant the symbolic sum of EUR 1 as compensation for his non-pecuniary harm;










—


Order the defendant to pay all the costs.