do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-415/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — David Fernando Leal da Fonseca v Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA
Date: 2016-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, labour law, legal working time, overtime, remuneration of work, shift work, weekly rest period








C_2016392EN.01000701.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — David Fernando Leal da Fonseca v Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA
(Case C-415/16)
(2016/C 392/09)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: David Fernando Leal da Fonseca

Defendant: Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA

Questions referred







1.


In the light of Article 5 of Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993, and Directive 2003/88/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, as well as Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the case of workers engaged in shift work with rotating rest periods, in an establishment open every day of the week but which does not have continuous 24-hour productive periods, must the compulsory rest day that a worker is entitled to be granted in each period of seven days, that is, at the latest on the seventh day following six consecutive working days?










2.


Do those directives and provisions preclude an interpretation to the effect that, in relation to those workers, the employer is free to choose the days on which it grants a worker, for each week, the rest days to which he is entitled, so that the worker may be required, without overtime pay, to work for up to ten consecutive days?










3.


Do those directives and provisions preclude an interpretation to the effect that the uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours may be granted on any of the calendar days in a given period of seven calendar days, and the subsequent uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours (to which are added the 11 hours of daily rest) may also be granted on any of the calendar days in the period of seven calendar days immediately following the period mentioned above?






(1)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18).

(2)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
Case C-414/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 July 2016 — Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V.
Date: 2016-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: church, equal treatment, freedom of religious beliefs, professional ethics, religious discrimination, working conditions








C_2016419EN.01002701.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 July 2016 — Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V.
(Case C-414/16)
(2016/C 419/36)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vera Egenberger

Defendant: Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V.

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an employer, such as the defendant in the present case, or the church on its behalf, may itself authoritatively determine whether adherence by an applicant to a specified religion, by reason of the nature of the activities or of the context in which they are carried out, constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the employer/church’s ethos?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative:
In a case such as the present, is it necessary to disapply a provision of national law — such as, in the present case, the first alternative of Paragraph 9(1) of the AGG (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, General Law on equal treatment) — which provides that a difference of treatment on the ground of religion in the context of employment with religious bodies and the organisations adhering to them is also lawful where adherence to a specific religion, in accordance with the self-conception of the religious body, having regard to its right of self-determination, constitutes a justified occupational requirement?










3.


If the first question is answered in the negative, further:
What requirements are there as regards the nature of the activities or of the context in which they are carried out, as genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements, having regard to the organisation’s ethos, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC?






(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2016-07-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, toy industry








C_2016273EN.01000901.xml










27.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/9





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2016/C 273/05)
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 381








9503 00




Tricycles, scooters, pedal cars and similar wheeled toys; dolls' carriages; dolls; other toys; reduced-size (‘scale’) models and similar recreational models, working or not; puzzles of all kinds






The following point is added to the second paragraph:







‘(d)


combinations consisting of a keyring and a toy, which are joined together in a way that facilitates handling the keys attached (for example, a chain or swivel clips), and which, by their size/nature and design, are mainly intended to hold keys and are normally carried in the pocket or in the handbag (generally, constituent material of the keyring).’






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.
Case C-469/16: Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Mauro Infante v Italian Republic
Date: 2016-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, jurisdiction, mutual recognition principle, national implementing measure, recognition of diplomas








C_2017095EN.01000401.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/4





Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Mauro Infante v Italian Republic
(Case C-469/16)
(2017/C 095/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Mauro Infante (represented by: M. Iervolino, lawyer)

Defendant: Italian Republic
By order of 13 December 2016, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction with regard to the application and that Mr Mauro is to bear his own costs.
Case C-416/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo v Portimão Urbis, EM, SA — in liquidation and Others
Date: 2016-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, labour law, labour relations, staff, transfer of businesses, work contract








C_2016383EN.01000401.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo v Portimão Urbis, EM, SA — in liquidation and Others
(Case C-416/16)
(2016/C 383/05)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo

Defendants: Portimão Urbis, EM, SA — in liquidation, Município de Portimão, and EMARP — Empresa Municipal de Águas e Resíduos de Portimão, EM, SA

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 1, and in particular paragraph (b) thereof, of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001 apply to a situation such as that of the present case, in which a municipal undertaking (whose sole shareholder is the municipality) is dissolved (by decision of the municipality’s executive body), and the activities carried on by it are allocated in part to the municipality and in part to another municipal undertaking (whose objects were altered to that end — and which is also wholly owned by the municipality), that is, in those circumstances may it be considered that there has been a transfer of a business within the meaning of the abovementioned directive?










2.


Must an employee not in active service (that is, having had his employment contract suspended) be considered included in the concept of ‘employee’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(d) of Directive 2001/23/EC and, accordingly, must the rights and obligations arising from the contract of employment be considered transferred to the transferee, in accordance with Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC?










3.


Is the introduction of restrictions on the transfer of employees, that is, according to the type of employment relationship or its duration, in the context of a transfer of a business, in particular restrictions of the type referred to in Article 62(5), (6) and (11) of the RJAEL, (2) permissible and therefore consistent with EU law?






(1)  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 (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

(2)  Regime Jurídico da Atividade Empresarial Local e das Participações Locais (Portuguese legal regime for local businesses and the shareholdings held by local authorities).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-07-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016273EN.01000801.xml










27.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/8





Euro exchange rates (1)

26 July 2016
(2016/C 273/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0997 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,67 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4393 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83710 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5124 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0870 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4370 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,16 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3629 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4657 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3508 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4599 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4553 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5301 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5561 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4925 




KRW


South Korean won


1 249,22 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8672 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3357 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4855 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 488,80 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4693 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,855 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,8920 




THB


Thai baht


38,494 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6080 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6734 




INR


Indian rupee


74,0420 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-408/16: Action brought on 27 July 2016 — HX v Council
Date: 2016-07-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2016419EN.01004602.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/46





Action brought on 27 July 2016 — HX v Council
(Case T-408/16)
(2016/C 419/62)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: HX (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Koev, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


hold the present action to be admissible and well founded, and hold all the pleas it contains to be well founded;










—


examine the present action under the accelerated procedure;










—


declare that the contested acts may be annulled in part since the part of the acts which should be annulled can be separated from the act as a whole, and accordingly annul the following:






—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant, and










—


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;














—


order the Council to pay the entirety of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same criminal offence (Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair trial.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment on the part of the Council.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to property, of the principle of proportionality and of the freedom to conduct a business.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a normal life.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging a serious infringement of the right to the protection of reputation.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2016-07-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, sports equipment








C_2016273EN.01000902.xml










27.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/9





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2016/C 273/06)
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 367


The following text is inserted:








‘8714 99 90




Other; parts

This subheading includes child seats intended for the transport of children on “adult bicycles”. They can be either mounted on the luggage carrier, the frame or can be fitted on or to the handlebars. These seats are suitable for use principally with bicycles and are therefore considered as an accessory for a bicycle.’







(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8106 — Jones Lang Lasalle/Integral UK Holding) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, real estate business








C_2016273EN.01000701.xml










27.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/7





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8106 — Jones Lang Lasalle/Integral UK Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 273/02)
On 19 July 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8106. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7986 — Sysco/Brakes) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distributive trades, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016273EN.01000702.xml










27.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/7





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7986 — Sysco/Brakes)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 273/03)
On 9 June 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7986. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-400/16: Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY)
Date: 2016-07-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, computer equipment, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016371EN.01001101.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/11





Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY)
(Case T-400/16)
(2016/C 371/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Maximum Play, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MAXPLAY’ — Application for registration No 14 047 963

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 2273/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.










—


Failure to take into account properly previous European Union trade mark and national registrations as well as a national application.