do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-558/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relaçăo do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Alberto José Vieira de Azevedo and Others v CED Portugal Unipessoal, Lda, Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel
Date: 2015-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: compulsory insurance, damages, indemnification, insurance law, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance, transport accident








C_2016016EN.01002002.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relaçăo do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Alberto José Vieira de Azevedo and Others v CED Portugal Unipessoal, Lda, Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel
(Case C-558/15)
(2016/C 016/26)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relaçăo do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Alberto José Vieira de Azevedo, Maria da Conceiçăo Ferreira da Silva, Carlos Manuel Ferreira Alves, Rui Dinis Ferreira Alves, Vitor José Ferreira Alves

Defendants: CED Portugal Unipessoal, Lda Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Acidentes de Trabalho

Intervener: Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Acidentes de Trabalho

Questions referred







1.


Do recital 16A and Article 4 of the Fourth Motor Insurance Directive (Directive 2000/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005), in the light of paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of Article 4 (transposed into Portuguese law by Article 43 of Decree Law No 522/85 of 31 December 1985, as amended by Decree Law No 72-A/2003 of 14 April 2003), permit a writ to be served on the representative of an insurance company which does not operate in the country in which an action was brought seeking damages as a result of a road traffic accident, on the basis of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles taken out in another European Union Member State?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the question whether such a writ may be served depend on the specific terms of the representation agreement between the representative and the insurer?






(1)  Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65).

(2)  Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).
Case T-612/15: Action brought on 2 November 2015 — Basic Net v OHIM (Representation of three vertical stripes)
Date: 2015-11-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016007EN.01003101.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/31





Action brought on 2 November 2015 — Basic Net v OHIM (Representation of three vertical stripes)
(Case T-612/15)
(2016/C 007/41)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Basic Net SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: D. Sindico, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark ‘Representation of three vertical stripes’ — Application for registration No 12 880 481

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2015 in Case R 2845/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:
principally:






—


alter the contested decision on the basis of the arguments, contained in the present application in conjunction with the evidence and documents adduced in the first two stages of the proceedings and, without referring the case back, grant the application for registration No 12 880 481, on the ground that the contested decision must be regarded as flawed for breach, first, of the rules laid down in Articles 7(1)(b) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, or, second, of the rules laid down in Article 7(3) of that regulation.




In the alternative:






—


annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;










—


determine the amount of the costs of the proceedings to be borne by OHIM.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-567/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 November 2015 — LitSpecMet UAB v Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas UAB
Date: 2015-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, maintenance, rail transport, services contract








C_2016027EN.01001201.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 November 2015 — LitSpecMet UAB v Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas UAB
(Case C-567/15)
(2016/C 027/15)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: LitSpecMet UAB

Defendant: Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas UAB

Third party: Plienmetas UAB

Questions referred

Must Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a company:






—


which has been founded by a contracting authority which engages in activity in the field of rail transport, namely: management of public railway infrastructure; passenger and freight transportation;










—


which independently engages in business activity, establishes a business strategy, adopts decisions concerning the conditions of the company’s activity (product market, customer segment and so forth), participates in a competitive market throughout the European Union and outside the EU market, providing the services of rolling stock manufacture and rolling stock repair, and participates in procurement procedures connected with that activity, seeking to obtain orders from third parties (not the parent company);










—


which provides rolling stock repair services to its founder on the basis of in-house transactions and the value of those services represents 90 per cent of the company’s entire activity;










—


whose services provided to its founder are intended to ensure the founder’s passenger and freight transportation activity;
is not to be considered to be a contracting authority?




If the Court of Justice of the European Union determines that the company is to be considered to be a contracting authority in the circumstances set out above, must Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted as meaning that the company loses the status of contracting authority where the value of the rolling stock repair services provided on the basis of in-house transactions to the contracting authority which is the company’s founder falls and constitutes less than 90 per cent or not the main part of the total financial turnover from the company’s activity?


(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
Case F-138/15: Action brought on 2 November 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
Date: 2015-11-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, indemnification, termination of employment, work contract








C_2016027EN.01007801.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/78





Action brought on 2 November 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
(Case F-138/15)
(2016/C 027/100)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s contract of employment and claim for damages in respect of the non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision dated 19 December 2014 to terminate the applicant’s contract of employment;










—


order the European Parliament to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered, assessed provisionally on an ex aequo et bono basis at EUR 20 000;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs
Case C-561/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Georg Rolof, Markus Heimann v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2015-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, damages, traveller








C_2016048EN.01001001.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Georg Rolof, Markus Heimann v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-561/15)
(2016/C 048/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Georg Rolof, Markus Heimann

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 27 November 2015.
Case C-572/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 2 November 2015 — F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v Accord Healthcare OÜ
Date: 2015-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product, patent








C_2016027EN.01001301.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 2 November 2015 — F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v Accord Healthcare OÜ
(Case C-572/15)
(2016/C 027/16)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG

Defendant: Accord Healthcare OÜ

Questions referred







1)


Must Article 21(2) of Regulation No 469/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) be interpreted as shortening the duration of a supplementary protection certificate issued in a Member State which was issued under national law before the accession of the State in question to the European Union and whose duration in relation to an active substance, as stated in the supplementary protection certificate, would be longer than 15 years from the time when the first marketing authorisation in the Union was granted for a medicinal product consisting of the active substance or containing it?










2)


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 21(2) of Regulation No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) compatible with EU law, in particular the general principles of EU law on the protection of acquired rights, the principle of the prohibition of retroactive effect of law, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?






(1)  OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1.