37821Case C-741/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 8 October 2019 — Republic of Moldova v Komstroy, a company the successor in law to the company Energoalianscjeu_case · 8 octobre 2019
37822Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 October 2019.#Salvador Garriga Polledo and Others v European Parliament.#Action for annulment — Institutional law — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme — Regulatory act — Implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility.#Joined Cases T-102/19 and T-132/19.cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37823Case T-686/19: Action brought on 7 October 2019 – Euroapotheca v EUIPO – General Nutrition Investment (GNC LIVE WELL)cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37824Case T-684/19: Action brought on 7 October 2019 — Magyar v Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal v ACERcjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37825Case T-102/19 and T-132/19: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2019 — Garriga Polledo and Others v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme — Regulatory act — Implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37826Order of the Court of 7 October 2019.#L'Oréal 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 a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-590/19 P.cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37827Order of the Court of 7 October 2019.#L'Oréal 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 a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-590/19 P.cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37828Order of the Court of 7 October 2019.#L'Oréal 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 a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-589/19 P.cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37829Order of the Court of 7 October 2019.#L'Oréal 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 a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-589/19 P.cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37830Order of the Court of 7 October 2019.#L'Oréal 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 a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-588/19 P.cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37831Order of the Court of 7 October 2019.#L'Oréal 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 a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-588/19 P.cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37832Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 7 October 2019.#L'Oréal 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 a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-587/19 P.cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37833Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 7 October 2019.#L'Oréal 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 a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-587/19 P.cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37834Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeal may proceed) of 7 October 2019.#L'Oréal 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 a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-586/19 P.cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37835Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeal may proceed) of 7 October 2019.#L'Oréal 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 a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-586/19 P.cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37836Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 October 2019.#HA v Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(h) to (j) — Various exemptions connected with children or young persons, school or university education — Surfing and sailing courses for schools and universities — Class trip.#Case C-47/19.cjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37837Case C-739/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 7 October 2019 – VK v An Bord Pleanálacjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37838Case C-738/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 7 October 2019 — A v B, Ccjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37839Case C-737/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratrif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 7 October 2019 — Bank of China Limited v Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publicscjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019
37840Case C-736/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 7 October 2019 — ZS Plaukti v Lauku atbalsta dienestscjeu_case · 7 octobre 2019