do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-7/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Modesto Jardón Lama v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social
Date: 2018-01-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: early retirement, free movement of workers, pension scheme, retirement conditions








C_2018142EN.01002102.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Modesto Jardón Lama v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social
(Case C-7/18)
(2018/C 142/29)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Modesto Jardón Lama

Respondents: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

Question referred

Must Article 48 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which requires as a condition for access to an early retirement pension that the amount of the pension to be received must be higher than the minimum pension which would be due to the person concerned under that same national legislation, the term ‘pension to be received’ being interpreted as the actual pension from the competent Member State (in this case, Spain) alone, without also taking into account the actual pension which that person may receive through another benefit of the same kind from one or more other Member States?
Case T-5/18: Action brought on 3 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY)
Date: 2018-01-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, beverage, carriage of goods, clothing, household article, packaging, registered trade mark, storage of food, trade-mark law








C_2018072EN.01004501.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/45





Action brought on 3 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY)
(Case T-5/18)
(2018/C 072/57)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hamburg Beer Company GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Hamburg BEER COMPANY’ — Application for registration No 15 272 743

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2017 in Case R 436/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-5/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of JUREX GmbH v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
Date: 2018-01-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, postal service, tax exemption, universal service








C_2018123EN.01001001.xml










9.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of JUREX GmbH v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
(Case C-5/18)
(2018/C 123/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of JUREX GmbH

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Questions referred







1.


Is the formal service of documents pursuant to provisions of public law (rules governing court procedure and laws governing service in administrative procedures — Paragraph 33(1) of the Postgesetz (Law on postal services) — a universal postal service under Article 3(4) of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997 (1) (the Postal Directive)?










2.


If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
Is an undertaking which effects the formal service of documents pursuant to provisions of public law a ‘universal service provider’, within the meaning of Article 2.13 of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997, providing a universal postal service in whole or in part, and is such service exempt from tax under Article 132(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (2)







(1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

(2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-4/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of DIREKTexpress Holding AG v Finanzamt Ulm
Date: 2018-01-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, postal service, tax exemption, universal service








C_2018123EN.01000901.xml










9.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of DIREKTexpress Holding AG v Finanzamt Ulm
(Case C-4/18)
(2018/C 123/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of DIREKTexpress Holding AG

Defendant: Finanzamt Ulm

Question referred

Is an undertaking which effects the formal service of documents pursuant to provisions of public law a ‘universal service provider’, within the meaning of Article 2.13 of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997, (1) providing a universal postal service in whole or in part, and is such service exempt from tax under Article 132(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (2)



(1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

(2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.