Catalogue des documents juridiques (cjeu_case)

104 314 documents
7781

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 February 2025.#TU and BY v European Parliament.#Civil service – Accredited parliamentary assistants – Psychological harassment – Administrative inquiry – Request for access to the inquiry report – Refusal of the request – Obligation to state reasons – Scope of the duty to provide assistance – Article 24 of the Staff Regulations – Principle of good administration – Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Liability.#Case T-10/24.

cjeu_case ·
7783

Case T-245/24: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2025 – Alberts v EUIPO – Techtex (Cardboard boxes [packaging]) (Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a cardboard box (packaging) – Earlier national word marks – Ground for invalidity – Use in the subsequent design of a distinctive sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use – Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – No similarity between the goods)

cjeu_case ·
7787

Case T-10/24: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2025 – TU and BY v Parliament (Civil service – Accredited parliamentary assistants – Psychological harassment – Administrative inquiry – Request for access to the inquiry report – Refusal of the request – Obligation to state reasons – Scope of the duty to provide assistance – Article 24 of the Staff Regulations – Principle of good administration – Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Liability)

cjeu_case ·
7790

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2025.#Pegazus Busz Fuvarozó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Manifest inadmissibility – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Right to deduct input VAT – Refusal – Tax avoidance – Obligations of the taxable person – Burden of proof – Principles of proportionality and legal certainty – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Contradiction between national case-law and EU law – Article 267 TFEU – Primacy of EU law – Obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling.#Case C-262/24.

cjeu_case ·
7791

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2025.#Pegazus Busz Fuvarozó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Manifest inadmissibility – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Right to deduct input VAT – Refusal – Tax avoidance – Obligations of the taxable person – Burden of proof – Principles of proportionality and legal certainty – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Contradiction between national case-law and EU law – Article 267 TFEU – Primacy of EU law – Obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling.#Case C-262/24.

cjeu_case ·
7792

Case C-262/24, Pegazus Busz: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék – Hungary) – Pegazus Busz Fuvarozó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Manifest inadmissibility – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Right to deduct input VAT – Refusal – Tax avoidance – Obligations of the taxable person – Burden of proof – Principles of proportionality and legal certainty – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Contradiction between national case-law and EU law – Article 267 TFEU – Primacy of EU law – Obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling)

cjeu_case ·
7795

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 February 2025.#Christoph Klein v European Commission.#Public health – EU regulatory framework governing medical devices – Safeguard clause – Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 93/42/EEC – Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device – Medical device Inhaler Broncho-Air® – Repeal of Directive 93/42 – Articles 94 to 97 of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 – Infringement of essential procedural requirements.#Case T-394/23.

cjeu_case ·
7796

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 February 2025.#Christoph Klein v European Commission.#Public health – EU regulatory framework governing medical devices – Safeguard clause – Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 93/42/EEC – Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device – Medical device Inhaler Broncho-Air® – Repeal of Directive 93/42 – Articles 94 to 97 of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 – Infringement of essential procedural requirements.#Case T-394/23.

cjeu_case ·
7799

Case T-394/23: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2025 – Klein v Commission (Public health – EU regulatory framework governing medical devices – Safeguard clause – Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 93/42/EEC – Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device – Medical device Inhaler Broncho-Air® – Repeal of Directive 93/42 – Articles 94 to 97 of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 – Infringement of essential procedural requirements)

cjeu_case ·
7800

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2025.#,,Solvay Sodi“ AD v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia „Darzhaven rezerv i voennovremenni zapasi“.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Need for interpretation of EU law to enable the referring court to give judgment – None – Requirement to provide reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility.#Case C-784/22.

cjeu_case ·