do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-2/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 2 January 2017 — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, Jesús Crespo Rey
Date: 2017-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, indemnification, migrant worker, national law, social-security contribution, social-security harmonisation








C_2017104EN.01003301.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/33





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 2 January 2017 — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, Jesús Crespo Rey
(Case C-2/17)
(2017/C 104/47)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

Other parties: Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, Jesús Crespo Rey

Questions referred







1.


Must the expression ‘the contribution basis in Spain which is closest in time to the reference periods’, referred to in Annex XI(G)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, be interpreted as excluding those contribution bases arising from the application of Spanish domestic legislation (1) under which a migrant worker who has returned to Spain and whose actual final Spanish contributions are higher than the minimum bases may conclude an agreement maintaining the contributions in accordance only with the minimum bases, whereas, if he were a non-migrant worker, he could have concluded such an agreement on higher bases?










2.


In the event of an affirmative answer to the previous question, and in accordance with Annex XI(G)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, do taking the last actual contributions made in Spain, duly updated, and regarding the contribution period under the agreement maintaining contributions as a neutral period or interval constitute remedies appropriate for indemnifying the damage done to the migrant worker?






(1)  OJ 2004, L 166, p. 1.
Case C-1/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Torino (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2017 — Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA v Mr Livio Guida
Date: 2017-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, employer, judicial proceedings, jurisdiction, labour dispute, legal domicile, wage earner








C_2017112EN.01001502.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Torino (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2017 — Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA v Mr Livio Guida
(Case C-1/17)
(2017/C 112/24)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte di Appello di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA

Respondent: Mr Livio Guida

Questions referred







1.


Under Article 20(2) of Regulation No 44/2001, may an employer domiciled in the territory of an EU Member State, against which an action is brought by its former employee before the courts of a Member State in which that employer is domiciled (within the meaning of Article 19 of the regulation), bring a counter-claim against the employee before the same court hearing the original action?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 20(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 include the jurisdiction of the court hearing the original action even when the employer’s counter-claim is not based on a claim originating with the employer but on a claim originating with another party (which is, at the same time, an employer of the same employee under a parallel employment contract), and the counter-claim is based on an assignment-of-claim agreement, concluded by the employer and the party from which the claim originally derives, after the date on which the original action was brought by the employee?
Case T-1/17: Action brought on 2 January 2017 — La Mafia Franchises v EUIPO — Italy (La Mafia SE SIENTA A LA MESA)
Date: 2017-01-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, catering industry, consultancy, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017053EN.01004501.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/45





Action brought on 2 January 2017 — La Mafia Franchises v EUIPO — Italy (La Mafia SE SIENTA A LA MESA)
(Case T-1/17)
(2017/C 053/55)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: La Mafia Franchises, SL (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Republic of Italy

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘La Mafia SE SIENTA A LA MESA’ — EU trade mark No 5 510 921

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 October 2016 in Case R 803/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare the contested European Union Trademark No 5 510 921 ‘LA MAFIA SE SIENTA A LA MESA’ valid;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009.