do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-509/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) v Luis Aira Pascual, Algeposa Terminales Ferroviarios SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 1(1) — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Obligation on the transferee to take on workers — Public undertaking responsible for a public service — Provision of the service by another undertaking pursuant to a public service operating agreement — Decision not to extend that agreement following its expiry — Retention of identity of the economic entity — Activity based essentially on equipment — Employees not taken on)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: job security, labour law, transfer of businesses








C_2016038EN.01001001.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/10





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) v Luis Aira Pascual, Algeposa Terminales Ferroviarios SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial
(Case C-509/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Obligation on the transferee to take on workers - Public undertaking responsible for a public service - Provision of the service by another undertaking pursuant to a public service operating agreement - Decision not to extend that agreement following its expiry - Retention of identity of the economic entity - Activity based essentially on equipment - Employees not taken on))
(2016/C 038/12)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF)

Defendants: Luis Aira Pascual, Algeposa Terminales Ferroviarios SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of that directive covers a situation in which a public undertaking, responsible for the economic activity of handling intermodal transport units, entrusts, by a public service operating agreement, the performance of that activity to another undertaking, providing to the latter undertaking the necessary facilities and equipment, which it owns, and subsequently decides to terminate that agreement without taking over the employees of the latter undertaking, on the ground that it will henceforth perform that activity itself with its own staff.


(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
Case T-404/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland v OHIM — United Vehicles (UNITED VEHICLEs) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark UNITED VEHICLEs — Earlier Community word mark Junited — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01004701.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/47





Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland v OHIM — United Vehicles (UNITED VEHICLEs)
(Case T-404/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark UNITED VEHICLEs - Earlier Community word mark Junited - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 027/58)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: United Vehicles GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 April 2014 (Case R 859/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and United Vehicles GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
Case T-425/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Giant (China) v Council (Dumping — Imports of bicycles originating in China — Interim review — Article 9(5) and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Individual treatment — Non-cooperation — Necessary information — Facts available — Related companies — Circumvention)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, dumping, import (EU), originating product, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2016027EN.01003501.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/35





Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Giant (China) v Council
(Case T-425/13) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of bicycles originating in China - Interim review - Article 9(5) and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Individual treatment - Non-cooperation - Necessary information - Facts available - Related companies - Circumvention))
(2016/C 027/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Giant (China) Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents) and European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 17).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 so far as it concerns Giant (China) Co. Ltd;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of Giant (China) and to bear its own costs;










3.


Orders the European Commission and the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
Case C-326/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v A1 Telekom Austria AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/22/EC — Electronic communications networks and services — Users’ rights — Right of subscribers to terminate their contract without penalty — Changes to charges under terms of the contract — Increase in charges in line with increase in the consumer price index)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer price, consumer protection, contract terms, price indexing, provision of services, termination of a contract, transmission network, universal service








C_2016038EN.01000602.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/6





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v A1 Telekom Austria AG
(Case C-326/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Users’ rights - Right of subscribers to terminate their contract without penalty - Changes to charges under terms of the contract - Increase in charges in line with increase in the consumer price index))
(2016/C 038/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Defendant: A1 Telekom Austria AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a change in charges for the provision of electronic communications networks or services, resulting from the operation of a price adjustment clause contained in the standard terms and conditions applied by an undertaking providing such services, the term providing that such a change applies in accordance with changes in an objective consumer price index compiled by a public institution, does not constitute a ‘modification to the contractual conditions’ within the meaning of that provision, which grants the subscriber the right to withdraw from the contract without penalty.


(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
Case T-683/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Morgan v OHIM (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appraisal report — 2010-2011 Appraisal period — Distortion — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, promotion, staff assessment








C_2016027EN.01005202.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/52





Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Morgan v OHIM
(Case T-683/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Appraisal report - 2010-2011 Appraisal period - Distortion - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))
(2016/C 027/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Rhys Morgan (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by M. Paolacci and A. Lukošiūtė, and subsequently by A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2014 in Morgan v OHIM (F-26/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:180), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Declares that Rhys Morgan is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in the present appeal proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.