do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-200/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Susanne de Winder v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017231EN.01001002.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Susanne de Winder v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-200/17)
(2017/C 231/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Susanne de Winder

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/9, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case C-202/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Peter Rebbe, Hans-Peter Rebbe, Harmine Rebbe v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017231EN.01001201.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Peter Rebbe, Hans-Peter Rebbe, Harmine Rebbe v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-202/17)
(2017/C 231/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Peter Rebbe, Hans-Peter Rebbe, Harmine Rebbe

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case C-197/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Thomas Neufeldt and Others v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017231EN.01000901.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Thomas Neufeldt and Others v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-197/17)
(2017/C 231/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Thomas Neufeldt, Julia Neufeldt and Gabriel Neufeldt, both represented by their parents, Sandra Neufeldt and Thomas Neufeldt

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case C-195/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Helga Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, strike, transport regulations, traveller








C_2017221EN.01000901.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Helga Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-195/17)
(2017/C 221/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Helga Krüsemann, Gabriele Heidenreich, Doris Manneck, Rita Juretschke

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8412 — Engie Services Holding UK/Keepmoat Regeneration Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, economic concentration, housing, merger control, provision of services








C_2017120EN.01001201.xml










13.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/12





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8412 — Engie Services Holding UK/Keepmoat Regeneration Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 120/04)
On 6 April 2017, 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 English 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 32017M8412. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, commemoration, euro, issuing of currency




C_2017120EN.01001601.xml










13.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/16





New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
(2017/C 120/08)



Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.


Issuing country
: Portugal


Subject of commemoration
: 150 Years of Public Security


Description of the design
: The design shows human figures and buildings, symbolic representations of citizens and cities, where the public security is mainly assured and the simplified police symbol. The legends include the year ‘1867’ and the year of issue ‘2017’, the country of issue ‘PORTUGAL’, the subject of commemoration (‘SEGURANÇA PÚBLICA’ – Public Security), the three main issues related to citizenship (‘DIREITOS’, ‘LIBERDADES’ e ‘GARANTIAS’ – Rights, Freedoms and Warranties), and the author’s name JOSÉ DE GUIMARÃES.
The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.


Number of coins to be issued
: 


Date of issue
: July 2017


(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).
Case C-196/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Kathrin Meyer v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017231EN.01000801.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Kathrin Meyer v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-196/17)
(2017/C 231/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kathrin Meyer

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.