do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-292/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017249EN.01002101.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-292/17)
(2017/C 249/32)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EUflight.de GmbH

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Question referred

Is a flight cancellation still caused by an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/04 (1) when the circumstances (here, ‘wildcat strike’ or ‘wave of illness’) only indirectly affect the flight in question in that they prompted the air carrier to reschedule its entire flight plan and the new schedule includes the scheduled cancellation of that specific flight? Can an air carrier avoid liability under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/04 where the flight in question, had it not been rescheduled, could have been operated because the crew planned for that flight would have been available if it had not been assigned to other flights through rescheduling?


(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-290/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Angelina Fell, Florian Fell, Vincent Fell v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017239EN.01003901.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/39





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Angelina Fell, Florian Fell, Vincent Fell v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-290/17)
(2017/C 239/49)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Angelina Fell, Florian Fell, Vincent Fell

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-291/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Helga Jordan-Grompe, Sven Grompe, Yves-Felix Grompe, Justin Joel Grompe v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017239EN.01004001.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/40





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Helga Jordan-Grompe, Sven Grompe, Yves-Felix Grompe, Justin Joel Grompe v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-291/17)
(2017/C 239/50)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Helga Jordan-Grompe, Sven Grompe, Yves-Felix Grompe, Justin Joel Grompe

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.
Council Decision (EU) 2017/884 of 22 May 2017 appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Sweden, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2017-05-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, Sweden, appointment of members








L_2017135EN.01002101.xml










24.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 135/21








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/884
of 22 May 2017
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Sweden, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Swedish Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. On 20 July 2015, by Council Decision (EU) 2015/1203 (4), Ms Lotta HÅKANSSON HARJU was replaced by Ms Anna LJUNGDELL as a member.












(2)


A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Anna LJUNGDELL,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:






—


Ms Camilla JANSON, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige, Upplands-Bro kommun.







Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 22 May 2017.


For the Council


The President

E. BARTOLO
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).

(4)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1203 of 20 July 2015 appointing three Swedish members and six Swedish alternate members of the Committee of the Regions (OJ L 195, 23.7.2015, p. 44).
Council Decision (EU) 2017/885 of 22 May 2017 appointing an alternate member, proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2017-05-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, Germany, appointment of members








L_2017135EN.01002201.xml










24.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 135/22








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/885
of 22 May 2017
         
appointing an alternate member, proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.












(2)


An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Nils WIECHMANN,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following is hereby appointed as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:






—


Ms Heike SCHARFENBERGER, Mitglied des Landtags Rheinland-Pfalz.







Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 22 May 2017.


For the Council


The President

E. BARTOLO
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).
Case T-313/17: Action brought on 22 May 2017 — Wajos v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)
Date: 2017-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, flavouring, foodstuff, glass, packaging product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01005001.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/50





Action brought on 22 May 2017 — Wajos v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)
(Case T-313/17)
(2017/C 231/64)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Wajos GmbH (Dohr, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, R. Krillke and B. Schneiders, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a bottle) — Application for registration No 14 886 097

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 in Case R 1526/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.