Catalogue des documents juridiques (cjeu_case)

104 315 documents
24306

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 31 March 2022.#St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH 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-762/21 P.

cjeu_case ·
24307

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 31 March 2022.#St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH 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-762/21 P.

cjeu_case ·
24308

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 31 March 2022.#St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH 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-761/21 P.

cjeu_case ·
24309

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 31 March 2022.#St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH 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-761/21 P.

cjeu_case ·
24310

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 31 March 2022.#Henry Cotton's Brand Management Co. Ltd 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-744/21 P.

cjeu_case ·
24311

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 31 March 2022.#Henry Cotton's Brand Management Co. Ltd 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-744/21 P.

cjeu_case ·
24312

Order of the Court (chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 31 March 2022.#Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd 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-743/21 P.

cjeu_case ·
24313

Order of the Court (chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 31 March 2022.#Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd 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-743/21 P.

cjeu_case ·
24314

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2022.#João Miguel Barata v European Parliament.#Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Civil service – Officials – Article 45a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union – Certification procedure – 2017 promotion exercise – Exclusion from the final list of officials entitled to take part in the training programme – Notice of competition – Obligation to include a list of annexes with the application form – Non-compliance – Rejection of the application – Principle of sound administration – Proportionality – Regulation No 1 – Rules on languages.#Case C-305/21 P.

cjeu_case ·
24315

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2022.#João Miguel Barata v European Parliament.#Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Civil service – Officials – Article 45a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union – Certification procedure – 2017 promotion exercise – Exclusion from the final list of officials entitled to take part in the training programme – Notice of competition – Obligation to include a list of annexes with the application form – Non-compliance – Rejection of the application – Principle of sound administration – Proportionality – Regulation No 1 – Rules on languages.#Case C-305/21 P.

cjeu_case ·
24316

Arrêt de la Cour (septième chambre) du 31 mars 2022.#IA contre Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice – Système de Dublin – Règlement (UE) no 604/2013 – Article 29, paragraphe 2 – Transfert du demandeur d’asile vers l’État membre responsable de l’examen de la demande de protection internationale – Délai de transfert de six mois – Possibilité de prolongation de ce délai jusqu’à un an au maximum en cas d’emprisonnement – Notion d’“emprisonnement” – Placement du demandeur d’asile sous contrainte dans un service psychiatrique hospitalier avec l’autorisation d’un juge.#Affaire C-231/21.

cjeu_case ·
24317

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 March 2022.#IA v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Dublin system – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Article 29(2) – Transfer of the asylum seeker to the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection – Six-month time limit for transfer – Possibility of extending that time limit up to a maximum of one year in the event of imprisonment – Definition of ‘imprisonment’ – Court-authorised non-voluntary committal of the asylum seeker to a hospital psychiatric department.#Case C-231/21.

cjeu_case ·
24318

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2022.#LB v Smetna palata na Republika Bulgaria.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Applicability to a purely internal situation – Article 58(1) and (4) – Selection criteria – Technical and professional ability of the tenderers – Protection of the financial interests of the European Union – Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Article 8(3) – Control measures – Possibility for national authorities protecting the financial interests of the European Union to assess differently a public procurement procedure.#Case C-195/21.

cjeu_case ·
24319

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2022.#LB v Smetna palata na Republika Bulgaria.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Lukovit.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Applicability to a purely internal situation – Article 58(1) and (4) – Selection criteria – Technical and professional ability of the tenderers – Protection of the financial interests of the European Union – Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Article 8(3) – Control measures – Possibility for national authorities protecting the financial interests of the European Union to assess differently a public procurement procedure.#Case C-195/21.

cjeu_case ·
24320

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2022.#DM v CTS Eventim AG & Co. KGaA.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 2011/83/EU – Right of withdrawal for distance and off-premises contracts – Exceptions to the right of withdrawal – Article 16(l) – Provision of services related to leisure activities – Contract providing for a specific date or period of performance – Provision of ticket agency services – Intermediary acting in its name but on behalf of the organiser of a leisure activity – Risk associated with the exercise of the right of withdrawal.#Case C-96/21.

cjeu_case ·