do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-60/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Ángel Somoza Hermo v Esabe Vigilancia, S.A., Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)
Date: 2017-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, labour law, provision of services, security services, termination of a contract, transfer of businesses








C_2017121EN.01001602.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Ángel Somoza Hermo v Esabe Vigilancia, S.A., Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)
(Case C-60/17)
(2017/C 121/23)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Ángel Somoza Hermo, Ilunión Seguridad, S.A.

Respondents: Esabe Vigilancia, S.A., Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)

Questions referred







1.


Does 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 apply (1) when an undertaking ceases to hold the contract for the service it is engaged to provide for a client as a result of termination of the contract for the provision of the service, in a labour-intensive business (security of buildings), and the new holder of the contract for the service takes on the majority of the employees assigned to the performance of that service, when those employment contracts are taken over in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement on employment in the security sector?










2.


If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative, if the legislation adopted by the Member State in order to transpose the Directive provides, in accordance with Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC, that after the date of the transfer the transferor and the transferee are to be jointly and severally liable for obligations, including those relating to wages, which arose before the date of the transfer as a result of employment contracts existing on the date of the transfer, is an interpretation to the effect that joint and several liability for prior obligations does not apply when the majority of the workforce were taken on by the new contractor as a result of the requirements of the collective agreement for the sector, and the wording of that agreement excludes joint and several liability for obligations preceding the transfer, compatible with that article of the Directive?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.
Case C-63/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges (France) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl
Date: 2017-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, credit policy








C_2017144EN.01002501.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/25





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges (France) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl
(Case C-63/17)
(2017/C 144/32)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Limoges

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Banque Solfea SA

Defendant: Jean-François Veitl

Question referred

Where the annual percentage rate of credit is 6,75772 %, does the rule provided for in Directives 98/7/EC of 16 February 1998 (1) and 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008, (2) according to which, in the French version, ‘Le résultat du calcul est exprimé avec une exactitude d’au moins une décimale. Si le chiffre de la décimale suivante est supérieur ou égal à 5, le chiffre de la première décimale sera augmenté de 1’ [translated in literal terms as ‘[t]he result of the calculation shall be expressed correct to at least one decimal place; [i]f the figure at the following decimal place is greater than or equal to 5, the figure at that particular decimal place shall be increased by one’] allow a stated APR of 6,75 % to be considered correct?


(1)  Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17).

(2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).
Case T-74/17: Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Danjaq v EUIPO — Formosan (Shaken, not stirred)
Date: 2017-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017121EN.01003601.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/36





Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Danjaq v EUIPO — Formosan (Shaken, not stirred)
(Case T-74/17)
(2017/C 121/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Danjaq, LLC (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: S. Baran and G. Messenger, barristers, D. Stone and A. Dykes, solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Formosan IP (Oxford, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Shaken, not stirred’ — Application for registration No 13 406 343

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of in Case R 255/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-62/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Daniela Chlubna v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG
Date: 2017-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, collective dismissal, employer, staff, work contract, worker consultation, worker information, working conditions








C_2017144EN.01002401.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Daniela Chlubna v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-62/17)
(2017/C 144/31)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Daniela Chlubna

Defendant: APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred







1.


Must the notion of a controlling undertaking specified in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) be understood to mean only an undertaking whose influence is ensured through shareholdings and voting rights or does a contractual or de facto influence (e.g. as a result of the power of natural persons to give instructions) suffice?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:
Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
Does the second subparagraph of Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC require the workers' representatives also to be informed of the economic or other grounds on which the controlling undertaking has taken its decisions that have led the employer to contemplate collective redundancies?










4.


Is it compatible with Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC to place on workers pursuing a judicial process to assert the invalidity of their dismissal effected in the context of collective dismissals, on the basis that the employer effecting the dismissal did not properly consult the workers’ representatives, a burden of presenting the facts and adducing evidence that goes beyond presenting the indicia for a controlling influence?










5.


If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
What further obligations to present facts and adduce evidence may be placed on the workers in the present case pursuant to the abovementioned provisions?






(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 6 February 2017 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.40018(2) — Car battery recycling — Rapporteur: Germany
Date: 2017-02-06
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.01000401.xml










23.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 396/4





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 6 February 2017 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.40018(2) — Car battery recycling
Rapporteur: Germany
(2017/C 396/04)






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fine.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable in this case.










6.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are mitigating circumstances applicable in this case to one undertaking.










7.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that an increase pursuant to Point 37 of the Fining Guidelines should be applied in this case.










8.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice.










9.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the Inability to Pay request.










10.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine.










11.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-645/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 6 February 2017 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB (Interim measures — Single Resolution Board — Single Resolution Fund — Ex-ante contributions — Application for stay of execution — No urgency)
Date: 2017-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial instrument, fund (EU), reimbursement of aid








C_2017112EN.01003802.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/38





Order of the President of the General Court of 6 February 2017 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
(Case T-645/16 R)
((Interim measures - Single Resolution Board - Single Resolution Fund - Ex-ante contributions - Application for stay of execution - No urgency))
(2017/C 112/53)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: B. Meyring and S. Schelo, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking the grant of interim measures as regards, firstly, a stay of execution of the decision of the Executive Session of the SRB (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) of 15 April 2016 concerning the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016 and, secondly, an order that the SRB reimburse the ex-ante contributions paid by the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-80/17: Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Steiniger v EUIPO — ista Deutschland (IST)
Date: 2017-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, hand tool, machinery, medical device, metal product, registered trade mark, retail selling, trade-mark law, wholesale selling








C_2017112EN.01004301.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/43





Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Steiniger v EUIPO — ista Deutschland (IST)
(Case T-80/17)
(2017/C 112/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Ingo Steiniger (Nümbrecht, Germany) (represented by: K. Schulze Horn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ista Deutschland GmbH (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for registration of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘IST’ — Application for registration No 10 673 812

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 2242/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 24 September 2015;










—


vary the contested decision in such a way that the objection is rejected in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 20(6) of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case C-65/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Oftalma Hospital Srl v CIOV -Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte
Date: 2017-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, provision of services, right of establishment, services contract








C_2017144EN.01002502.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/25





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Oftalma Hospital Srl v CIOV -Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte
(Case C-65/17)
(2017/C 144/33)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Oftalma Hospital Srl

Respondent: CIOV -Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte

Questions referred







1.


On a proper construction of Article 9 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, (1) which provides that contracts which have as their object services listed in Annex I B are to be awarded in accordance with Article 14 and Article 16, do such contracts in any case remain subject to the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, transparency and non-discrimination, pursuant to Article 43[EC], Article 49[EC] and Article 86[EC]?










2.


If the first question should be answered in the affirmative, must Article 27 of Directive 92/50/EEC, which provides that where a contract is awarded by negotiated procedure the number of candidates admitted to negotiate may not be less than three, provided that there is a sufficient number of suitable candidates, be interpreted as applying likewise to contracts having as their object services listed in Annex I B of the directive?










3.


Does Article 27 of Directive 92/50/EEC, which provides that where a contract is awarded by negotiated procedure the number of candidates admitted to negotiate may not be less than three, provided that there is a sufficient number of suitable candidates, preclude the application of a national law that, for public contracts signed before Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2) relating to services listed in Annex I B of Directive 92/50/EEC was adopted, does not guarantee the opening up of public procurement to competition if the negotiated procedure is used?






(1)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

(2)  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 C-61/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Miriam Bichat v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG
Date: 2017-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, collective dismissal, employer, staff, work contract, worker consultation, worker information, working conditions








C_2017144EN.01002302.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Miriam Bichat v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-61/17)
(2017/C 144/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Miriam Bichat

Defendant: APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred







1.


Must the notion of a controlling undertaking specified in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) be understood to mean only an undertaking whose influence is ensured through shareholdings and voting rights or does a contractual or de facto influence (e.g. as a result of the power of natural persons to give instructions) suffice?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:
Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
Does the second subparagraph of Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC require the workers' representatives also to be informed of the economic or other grounds on which the controlling undertaking has taken its decisions that have led the employer to contemplate collective redundancies?










4.


Is it compatible with Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC to place on workers pursuing a judicial process to assert the invalidity of their dismissal effected in the context of collective dismissals, on the basis that the employer effecting the dismissal did not properly consult the workers’ representatives, a burden of presenting the facts and adducing evidence that goes beyond presenting the indicia for a controlling influence?










5.


If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
What further obligations to present facts and adduce evidence may be placed on the workers in the present case pursuant to the abovementioned provisions?






(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.
Case T-79/17: Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Schoonjans v Commission
Date: 2017-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), indemnification, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2017112EN.01004201.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/42





Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Schoonjans v Commission
(Case T-79/17)
(2017/C 112/58)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alain Schoonjans (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule that






—


The decision of the selection board of the competition of 11 April 2016 rejecting the applicant’s candidature in Internal Competition COM/02/AST/16 is annulled;










—


The European Commission is ordered to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm which he has suffered;










—


The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises a plea of illegality of the competition notice based on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 82(7) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), inasmuch as the Commission restricted access to the internal competition organised for grade AST 2 to those members of the contractual staff in Function Group III.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, inasmuch as that condition for admission is not, in any event, justified by the interest of the service or the type of posts to be filled.
Case T-30/17: Order of the President of the General Court of 6 February 2017 — Bender v Parliament
Date: 2017-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: party congress, political group (EP)








C_2017178EN.01003403.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/34





Order of the President of the General Court of 6 February 2017 — Bender v Parliament
(Case T-30/17)
(2017/C 178/54)
Language of the case: German
The President of the General Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.