do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-527/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Stichting Brein v Jack Frederik Wullems, currently trading under the name Filmspeler
Date: 2015-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audiovisual piracy, computer piracy, copyright, literary and artistic property








C_2016027EN.01000602.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Stichting Brein v Jack Frederik Wullems, currently trading under the name Filmspeler
(Case C-527/15)
(2016/C 027/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Midden-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stichting Brein

Defendant: Jack Frederik Wullems, currently trading under the name Filmspeler

Questions referred







1)


Must Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that there is ‘a communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, when someone sells a product (mediaplayer) in which he has installed add-ons containing hyperlinks to websites on which copyright-protected works, such as films, series and live broadcasts are made directly accessible, without the authorisation of the right holders?










2)


Does it make any difference






—


whether the copyright-protected works as a whole have not previously been published on the internet or have only been published through subscriptions with the authorisation of the right holder?










—


whether the add-ons containing hyperlinks to websites on which copyright-protected works are made directly accessible without the authorisation of the right holders are freely available and can also be installed in the mediaplayer by the users themselves?










—


whether the websites and thus the copyright-protected works made accessible thereon — without the authorisation of the right holders — can also be accessed by the public without the mediaplayer?














3)


Should Article 5 of the Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC) be interpreted as meaning that there is no ‘lawful use’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of that Directive if a temporary reproduction is made by an end user during the streaming of a copyright-protected work from a third-party website where that copyright-protected work is offered without the authorisation of the right holder(s)?










4)


If the answer to question 1) is in the negative, is the making of a temporary reproduction by an end user during the streaming of a copyright-protected work from a website where that copyright-protected work is offered without the authorisation of the right holder(s) then contrary to the ‘three-step test’ referred to in Article 5(5) of the Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC)?






(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 2001 L 167, p. 10).
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015328EN.01000101.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 328/01)

Last publication


OJ C 320, 28.9.2015


Past publications


OJ C 311, 21.9.2015


OJ C 302, 14.9.2015


OJ C 294, 7.9.2015


OJ C 279, 24.8.2015


OJ C 270, 17.8.2015


OJ C 262, 10.8.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 5 October 2015 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives — Rapporteur: Austria
Date: 2015-10-05
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, disc drive, international cartel, optical medium, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2017117EN.01000601.xml










12.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 117/6





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 5 October 2015 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives
Rapporteur: Austria
(2017/C 117/07)






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreement and/or concerted practice contained in the draft decision.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision have participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practice was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practice have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU and the contracting parties of the EEA Agreement.










6.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.










7.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees, including the imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned in the case.










8.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case C-526/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV, Other parties: Uber NV and Others
Date: 2015-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drivers, principle of proportionality, provision of services, software, taxi








C_2015429EN.01000901.xml










21.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV, Other parties: Uber NV and Others
(Case C-526/15)
(2015/C 429/13)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Uber Belgium BVBA

Defendant: Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV

Other parties to the proceedings: Uber NV and Others, Brusselse Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Belgische Federatie van Taxis, Nationale Groepering van Ondernemingen met Taxi- and Locatievoertuigen met Chauffeur VZW

Question referred

Should the principle of proportionality, laid down in Article 5 TEU and Article 52(1) of the Charter, (1) read in conjunction with Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Charter and with Articles 28 TFEU and 56 TFEU, be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that laid down in the Ordonnantie van het Brusselse Hoofstedelijk Gewest van 27 april 1995 betreffende de taxidiensten voor het verhuren van voertuigen met vervoerder (Ordinance of the Brussels-Capital Region of 27 April 1995 relating to taxis and services for the rental of vehicles with carrier), be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘taxi services’ (‘taxidiensten’) also applies to unpaid individual carriers who are involved in ride sharing (shared transport) by accepting ride requests which they are offered by means of a software application of the companies Uber BV et al established in another Member State?


(1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.
Case C-525/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Álava (Spain) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Laboral Kutxa v Esmeralda Martínez Quesada
Date: 2015-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, credit, interest, interpretation of the law, retroactivity of a law, unfair terms of contract








C_2015414EN.01002202.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Álava (Spain) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Laboral Kutxa v Esmeralda Martínez Quesada
(Case C-525/15)
(2015/C 414/28)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Álava

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Laboral Kutxa

Defendant: Esmeralda Martínez Quesada

Question referred

Is the limitation of the consequences of holding a term to be ineffective because unfair, restricting the effects of restitution of sums paid but not due, by applying it from a particular date instead of from the moment the unfair, void term was first applied, compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?


(1)  OJ 1993, L 95, p. 29.
Council Decision of 5 October 2015 appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
Date: 2015-10-05
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Cedefop, appointment of members, board of directors








C_2015340EN.01000201.xml










15.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/2





COUNCIL DECISION
of 5 October 2015
appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
(2015/C 340/03)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of 10 February 1975 establishing the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, and in particular Article 4 thereof (1),
Having regard to the nomination submitted by the French government,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decision of 14 July 2015 (2), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2015 to 17 September 2018.










(2)


A member’s seat is available for France on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Government representatives as a result of the resignation of Mrs Marianne DE BRUNHOFF.










(3)


The members of the Governing Board of the aforementioned Centre should be appointed for the remainder of the current term of office, which expires on 17 September 2018.




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The following person is hereby appointed as members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the remainder of the term of office, which runs until 17 September 2018:

GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES:







FRANCE


Mrs Nadine NERGUISIAN





Done at Luxembourg, 5 October 2015.


For the Council


The President

N. SCHMIT




(1)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 232, 16.7.2015, p. 2.