Каталог правовых документов (cjeu_case)

104 314 документов
21806

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 22 September 2022.#Anna Hrebenyuk 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 – Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-338/22 P.

cjeu_case ·
21807

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 22 September 2022.#Anna Hrebenyuk 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 – Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-338/22 P.

cjeu_case ·
21811

Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 September 2022.#Primagran sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark prımagran – Earlier EU figurative mark PRIMA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Prohibition of reformatio in pejus – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law.#Case T-624/21.

cjeu_case ·
21812

Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 September 2022.#Primagran sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark prımagran – Earlier EU figurative mark PRIMA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Prohibition of reformatio in pejus – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law.#Case T-624/21.

cjeu_case ·
21813

Case T-624/21: Order of the General Court of 22 September 2022 — Primagran v EUIPO — Primagaz (prımagran) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark prımagran — Earlier EU figurative mark PRIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Prohibition of reformatio in pejus — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

cjeu_case ·
21814

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 September 2022.#SI and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Border controls, asylum and immigration – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/32/EU – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Application for international protection – Grounds for inadmissibility – Article 2(q) – Concept of ‘subsequent application’ – Article 33(2)(d) – Rejection by a Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible on account of the rejection of a previous application made by the person concerned in the Kingdom of Denmark – Final decision taken by the Kingdom of Denmark.#Case C-497/21.

cjeu_case ·
21815

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 September 2022.#SI and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Border controls, asylum and immigration – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/32/EU – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Application for international protection – Grounds for inadmissibility – Article 2(q) – Concept of ‘subsequent application’ – Article 33(2)(d) – Rejection by a Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible on account of the rejection of a previous application made by the person concerned in the Kingdom of Denmark – Final decision taken by the Kingdom of Denmark.#Case C-497/21.

cjeu_case ·
21816

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 September 2022.#Vicente v Delia.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices – Principle of effectiveness – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Summary procedure for the recovery of lawyers’ fees – Potentially unfair terms contained in a fee agreement – National law not providing for the possibility of review by a court – Article 4(2) – Scope of the exception – Directive 2005/29/EC – Article 7 – Misleading commercial practice – Contract concluded between lawyer and client prohibiting the client from withdrawing, without the knowledge or against the advice of the lawyer, on pain of a financial penalty.#Case C-335/21.

cjeu_case ·
21817

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 September 2022.#Vicente v Delia.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Sevilla.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices – Principle of effectiveness – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Summary procedure for the recovery of lawyers’ fees – Potentially unfair terms contained in a fee agreement – National law not providing for the possibility of review by a court – Article 4(2) – Scope of the exception – Directive 2005/29/EC – Article 7 – Misleading commercial practice – Contract concluded between lawyer and client prohibiting the client from withdrawing, without the knowledge or against the advice of the lawyer, on pain of a financial penalty.#Case C-335/21.

cjeu_case ·
21818

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2022.#The Escape Center BVBA v Belgische Staat.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 98 – Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services – Annex III, point 14 – Concept of the ‘use of sporting facilities’ – Fitness centres – Individual or group coaching.#Case C-330/21.

cjeu_case ·
21819

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2022.#The Escape Center BVBA v Belgische Staat.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen Afdeling Gent.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 98 – Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services – Annex III, point 14 – Concept of the ‘use of sporting facilities’ – Fitness centres – Individual or group coaching.#Case C-330/21.

cjeu_case ·
21820

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2022.#Bundesrepublik Deutschland v MA and Others.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection – Articles 27 and 29 – Transfer of the person concerned to the Member State responsible for the examination of his or her request – Suspension of the transfer due to the COVID – 19 pandemic – Impossibility of carrying out the transfer – Judicial protection – Consequences for the time limit for transfer.#Joined Cases C-245/21 and C-248/21.

cjeu_case ·