do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-46/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 30 January 2017 — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen
Date: 2017-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, equal treatment, pension scheme, retirement conditions, social security legislation, temporary employment, work contract








C_2017144EN.01001901.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 30 January 2017 — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen
(Case C-46/17)
(2017/C 144/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hubertus John

Defendant: Freie Hansestadt Bremen

Questions referred







1.


Is clause 5, point 1, of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is attached as an Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation allowing the parties to an employment contract, without additional requirements, to agree during the employment relationship indefinitely to postpone the agreed termination of the relationship upon the worker reaching the normal retirement age, including on more than one occasion if necessary, simply because the worker has a right to a retirement pension upon reaching the normal retirement age?










2.


If the Court answers the Question 1 in the affirmative:
Does the incompatibility of the national legislation referred to Question 1 with clause 5, point 1, of the Framework Agreement also apply when the termination is postponed for the first time?










3.


Are Articles 1, 2(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (2) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78/EC) and/or the general principles of Community law to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation allowing the parties to an employment contract, without additional requirements, to agree during the employment relationship indefinitely to postpone the agreed termination of the relationship upon the worker reaching the normal retirement age, including on more than one occasion if necessary, simply because the worker has a right to a retirement pension upon reaching the normal retirement age?






(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.

(2)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
Case T-50/17: Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Mackevision Medien Design v EUIPO (TO CREATE REALITY)
Date: 2017-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, film production, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017104EN.01005501.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/55





Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Mackevision Medien Design v EUIPO (TO CREATE REALITY)
(Case T-50/17)
(2017/C 104/76)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mackevision Medien Design GmbH Stuttgart (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: E. Stolz, U. Stelzenmüller and J. Weiser, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TO CREATE REALITY’ — Application for registration No 15 098 106

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2016 in Case R 995/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-78/17: Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Jumbo Africa v EUIPO — ProSiebenSat.1 Licensing (JUMBO)
Date: 2017-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, instant product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017104EN.01006001.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/60





Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Jumbo Africa v EUIPO — ProSiebenSat.1 Licensing (JUMBO)
(Case T-78/17)
(2017/C 104/84)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Jumbo Africa, SL (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Buganza González and E. Torner Lasalle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ProSiebenSat.1 Licensing GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘JUMBO’ — European Union trade mark No 10 492 131

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2016 in Case R 227/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision;










—


Order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009. The applicant claims, in particular, that the trade mark ‘JUMBO’ is not subject to any of the prohibitions set out in Article 7(1) of that regulation. That mark is not descriptive of the products which it designates.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 30 January 2017 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.40018(1) — Car battery recycling — Rapporteur: Germany
Date: 2017-01-30
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, cartel, electricity storage device, lead, price agreement, sanction (EU), waste recycling








C_2017396EN.01000301.xml










23.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 396/3





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 30 January 2017 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.40018(1) — Car battery recycling
Rapporteur: Germany
(2017/C 396/03)






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreements and/or concerted practices 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.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practices have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States.










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 as regards the addressees of the decision.










8.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-55/17: Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Healy v Commission
Date: 2017-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), seniority, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2017112EN.01003901.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/39





Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Healy v Commission
(Case T-55/17)
(2017/C 112/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: John Morrison Healy (Celbridge, Ireland) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of 11 April 2016 by which the selection board excluded the applicant from participating in Competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging breach of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.
The applicant is of the view that the admission condition at issue, namely that of demonstrating 42 months of service within the Commission, is not justified in view of the requirements of the positions to be filled.
In addition, the applicant claims that Article 82(7) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) is incompatible with Article 27 of the Staff Regulations in so far as it excludes, in all cases, contract staff who have completed less than 36 months of service from participating in internal competitions. In the present case, the applicant maintains, the Commission took the view that 36 months was a minimum threshold which vitiated the Appointing Authority’s assessment of the admission condition at issue.