do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-370/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny (France) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Caisse de retraite du personnel navigant professionnel de l’aéronautique civile (CRPNPAC) v Vueling Airlines SA
Date: 2017-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, damages, employer, fraud, frontier worker, public institution, social security legislation, wage earner








C_2017283EN.01002501.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/25





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny (France) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Caisse de retraite du personnel navigant professionnel de l’aéronautique civile (CRPNPAC) v Vueling Airlines SA
(Case C-370/17)
(2017/C 283/34)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Caisse de retraite du personnel navigant professionnel de l’aéronautique civile (CRPNPAC)

Defendant: Vueling Airlines SA

Question referred

Is the effect of an E 101 certificate issued, in accordance with Article 11(1) and Article 12a(1a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, (1) by the institution designated by the authority of the Member State whose social security legislation remains applicable to the situation of the employee to be preserved even though the E 101 certificate has been obtained as a result of fraud or an abuse of right, which has been established in a final decision of a court of the Member State in which the employee carries out or should carry out his activity?
If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, does the issuing of E 101 certificates prevent the victims of the damage suffered as a result of the conduct of the employer, who has committed the fraud, from being compensated for that damage, without the affiliation of the employees to the schemes designated by the E 101 certificate being called into question by the action for damages brought against the employer?


(1)  OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1.
Case C-372/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
Date: 2017-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, recording equipment, specification of tariff heading








C_2017300EN.01001702.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
(Case C-372/17)
(2017/C 300/21)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vision Research Europe BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Question referred

Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 (1) of 4 February 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid if the Rechtbank is correct in its provisional view that subheading 8525 80 30 should be interpreted as meaning that the camera, as described in 2 and 12 above, which has a volatile memory whereby the images captured in the camera are lost when subsequent images are captured or when the camera is switched off, can be classified thereunder?


(1)  OJ 2014 L 38, p. 20.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1087 of 19 June 2017 amending Decision 2014/386/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol
Date: 2017-06-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, import (EU), import restriction, international sanctions, originating product, territorial dispute, territorial law








L_2017156EN.01002401.xml










20.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 156/24








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/1087
of 19 June 2017
         
amending Decision 2014/386/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 23 June 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/386/CFSP (1).












(2)


The Council does not recognise and continues to condemn the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation and will remain committed to fully implement its non-recognition policy.












(3)


On the basis of a review of Decision 2014/386/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 23 June 2018.












(4)


Decision 2014/386/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The second paragraph of Article 5 of Decision 2014/386/CFSP is replaced by the following:

‘This Decision shall apply until 23 June 2018.’.



Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 19 June 2017.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  Council Decision 2014/386/CFSP of 23 June 2014 concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol (OJ L 183, 24.6.2014, p. 70).
Case C-606/15: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 19 June 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic
Date: 2017-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Community certification, accident prevention, infringement of EU law, rail transport, safety standard, transport safety








C_2017300EN.01002701.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/27





Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 19 June 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic
(Case C-606/15) (1)

(2017/C 300/31)
Language of the case: Czech
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal concerning Case T-232/16 P (OJ C 63, 27.2.2017)
Date: 2017-06-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, pension scheme, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017195EN.01004701.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/47





Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal concerning Case T-232/16 P
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 63 of 27 February 2017
)
(2017/C 195/62)
The notice in Case T-232/16 P, Commission v Frieberger and Vallin, should read as follows:

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Commission v Frieberger and Vallin
(Case T-232/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Raising of the retirement age - Decision refusing to recalculate the bonus relating to pension rights - Principle of ne ultra petita - Error in law - Obligation to state reasons))
(2017/C 063/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Jürgen Frieberger (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) and Benjamin Vallin (Saint-Gilles, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2016, Frieberger and Vallin v Commission (F-3/15, EU:F:2016:26), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2016, Frieberger and Vallin v Commission (F-3/15);










2.


Dismisses the action brought by Mr Jürgen Frieberger and Mr Benjamin Vallin before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-3/15;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings;










4.


Orders Mr Frieberger and Mr Vallin to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal, including the costs incurred by the European Commission;










5.


Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs in relation both to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and to the present proceedings.







(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Case C-371/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Uber BV v Richard Leipold
Date: 2017-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of passengers, competitiveness, contract of carriage, mobile phone, public order, software, taxi, vehicle rental








C_2017318EN.01000502.xml










25.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Uber BV v Richard Leipold
(Case C-371/17)
(2017/C 318/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Uber BV

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Richard Leipold

Questions referred







1.


In the case where an undertaking which, in cooperation with hire vehicle undertakings licensed for the carriage of persons, makes available a smartphone application through which users can place orders for chauffeur-driven hire vehicles, does that undertaking itself supply a service in the field of transport within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU and Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123 (1) if the organisational services provided by that undertaking are closely related to the service of carriage, in particular where that undertaking






—


determines the prices, the processing of payments and the conditions of carriage for the assignment of trips




and






—


advertises the vehicles procured by the undertaking under its own brand designation and with the same uniform promotional offers?




If the Court should answer Question 1 in the negative:










2.


May an injunction prohibiting a service of the kind at issue in the main proceedings be justified, in the light of current modes of transport, from the perspective of the safeguarding of public policy under Article 16(1) of Directive 2006/123 on the basis of the objective of maintaining the competitiveness and proper functioning of taxi services?






(1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.
Council Decision (EU) 2017/1101 of 19 June 2017 appointing a chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2017-06-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU office or agency, administrator, appointment of members, decision-making body (EU), intellectual property








L_2017158EN.01004301.xml










21.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 158/43








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/1101
of 19 June 2017
         
appointing a chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1) and in particular Article 166(1) thereof,


Whereas on 1 December 2016, a list of candidates to the post of chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘the Office’) was submitted to the Council by the Management Board of the Office,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Sven STÜRMANN, born in Bonn (Germany) on 20 November 1971, is hereby appointed chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the Office for a term of 5 years.
The date on which the 5-year term referred to in the first paragraph shall commence shall be determined by the Management Board of the Office.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Luxembourg, 19 June 2017.


For the Council


The President

J. HERRERA
            





(1)  
            OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1.