Каталог правовых документов (cjeu_case)

104 314 документов
21143

Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2022.#Grupa 'LEW' S.A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark GRUPALEW. – Earlier national figurative mark LEW – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Proof of genuine use – Article 10(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law.#Case T-672/21.

cjeu_case ·
21144

Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2022.#Grupa 'LEW' S.A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark GRUPALEW. – Earlier national figurative mark LEW – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Proof of genuine use – Article 10(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law.#Case T-672/21.

cjeu_case ·
21145

Case T-672/21: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2022 — Grupa ‘Lew’ v EUIPO — Lechwerke (GRUPALEW.) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark GRUPALEW. — Earlier national figurative mark LEW — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use — Article 10(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

cjeu_case ·
21146

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022.#Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v C and B and X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid.#References for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Detention of third-country nationals – Fundamental right to liberty – Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Conditions governing the lawfulness of detention – Directive 2008/115/EC – Article 15 – Directive 2013/33/EU – Article 9 – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Article 28 – Review of the lawfulness of detention and of the continuation of a detention measure – Ex officio review – Fundamental right to an effective judicial remedy – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.#Joined Cases C-704/20 and C-39/21.

cjeu_case ·
21147

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022.#Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v C and B and X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State and Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats 's-Hertogenbosch.#References for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Detention of third-country nationals – Fundamental right to liberty – Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Conditions governing the lawfulness of detention – Directive 2008/115/EC – Article 15 – Directive 2013/33/EU – Article 9 – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Article 28 – Review of the lawfulness of detention and of the continuation of a detention measure – Ex officio review – Fundamental right to an effective judicial remedy – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.#Joined Cases C-704/20 and C-39/21.

cjeu_case ·
21148

Joined Cases C-704/20 and C-39/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v C, B (C-704/20), X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (C-39/21) (References for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Detention of third-country nationals — Fundamental right to liberty — Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Conditions governing the lawfulness of detention — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 15 — Directive 2013/33/EU — Article 9 — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Article 28 — Review of the lawfulness of detention and of the continuation of a detention measure — Ex officio review — Fundamental right to an effective judicial remedy — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

cjeu_case ·
21149

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022.#Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe and Ireland v European Commission.#Appeal – State aid – Aid implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery – Tax ruling – Advantage – Selectivity – Arm’s length principle – Reference framework – National law applicable – ‘Normal’ taxation.#Joined Cases C-885/19 P and C-898/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
21150

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022.#Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe and Ireland v European Commission.#Appeal – State aid – Aid implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery – Tax ruling – Advantage – Selectivity – Arm’s length principle – Reference framework – National law applicable – ‘Normal’ taxation.#Joined Cases C-885/19 P and C-898/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
21151

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022.#Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Aarhus Convention – Access to justice – Article 9(3) – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47, first paragraph – Right to effective judicial protection – Environmental association – Standing of such an association to bring an action before a national court against EC type-approval granted to certain vehicles – Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 – Article 5(2)(a) – Motor vehicles – Diesel engine – Pollutant emissions – Valve for exhaust gas recirculation (EGR valve) – Reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions limited by a ‘temperature window’ – Defeat device – Authorisation of such a device where the need is justified in terms of protecting the engine against damage or accident and for safe operation of the vehicle – State of the art.#Case C-873/19.

cjeu_case ·
21152

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022.#Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Aarhus Convention – Access to justice – Article 9(3) – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47, first paragraph – Right to effective judicial protection – Environmental association – Standing of such an association to bring an action before a national court against EC type-approval granted to certain vehicles – Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 – Article 5(2)(a) – Motor vehicles – Diesel engine – Pollutant emissions – Valve for exhaust gas recirculation (EGR valve) – Reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions limited by a ‘temperature window’ – Defeat device – Authorisation of such a device where the need is justified in terms of protecting the engine against damage or accident and for safe operation of the vehicle – State of the art.#Case C-873/19.

cjeu_case ·
21153

Joined Cases C-885/19 P and C-898/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022 — Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Ireland (Appeal — State aid — Aid implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery — Tax ruling — Advantage — Selectivity — Arm's length principle — Reference framework — National law applicable — ‘Normal’ taxation)

cjeu_case ·
21154

Case C-873/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Access to justice — Article 9(3) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47, first paragraph — Right to effective judicial protection — Environmental association — Standing of such an association to bring an action before a national court against EC type-approval granted to certain vehicles — Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 — Article 5(2)(a) — Motor vehicles — Diesel engine — Pollutant emissions — Valve for exhaust gas recirculation (EGR valve) — Reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions limited by a ‘temperature window’ — Defeat device — Authorisation of such a device where the need is justified in terms of protecting the engine against damage or accident and for safe operation of the vehicle — State of the art)

cjeu_case ·
21155

Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2022.#Maria Del Carmen Ortega Montero v European Parliament.#Civil service – Staff representation – Amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Staff Committee of Parliament – Appointment of staff representatives to bodies established under the Staff Regulations and to administrative bodies – Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations – Failure to take a measure required by the Staff Regulations – Prior complaint to the appointing authority – Time limits for instituting proceedings – Out of time – Inadmissibility.#Case T-161/22.

cjeu_case ·
21156

Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2022.#Maria Del Carmen Ortega Montero v European Parliament.#Civil service – Staff representation – Amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Staff Committee of Parliament – Appointment of staff representatives to bodies established under the Staff Regulations and to administrative bodies – Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations – Failure to take a measure required by the Staff Regulations – Prior complaint to the appointing authority – Time limits for instituting proceedings – Out of time – Inadmissibility.#Case T-161/22.

cjeu_case ·