Документы: Европейский Союз

Наднациональное объединение 27 государств. Официальные документы (регламенты, директивы, решения) публикуются через Publications Office of the EU (Cellar/EUR-Lex). Практика Суда ЕС (CJEU) — тоже орган ЕС.

Официальный сайт ↗

Типы документов
regulation (161354) cjeu_case (104315) decision (43245) directive (8067)
316 981 документ
54881

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 March 2020.#Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CORNEREYE — Earlier EU word mark BACKEYE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use — Evidence — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.#Case T-688/18.

cjeu_case ·
54882

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 March 2020.#Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CORNEREYE — Earlier EU word mark BACKEYE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use — Evidence — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.#Case T-688/18.

cjeu_case ·
54883

Case T-688/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf v EUIPO — Brigade Electronics Group (CORNEREYE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark CORNEREYE — Earlier EU word mark BACKEYE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use — Evidence — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

cjeu_case ·
54884

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2020.#Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Opposition — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Criteria for assessment — Applicability in the case of an earlier collective mark — Interdependence between the similarity of the trade marks at issue and that of the goods or services covered by those marks.#Case C-766/18 P.

cjeu_case ·
54885

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2020.#Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Opposition — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Criteria for assessment — Applicability in the case of an earlier collective mark — Interdependence between the similarity of the trade marks at issue and that of the goods or services covered by those marks.#Case C-766/18 P.

cjeu_case ·
54886

Arrêt de la Cour (deuxième chambre) du 5 mars 2020.#OPR-Finance s.r.o. contre GK.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Protection des consommateurs – Directive 2008/48/CE – Contrats de crédit aux consommateurs – Article 8 – Obligation de vérification par le prêteur de la solvabilité du consommateur – Réglementation nationale – Opposabilité de la prescription à l’exception de nullité du contrat soulevée par le consommateur – Article 23 – Sanctions – Caractère effectif, proportionné et dissuasif – Juge national – Examen d’office du respect de ladite obligation.#Affaire C-679/18.

cjeu_case ·
54887

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2020.#OPR-Finance s.r.o. v GK.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Ostravě.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Credit agreements for consumers — Article 8 — Creditor’s obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness — National rules — Whether limitation may be invoked against the objection of nullity of the agreement raised by the consumer — Article 23 — Penalties — Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature — National court — Examination by the court of its own motion as to whether that obligation has been complied with.#Case C-679/18.

cjeu_case ·
54888

Arrêt de la Cour (sixième chambre) du 5 mars 2020.#Idealmed III – Serviços de Saúde SA contre Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Fiscalité – Taxe sur la valeur ajoutée (TVA) – Directive 2006/112/CE – Article 132, paragraphe 1, sous b) – Exonérations – Hospitalisation et soins médicaux – Établissements hospitaliers – Prestations fournies dans des conditions sociales comparables à celles qui valent pour les organismes de droit public – Articles 377 et 391 – Dérogations – Faculté d’opter pour la taxation – Maintien de la taxation – Modification des conditions d’exercice de l’activité.#Affaire C-211/18.

cjeu_case ·
54889

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 March 2020.#Idealmed III – Serviços de Saúde SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa - CAAD).#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(b) — Exemptions — Hospital and medical care — Hospital establishments — Services provided under social conditions comparable to those applicable to bodies governed by public law — Articles 377 and 391 — Derogations — Right to opt for a taxation regime — Maintenance of the taxation — Variation in the conditions for the exercise of the activity.#Case C-211/18.

cjeu_case ·
54891

Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar delivered on 5 March 2020.#SC Raiffeisen Bank SA and BRD Groupe Societé Générale SA v JB and KC.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Personal loan agreement — Contract performed in full — Finding that contractual terms are unfair — Action for reimbursement of sums unduly paid on the basis of an unfair clause — Judicial arrangements — Ordinary legal action not subject to any limitation period — Ordinary legal action of a personal and pecuniary nature subject to a limitation period– Point from which the limitation period starts to run — Objective point in time at which the consumer knows of the existence of the unfair term.#Joined Cases C-698/18 and C-699/18.

cjeu_case ·
54892

Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev delivered on 5 March 2020.#EM v TMD Friction GmbH and FL v TMD Friction EsCo GmbH.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Transfers of undertakings – Directive 2001/23/EC – Articles 3 and 5 – Safeguarding of employees’ rights – Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Transfer made by the insolvency administrator of the transferring undertaking subject to insolvency proceedings – Occupational old-age pension benefits – Restriction on the obligations of the transferee – Amount of the benefit payable under the supplementary occupational pension scheme calculated on the basis of the employee’s pay when insolvency proceedings were instituted – Directive 2008/94/EC – Article 8 – Direct effect – Conditions.#Joined Cases C-674/18 and C-675/18.

cjeu_case ·
54895

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 5 March 2020.#European Commission v Hungary.#Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Admissibility – Jurisdiction of the Court – General Agreement on Trade in Services – Article XVI – Market access – Schedule of specific commitments – Requirement of authorisation – Article XX(2) – Article XVII – National treatment – Service provider having its seat in a third country – National legislation of a Member State imposing conditions for the supply of higher education services within its territory – Requirement relating to the conclusion of an international treaty with the State in which the provider has its seat – Requirement relating to the provision of education in the State in which the provider has its seat – Modification of conditions of competition to the benefit of national providers – Justification – Public order – Prevention of deceptive practices – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Directive 2006/123/EC – Services in the internal market – Article 16 – Article 56 TFEU – Freedom to provide services – Existence of a restriction – Justification – Overriding reason in the public interest – Public order – Prevention of deceptive practices – High quality of the education – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 13 – Academic freedom – Article 14(3) – Freedom to found educational establishments – Article 16 – Freedom to conduct a business – Article 52(1).#Case C-66/18.

cjeu_case ·
54896

Case C-766/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), M.J. Dairies EOOD (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Opposition — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Criteria for assessment — Applicability in the case of an earlier collective mark — Interdependence between the similarity of the trade marks at issue and that of the goods or services covered by those marks)

cjeu_case ·
54897

Case C-679/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — OPR-Finance s. r. o. v GK (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Credit agreements for consumers — Article 8 — Creditor’s obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness — National rules — Whether limitation may be invoked against the objection of nullity of the agreement raised by the consumer — Article 23 — Penalties — Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature — National court — Examination by the court of its own motion as to whether that obligation has been complied with)

cjeu_case ·
54898

Case C-211/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — IDEALMED III — Serviços de Saúde, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(b) — Exemptions — Hospital and medical care — Hospital establishments — Services provided under social conditions comparable to those applicable to bodies governed by public law — Articles 377 and 391 — Derogations — Right to opt for a taxation regime — Maintenance of the taxation — Variation in the conditions for the exercise of the activity)

cjeu_case ·