37421Case T-737/19: Action brought on 5 November 2019 — Huevos Herrera Mejías v EUIPO — Montesierra (MontiSierra HUEVOS CON SABOR A CAMPO)cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37422Case T-361/19: Order of the General Court of 5 November 2019 — CF v Parliamentcjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37423Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 5 November 2019.#Luz Saúde, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal — EU trade mark — Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.#Case C-622/19 P.cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37424Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 5 November 2019.#Luz Saúde, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal — EU trade mark — Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.#Case C-622/19 P.cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37425Case C-822/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 5 November 2019 — Flavourstream SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală a Vămilor — Direcția Regională Vamală Brașov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiucjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37426Case C-816/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 5 November 2019 — QF v Germanwings GmbHcjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37427Case C-813/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel d’Aix-en-Provence (France) lodged on 5 November 2019 — MNcjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37428Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 5 November 2019.#Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.#Case T-361/18.cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37429Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 5 November 2019.#Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.#Case T-361/18.cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37430Case T-361/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2019 — APEDA v EUIPO — Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office (SIR BASMATI RICE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37431Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 November 2019.#European Commission v Republic of Poland.#Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU law — Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence — Lowering of the retirement age of judges of the ordinary Polish courts — Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond the newly set age, by authorisation of the Minister for Justice — Article 157 TFEU — Directive 2006/54/EC — Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) — Prohibition of discrimination based on sex in matters of pay, employment and occupation — Establishment of different retirement ages for men and women holding the position of judge of the ordinary Polish courts or of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) or that of public prosecutor in Poland.#Case C-192/18.cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37432Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 November 2019.#European Commission v Republic of Poland.#Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU law — Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence — Lowering of the retirement age of judges of the ordinary Polish courts — Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond the newly set age, by authorisation of the Minister for Justice — Article 157 TFEU — Directive 2006/54/EC — Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) — Prohibition of discrimination based on sex in matters of pay, employment and occupation — Establishment of different retirement ages for men and women holding the position of judge of the ordinary Polish courts or of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) or that of public prosecutor in Poland.#Case C-192/18.cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37433Case C-192/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 November 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU law — Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence — Lowering of the retirement age of judges of the ordinary Polish courts — Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond the newly set age, by authorisation of the Minister for Justice — Article 157 TFEU — Directive 2006/54/EC — Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) — Prohibition of discrimination based on sex in matters of pay, employment and occupation — Establishment of different retirement ages for men and women holding the position of judge of the ordinary Polish courts or of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) or that of public prosecutor in Poland)cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37434Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 November 2019.#Tadeusz Ogrodnik v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Rectification.#Case T-276/17 REC.cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37435Ordonnance de rectification du 5 novembre 2019.#Paulo Nascimento Consulting – Mediação Imobiliária Lda contre Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira.#Rectification d’arrêt.#Affaire C-692/17 REC.cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37436Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 November 2019.#European Central Bank (ECB) and Others v Trasta Komercbanka and Others.#Appeal — Admissibility — Representation of a party before the Court — Power of attorney given to the lawyer — Power of attorney withdrawn by the liquidator of the appellant company — Further steps in the proceedings by the decision-making body of the appellant company — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union — Admissibility — Whether the shareholders of the company whose authorisation has been withdrawn are directly concerned.#Joined Cases C-663/17 P, C-665/17 P and C-669/17 P.cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37437Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 November 2019.#European Central Bank and European Commission v Ivan Fursin and Others.#Appeal — Admissibility — Representation of a party before the Court — Power of attorney given to the lawyer — Power of attorney withdrawn by the liquidator of the appellant company — Further steps in the proceedings by the decision-making body of the appellant company — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union — Admissibility — Whether the shareholders of the company whose authorisation has been withdrawn are directly concerned.#Joined Cases C-663/17 P and C-665/17 P.cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37438Joined Cases C-663/17 P, C-665/17 P and C-669/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 November 2019 — European Central Bank (ECB) v Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA (C-663/17 P), European Commission v Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA, and European Central Bank (ECB) (C-665/17 P), Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA v European Central Bank (ECB) (C-669/17 P) (Appeal — Admissibility — Representation of a party before the Court — Power of attorney given to the lawyer — Power of attorney withdrawn by the liquidator of the appellant company — Further steps in the proceedings by the decision-making body of the appellant company — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union — Admissibility Whether the shareholders of the company whose authorisation has been withdrawn are directly concerned)cjeu_case · 5 novembre 2019
37439Case T-751/19: Action brought on 4 November 2019 – Reckitt Benckiser Investments and Others v Commissioncjeu_case · 4 novembre 2019
37440Case T-738/19: Action brought on 4 November 2019 – Clouds Sky v EUIPO – The Cloud Networks (Wi-Fi Powered by The Cloud)cjeu_case · 4 novembre 2019