do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-156/17: Action brought on 11 September 2017 — L v Parliament
Date: 2017-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, access to EU information, arbitration, dismissal, indemnification, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, source of information, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017402EN.01003801.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/38





Action brought on 11 September 2017 — L v Parliament
(Case T-156/17)
(2017/C 402/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: L (represented by: I. Coutant Peyre, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the decision of the European Parliament to dismiss the applicant dated 24/06/2016 and received on 25/07/2016;










—


order the Parliament to pay non-pecuniary damages of 100 000 euros; and










—


order the Parliament to pay legal costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of protection of whistle-blowers as defined by Articles 22(a), Article 22(b) of the Staff Regulations, Article 6(1) of the Internal Rules and the respective interest of the Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging absence of motivation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging obvious error of assessment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging absence of response by the Parliament to the applicant’s request of assistance under Article 24, breach of the right to the defence, breach of the right to conciliation.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the right of access to the documents against the applicant.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging abusive dismissal.
Case C-536/17 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2017 by Josel, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2017 in Case T-333/15: Josel v EUIPO — Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland
Date: 2017-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial services, insurance, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018083EN.01001001.xml










5.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 83/10





Appeal brought on 11 September 2017 by Josel, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2017 in Case T-333/15: Josel v EUIPO — Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland
(Case C-536/17 P)
(2018/C 083/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Josel, SL (represented by: J. Güell Serra, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland BV
By order of 17 January 2018 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case C-130/17: Order of the President of the Court of 11 September 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
Date: 2017-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice, biometrics, foreign national, identity document, infringement of EU law, personal data, public safety, technical specification








C_2017402EN.01002002.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/20





Order of the President of the Court of 11 September 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
(Case C-130/17) (1)

(2017/C 402/26)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Case C-533/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Anja Oehlke, Wolfgang Oehlke v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification, transport regulations








C_2017424EN.01002001.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Anja Oehlke, Wolfgang Oehlke v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-533/17)
(2017/C 424/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Anja Oehlke, Wolfgang Oehlke

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, (1) read in the light of recital 15, to be interpreted as meaning that an operating air carrier can be exempted from its obligation to pay compensation solely on the basis of such extraordinary circumstances that first occurred on the day of the flight, or can extraordinary circumstances that already occurred on the previous day justify the cancellation or long delay of a flight on the following day?










2.


If extraordinary circumstances that already occurred on the previous day can also justify the cancellation or long delay of a flight on the following day, is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is required, as part of the reasonable measures which it must take in order to avoid extraordinary circumstances, to make adequate provision for such contingencies in advance and, in any event, also adequately provide replacement aircraft at its home base?






(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-532/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Wolfgang Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd.
Date: 2017-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aircraft, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, vehicle rental








C_2017402EN.01001201.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Wolfgang Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd.
(Case C-532/17)
(2017/C 402/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Wolfgang Wirth, Theodor Mülder, Ruth Mülder, Gisela Wirth

Defendant: Thomson Airways Ltd.

Question referred

Is the concept of ‘operating air carrier’ in 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 (1), to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which leases to another air carrier an aircraft, including crew, for a contractually-stipulated number of flights under a so-called wet lease, but which does not bear the principal operational responsibility for the individual flights, and where it is stated in the passengers’ booking confirmation that the flight is ‘operated by …’ that very carrier, is the operating air carrier within the meaning of that regulation?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case C-534/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Ursula Kaufmann, Viktor Schay v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification, transport regulations








C_2017424EN.01002002.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Ursula Kaufmann, Viktor Schay v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-534/17)
(2017/C 424/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Ursula Kaufmann, Viktor Schay

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred









1.


Is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, (1) read in the light of recital 15, to be interpreted as meaning that an operating air carrier can be exempted from its obligation to pay compensation solely on the basis of such extraordinary circumstances that first occurred on the day of the flight, or can extraordinary circumstances that already occurred on the previous day justify the cancellation or long delay of a flight on the following day?












2.


If extraordinary circumstances that already occurred on the previous day can also justify the cancellation or long delay of a flight on the following day, is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is required, as part of the reasonable measures which it must take in order to avoid extraordinary circumstances, to make adequate provision for such contingencies in advance and, in any event, also adequately provide replacement aircraft at its home base?






(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 T-623/17: Action brought on 11 September 2017 — Previsión Sanitaria Nacional, PSN, Mutua de Seguros y Reaseguros a Prima Fija v SRB
Date: 2017-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, aid for restructuring, award of contract, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, provision of services, right to justice, services contract








C_2017437EN.01003201.xml










18.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/32





Action brought on 11 September 2017 — Previsión Sanitaria Nacional, PSN, Mutua de Seguros y Reaseguros a Prima Fija v SRB
(Case T-623/17)
(2017/C 437/39)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Previsión Sanitaria Nacional, PSN, Mutua de Seguros y Reaseguros a Prima Fija (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Ariño Sánchez, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Annul the contested act;










—


In any event, order that the contract for the provision of services relating to the definitive valuation and the valuation referred to in Article 20(16) to (19) of Regulation No 806/2014 be awarded by means of a competitive selection procedure, in which the expert who carried out the provisional valuation of the Banco cannot participate, recognise the right to be heard of the parties adversely affected by the original act in the context of the ex post valuation, granting access to all the documents of the administrative procedure, and order that the applicant be awarded the maximum countervalue resulting from the ex post valuation and its payment by the Banco’s [Banco de Santander] contractor or, in the alternative, by SRB;










—


Irrespective of the second head of claim, and incidentally to the first, order SRB to make a payment to PSN in the sum of EUR 276 201,42 together with statutory interest as of the date of this application.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.