Каталог правовых документов (cjeu_case)

104 315 документов
32381

Order of the Court of 29 October 2020.#Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf 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-307/20 P.

cjeu_case ·
32384

Order of the Court of 29 October 2020.#Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl 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-304/20 P.

cjeu_case ·
32385

Order of the Court of 29 October 2020.#Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl 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-304/20 P.

cjeu_case ·
32389

Arrêt de la Cour (neuvième chambre) du 29 octobre 2020.#Intercept Pharma Ltd et Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. contre Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA).#Pourvoi – Accès aux documents des institutions, des organes ou des organismes de l’Union – Règlement (CE) no 1049/2001 – Article 4, paragraphe 2, deuxième tiret – Exception relative à la protection des procédures juridictionnelles – Article 4, paragraphe 2, premier tiret – Exception relative à la protection des intérêts commerciaux – Documents soumis dans le cadre d’une demande d’autorisation de mise sur le marché d’un médicament à usage humain – Décision d’accorder l’accès aux documents à un tiers.#Affaire C-576/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
32390

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 October 2020.#Intercept Pharma Ltd and Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v European Medicines Agency.#Appeal – Access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Second indent of Article 4(2) – Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings – First indent of Article 4(2) – Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests – Documents submitted in the context of a marketing authorisation application for a medicinal product for human use – Decision to grant a third party access to the documents.#Case C-576/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
32391

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2020.#A v Veselības ministrija.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Article 20(2) – Directive 2011/24/EU – Article 8(1), (5) and (6)(d) – Health insurance – Hospital care provided in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation – Refusal of prior authorisation – Hospital treatment which can be provided effectively in the Member State of affiliation – Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Difference in treatment based on religion.#Case C-243/19.

cjeu_case ·
32392

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2020.#A v Veselības ministrija.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts).#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Article 20(2) – Directive 2011/24/EU – Article 8(1), (5) and (6)(d) – Health insurance – Hospital care provided in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation – Refusal of prior authorisation – Hospital treatment which can be provided effectively in the Member State of affiliation – Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Difference in treatment based on religion.#Case C-243/19.

cjeu_case ·
32393

Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 29 October 2020.#Czech Republic v European Commission.#Appeal – European Social Fund (ESF) – European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) – Partial cancellation of assistance for operational programmes in the Czech Republic – Directive 2004/18/EC – Article 16(b) – Specific exclusion – Public service contracts relating to programme material intended for broadcasting.#Case C-862/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
32394

Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered on 29 October 2020.#BU v Markt24 GmbH.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment – Provisions of Section 5 of Chapter II – Applicability – Contract entered into in a Member State for employment with a company established in another Member State – No work performed throughout the duration of the contract – Exclusion of the application of national rules of jurisdiction – Article 21(1)(b)(i) – Concept of the ‘place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work’ – Contract of employment – Place of performance of the contract – Obligations of the employee towards his or her employer.#Case C-804/19.

cjeu_case ·
32395

Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev delivered on 29 October 2020.#European Commission v Italian Republic and Others.#Appeal – State aid – Measures adopted by a consortium of banks governed by private law for the benefit of one of its members – Measures authorised by the Central Bank of the Member State – Concept of ‘State aid’ – Whether imputable to the State – State resources – Evidence supporting the conclusion that a measure is imputable – Distortion of elements of fact and of law – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market.#Case C-425/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
32396

Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev delivered on 29 October 2020.#European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden.#Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals – European Commission decision authorising certain uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulfate red, substances listed in Annex XIV of that regulation – Substances of very high concern – Conditions of authorisation – Assessment of the lack of suitable alternatives.#Case C-389/19 P.

cjeu_case ·