do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-715/20,  (Lack of reasons for termination): Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa – Nowej Huty w Krakowie – Poland) – K.L. v X sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 4 – Principle of non-discrimination – Difference in treatment in the event of dismissal – Termination of a fixed-term employment contract – No obligation to state the reasons for termination – Judicial review – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Date: 2024-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dismissal, equal treatment, full-time employment, judicial review, labour law, temporary employment, work contract








C_202402383EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2383


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa — Nowej Huty w Krakowie — Poland) — K.L. v X sp. z o.o.
(Case C-715/20, (1) (Lack of reasons for termination))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Difference in treatment in the event of dismissal - Termination of a fixed-term employment contract - No obligation to state the reasons for termination - Judicial review - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
(C/2024/2383)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa — Nowej Huty w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: K.L.

Defendant: X sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation according to which an employer is not required to state, in writing, the reasons for the termination of a fixed-term employment contract with a notice period, although it is bound by such an obligation in the event of termination of an employment contract of indefinite duration. The national court hearing a dispute between individuals is required, where it is not possible for it to interpret the applicable national law in a way which is consistent with that clause, to ensure, within its jurisdiction, the judicial protection which individuals derive from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to guarantee the full effectiveness of that article by disapplying, in so far as necessary, any contrary provision of national law.


(1)  
            OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2383/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-138/24: Action brought on 20 February 2024 – European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2024-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European tax cooperation, corporation tax, financial institution, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, single market, tax avoidance, tax harmonisation, tax law








C_202402291EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2291


2.4.2024





Action brought on 20 February 2024 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-138/24)
(C/2024/2291)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels, A. Ferrand, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (OJ 2016 L 193, p. 1), by adding securitisation special purpose entities to the list of types of financial undertakings set out in Article 2(5) of that directive with a view to allowing their exclusion from the scope of the interest limitation rules of Article 4 of that directive;










—


order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.





Plea in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg added securitisation special purpose entities to the types of financial undertakings listed in Article 2(5) of Directive 2016/1164 with a view to allowing their exclusion from the scope of the interest limitation rules of Article 4 of that directive.
Article 4(7) of Directive 2016/1164 admittedly provides for the option for Member States to exclude financial undertakings from the limitation on the deductibility of exceeding borrowing costs for the purposes of the calculation of the basis of assessment for corporation tax. However, Article 2(5) of that directive contains an exhaustive list of entities that fall within the concept of financial undertakings. Securitisation special purpose entities are not included in that list and therefore do not fall within the concept of financial undertakings within the meaning of that directive.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2291/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-95/24: Action brought on 20 February 2024 — Laura Food/EUIPO — Morghati Abderrahim (THE VERT DE CHINE 4011 ALJAMAL ALJAMAL 4011 B 552)
Date: 2024-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law








C_202402450EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2450


8.4.2024





Action brought on 20 February 2024 — Laura Food/EUIPO — Morghati Abderrahim (THE VERT DE CHINE 4011 ALJAMAL ALJAMAL 4011 B 552)
(Case T-95/24)
(C/2024/2450)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Laura Food Srl (Rozzano, Italy) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Morghati Abderrahim, Ditta Individuale (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark THE VERT DE CHINE 4011 ALJAMAL ALJAMAL 4011 B 552 — Application for registration No 16 365 959

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2023 in Case R 909/2023-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener, if any, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2450/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-135/24, John Cockerill: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 20 February 2024 - John Cockerill SA v Belgian State
Date: 2024-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, group of companies, loss, parent company, profit, subsidiary, tax evasion, tax exemption, tax law, tax system








C_202403313EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3313


3.6.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 20 February 2024 - John Cockerill SA v Belgian State


(Case C-135/24, John Cockerill)

(C/2024/3313)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: John Cockerill SA

Defendant: Belgian State

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 4 of Directive 2011/96/EU (1) have direct effect and, combined with other sources of EU law, must it be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State:






(i)


which introduces a tax consolidation system (the intra-group transfer) allowing groups of companies to transfer, under certain conditions, some or all of the taxable profits made by some subsidiaries to other subsidiaries that have incurred losses in the tax year (the intra-group transfer), and










(ii)


which excludes from that advantage loss-making companies, for the amount of the dividends received, which qualify for exemption under the legislation of the Member State transposing Directive 2011/96/EU?














2.


Is that legislation likely to fall within the scope of Article 1(2) of Directive 2011/96/EU, which states that it ‘shall not preclude the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions required for the prevention of fraud or abuse’?






(1)  Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 2011 L 345, p. 8).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3313/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-134/24, Tomann : Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2024 – UR acting as liquidator of V GmbH v DF
Date: 2024-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, right of action, worker information








C_202402734EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2734


29.4.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2024 – UR acting as liquidator of V GmbH v DF


(Case C-134/24, Tomann
                (1)
)

(C/2024/2734)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant, appellant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: UR, acting as liquidator of V GmbH

Applicant, respondent and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: DF

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 4(1) of Directive 98/59/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that a dismissal as part of a collective redundancy subject to compulsory notification can terminate the employment relationship of an employee concerned only once the standstill period has expired?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:










2.


Does the expiry of the standstill period not only require a collective redundancy notification, but must it also satisfy the conditions laid down in the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 98/59?










3.


Can an employer who has announced dismissals subject to compulsory notification without a (proper) collective redundancy notification give such notification at a later stage with the consequence that, after the expiry of the standstill period, the employment relationship of the employees concerned can be terminated by the dismissals previously announced?
If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative:










4.


Is it compatible with Article 6 of Directive 98/59 for national law to leave it to the competent authority to determine, in a manner which is incontestable for the employee and binding on the labour courts, when the standstill period expires in a particular case, or must the employee necessarily be able to bring an action before a court for review of the accuracy of the authority’s determination?






(1)  The present case has been given a fictitious name which does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.

(2)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2734/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-97/24: Action brought on 20 February 2024 — Sport-Point/EUIPO — Imperial (QUIET PLEASE)
Date: 2024-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cultural event, footwear industry, performing arts, registered trade mark, sporting event, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_202402451EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2451


8.4.2024





Action brought on 20 February 2024 — Sport-Point/EUIPO — Imperial (QUIET PLEASE)
(Case T-97/24)
(C/2024/2451)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sport-Point Holding GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: N. Schmitz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Imperial SpA (Funo di Argelato, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant at the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark QUIET PLEASE — Application for registration No 18 327 426

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2023 in Case R 1011/2023-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


amend the contested decision to the effect that European Union trademark application No 18 327 426 is accepted for registration;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2451/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-34/23,  Getin Noble Bank: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie – Poland) – RF v Getin Noble Bank S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Recovery and resolution of credit institutions – Power to restrict the enforcement of security interests – Provision for interpretation bearing no relation to the purpose of the main action – Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2024-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid for restructuring, bank, claim, company in difficulties, credit institution, enforcement of ruling, real estate credit








C_202403293EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3293


3.6.2024






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie – Poland) – RF v Getin Noble Bank S.A.


(Case C-34/23,
                (1)
Getin Noble Bank)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions - Power to restrict the enforcement of security interests - Provision for interpretation bearing no relation to the purpose of the main action - Manifest inadmissibility)
(C/2024/3293)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RF

Defendant: Getin Noble Bank S.A.

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie (Regional Court, Koszalin, Poland), made by decision of 30 December 2022, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  
            OJ C 155, 2.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3293/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 19 February 2024
Date: 2024-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202401144EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1144


20.2.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            19 February 2024
         
(C/2024/1144)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0776 




JPY


Japanese yen


161,59 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4547 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85448 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,2370 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9492 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,3045 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,455 




HUF


Hungarian forint


388,40 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3265 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9770 




TRY


Turkish lira


33,2640 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6479 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4522 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4273 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7536 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4503 




KRW


South Korean won


1 438,87 




ZAR


South African rand


20,4310 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7570 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 860,24 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,1585 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,410 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


38,826 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3433 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,3698 




INR


Indian rupee


89,4620 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1144/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-98/24: Action brought on 20 February 2024 — Osculati v EUIPO — Olymp Bezner (O)
Date: 2024-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bolt and screw industry, clothing, electrical equipment, lighting, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_202402452EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2452


8.4.2024





Action brought on 20 February 2024 — Osculati v EUIPO — Olymp Bezner (O)
(Case T-98/24)
(C/2024/2452)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Osculati Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Bacchini, M. Mazzitelli, E. Rondinelli and L. Seri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Olymp Bezner KG (Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark O — International registration designating the European Union No 1 631 210

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2023 in Case R 838/2023-4 corrected by corrigendum of 11 January 2024
         

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the opposition decision by which the opposition was rejected;










—


order EUIPO and Olymp Bezner KG to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceeding before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 102 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, also in conjunction with Article 59(2) of Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal;










—


Infringement of Article 102 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, also in conjunction with Article 59(1) of Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal;










—


Infringement of Article 102 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, also in conjunction with Article 59 of Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal;










—


Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, also in conjunction with Article 54(1) of Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal, and infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2452/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-196/24, Aucrinde: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal judiciaire de Chambéry (France) lodged on 20 February 2024 - xx v ww yy, zz, vv
Date: 2024-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil code, evidence, freedom of self-determination, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, protection of privacy








C_202403591EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3591


17.6.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal judiciaire de Chambéry (France) lodged on 20 February 2024 - xx v ww yy, zz, vv


(Case C-196/24, Aucrinde)
                (1)

(C/2024/3591)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal judiciaire de Chambéry

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: xx

Defendants: ww, yy, zz, vv

Other party: Ministère public

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (2), allow a national court to refuse to apply that regulation and to comply with the request from the requesting State, on the ground that the procedure specified in the request is contrary to fundamental principles of the national law of the requested State, and in particular Article 16-11 of the Civil Code?










2.


If Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters applies regardless of national law, how should Article 1 (right to dignity) and Article 7 (right to respect for private life) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights be interpreted and the links between them determined in order to establish whether or not such an application of the Regulation infringes the Charter of Fundamental Rights?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  
            OJ 2020 L 405, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3591/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)