do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-446/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 24 July 2017 — Woonhaven Antwerpen v Khalid Berkani, Asmae Hajji
Date: 2017-07-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Flanders (Belgium), consumer protection, property leasing, subsidised housing, unfair terms of contract








C_2017318EN.01001002.xml










25.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 24 July 2017 — Woonhaven Antwerpen v Khalid Berkani, Asmae Hajji
(Case C-446/17)
(2017/C 318/16)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Woonhaven Antwerpen

Defendants: Khalid Berkani, Asmae Hajji

Questions referred







1.


Should a social housing association recognised by the Flemish Government which rents out social housing to a consumer at a rental price which depends, on the one hand, on the market value determined by that association itself and, on the other hand, on the income and the family composition of the tenant, be considered an undertaking within the meaning of European law?










2.


Is the relationship between a recognised social housing association and a consumer when that consumer rents social housing from that social housing association, and in particular Article 11 of the model contract which forms part of that relationship, a contract within the meaning given to that term in Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?










3.


Does a contract or statutory relationship whereby a recognised social housing association rents out social housing to a consumer fall within the scope of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and should a recognised social housing association which rents out social housing to a consumer at a rental price which depends, on the one hand, on the market value determined by that association itself and, on the other hand, by the income and family composition of the tenant, be considered a seller or supplier within the meaning of that Directive?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case C-443/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 July 2017 — Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General of Patents
Date: 2017-07-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product, patent








C_2017309EN.01003002.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/30





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 July 2017 — Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General of Patents
(Case C-443/17)
(2017/C 309/41)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Abraxis Bioscience LLC

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents

Question referred

Is Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation (1) to be interpreted as permitting the grant of an SPC where the marketing authorisation referred to in Article 3(b) is the first authorisation within the scope of the basic patent to place the product on the market as a medicinal product and where the product is a new formulation of an old active ingredient?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ L 152, p. 1)
Case C-445/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 July 2017 — Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli v Pilato SpA
Date: 2017-07-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, death, motor car, specification of tariff heading








C_2017347EN.01001101.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 July 2017 — Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli v Pilato SpA
(Case C-445/17)
(2017/C 347/12)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Defendant: Pilato SpA

Question referred

Has CN heading 8704 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted to the effect that it must include hearses? If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are hearses to be classified under CN heading 8705 or CN heading 8703?