Каталог правовых документов (cjeu_case)

104 315 документов
35481

Arrêt de la Cour (première chambre) du 19 mars 2020.#LH contre Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Politique d’asile – Procédures communes pour l’octroi et le retrait de la protection internationale – Directive 2013/32/UE – Demande de protection internationale – Article 33, paragraphe 2 – Motifs d’irrecevabilité – Réglementation nationale prévoyant l’irrecevabilité de la demande si le demandeur est arrivé dans l’État membre concerné par un pays où il n’est pas exposé à la persécution ou au risque d’atteintes graves, ou si ce pays accorde une protection suffisante – Article 46 – Droit à un recours effectif – Contrôle juridictionnel des décisions administratives concernant l’irrecevabilité des demandes de protection internationale – Délai de huit jours pour statuer – Article 47 de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne.#Affaire C-564/18.

cjeu_case ·
35482

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2020.#LH v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Directive 2013/32/EU – Application for international protection – Article 33(2) – Grounds of inadmissibility – National legislation under which an application is inadmissible if the applicant has arrived in the Member State concerned via a country in which he or she is not exposed to persecution or the risk of serious harm, or if that country provides sufficient protection – Article 46 – Right to an effective remedy – Judicial review of administrative decisions concerning the inadmissibility of applications for international protection – Time limit of eight days within which to give a decision – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.#Case C-564/18.

cjeu_case ·
35483

Arrêt de la Cour (première chambre) du 19 mars 2020.#PG contre Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Politique commune en matière d’asile et de protection subsidiaire – Procédures communes pour l’octroi de la protection internationale – Directive 2013/32/UE – Article 46, paragraphe 3 – Examen complet et ex nunc – Article 47 de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne – Droit à un recours effectif – Pouvoirs et devoirs de la juridiction de première instance – Absence de pouvoir de réformation des décisions des autorités compétentes en matière de protection internationale – Réglementation nationale prévoyant une obligation de statuer dans un délai de 60 jours.#Affaire C-406/18.

cjeu_case ·
35484

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2020.#PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection — Common procedures for granting international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46(3) — Full and ex nunc examination — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy — Powers and obligations of the first-instance court or tribunal — No power to vary the decisions of the authorities competent in the area of international protection — National legislation providing for an obligation to adjudicate within a time limit of 60 days.#Case C-406/18.

cjeu_case ·
35486

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2020.#Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo v BP and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Proceedings for the confiscation of illegally obtained assets in the absence of a criminal conviction – Directive 2014/42/EU – Scope – Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA.#Case C-234/18.

cjeu_case ·
35487

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2020.#Domingo Sánchez Ruiz and Others v Comunidad de Madrid (Servicio Madrileño de Salud) and Consejería de Sanidad de la Comunidad de Madrid.#References for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework Agreement, concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP regarding fixed-term work – Clause 5 – Concept of ‘successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships’ – Failure by the employer to respect the relevant legal deadline for definitively filling posts temporarily occupied by fixed-term workers – Implicit extension of the employment relationship from year to year – Occupation by a fixed-term worker of the same post in the context of two consecutive appointments – Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships – Respect for the reasons for recruitment provided for by the national legislation – Concrete examination finding that the successive renewal of fixed-term employment relationships seeks to cover the employer’s permanent and regular staffing needs – Measures seeking to prevent and, where appropriate, to punish abuses resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships – Selection procedures seeking to definitively fill posts occupied temporarily by fixed-term workers – Conversion of the situation of fixed-term workers into ‘non-permanent workers of indefinite duration’ – Grant to the worker of compensation equal to that paid in the event of unfair dismissal – Applicability of the Framework Agreement despite the fact that the worker consented to successive renewals of fixed-term contracts – Clause 5(1) – Absence of obligation for national courts to disapply inconsistent national legislation.#Joined Cases C-103/18 and C-429/18.

cjeu_case ·
35488

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2020.#Domingo Sánchez Ruiz and Others v Comunidad de Madrid (Servicio Madrileño de Salud) and Consejería de Sanidad de la Comunidad de Madrid.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid.#References for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework Agreement, concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP regarding fixed-term work – Clause 5 – Concept of ‘successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships’ – Failure by the employer to respect the relevant legal deadline for definitively filling posts temporarily occupied by fixed-term workers – Implicit extension of the employment relationship from year to year – Occupation by a fixed-term worker of the same post in the context of two consecutive appointments – Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships – Respect for the reasons for recruitment provided for by the national legislation – Concrete examination finding that the successive renewal of fixed-term employment relationships seeks to cover the employer’s permanent and regular staffing needs – Measures seeking to prevent and, where appropriate, to punish abuses resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships – Selection procedures seeking to definitively fill posts occupied temporarily by fixed-term workers – Conversion of the situation of fixed-term workers into ‘non-permanent workers of indefinite duration’ – Grant to the worker of compensation equal to that paid in the event of unfair dismissal – Applicability of the Framework Agreement despite the fact that the worker consented to successive renewals of fixed-term contracts – Clause 5(1) – Absence of obligation for national courts to disapply inconsistent national legislation.#Joined Cases C-103/18 and C-429/18.

cjeu_case ·
35489

Case C-612/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 March 2020 — ClientEarth v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(1)(a), third indent, and (6) — Exceptions to the right of access — Protection of the public interest as regards international relations — Documents drawn up by the European Commission’s legal service concerning Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements — Partial refusal of access)

cjeu_case ·
35490

Case C-564/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — LH v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Application for international protection — Article 33(2) — Grounds of inadmissibility — National legislation under which an application is inadmissible if the applicant has arrived in the Member State concerned via a country in which he or she is not exposed to persecution or the risk of serious harm, or if that country provides sufficient protection — Article 46 — Right to an effective remedy — Judicial review of administrative decisions concerning the inadmissibility of applications for international protection — Time limit of eight days within which to give a decision — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

cjeu_case ·
35491

Case C-406/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection — Common procedures for granting international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46(3) — Full and ex nunc examination — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy — Powers and obligations of the first instance court or tribunal — No power to vary the decisions of the authorities competent in the area of international protection — National legislation providing for an obligation to adjudicate within a time limit of 60 days)

cjeu_case ·
35492

Case C-234/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo v BP, AB, PB, ‘Тrast B’ ООD, ‘Agro In 2001’ EOOD, ‘ACounT Service 2009’ EOOD, ‘Invest Management’ OOD, ‘Estate’ OOD, ‘Bromak’ OOD, ‘Bromak Finance’ EAD, ‘Viva Telekom Bulgaria’ EOOD, ‘Balgarska Telekomunikationna Kompania’ AD, ‘Hedge Investment Bulgaria’ AD, ‘Kemira’ OOD, ‘Dunarit’ AD, ‘Technologichen Zentar-Institut Po Mikroelektronika’ AD, ‘Еvrobild 2003’ EOOD, ‘Тechnotel Invest’ AD, ‘Ken Trade’ EAD, ‘Konsult Av’ EOOD, Louvrier Investments Company 33 SA, EFV International Financial Ventures Ltd, Interv Investment SARL, LIC Telecommunications SARL, V Telecom Investment SCA, V2 Investment SARL, Empreno Ventures Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Proceedings for the confiscation of illegally obtained assets in the absence of a criminal conviction — Directive 2014/42/EU — Scope — Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA)

cjeu_case ·
35493

Joined Cases C-103/18 and C-429/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid, Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 14 de Madrid— Spain) — Domingo Sánchez Ruiz (C-103/18), Berta Fernández Álvarez and Others (C-429/18) v Comunidad de Madrid (Servicio Madrileño de Salud) (References for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework Agreement, concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP regarding fixed-term work — Clause 5 — Concept of ‘successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships’ — Failure by the employer to respect the relevant legal deadline for definitively filling posts temporarily occupied by fixed-term workers — Implicit extension of the employment relationship from year to year — Occupation by a fixed-term worker of the same post in the context of two consecutive appointments — Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships — Respect for the reasons for recruitment provided for by the national legislation — Concrete examination finding that the successive renewal of fixed-term employment relationships seeks to cover the employer’s permanent and regular staffing needs — Measures seeking to prevent and, where appropriate, to punish abuses resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships — Selection procedures seeking to definitively fill posts occupied temporarily by fixed-term workers — Conversion of the situation of fixed-term workers into ‘non-permanent workers of indefinite duration’ — Grant to the worker of compensation equal to that paid in the event of unfair dismissal — Applicability of the Framework Agreement despite the fact that the worker consented to successive renewals of fixed-term contracts — Clause 5(1) — Absence of obligation for national courts to disapply inconsistent national legislation)

cjeu_case ·
35494

Opinion of Advocate General Hogan delivered on 19 March 2020.#Milkiyas Addis v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Asylum policy — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Articles 14 and 34 — Obligation to give applicants for international protection the opportunity of a personal interview before the adoption of a decision declaring the application to be inadmissible — Failure to comply with that obligation in the procedure at first instance — Consequences.#Case C-517/17.

cjeu_case ·
35499

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 18 March 2020.#European Food SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal — EU trade mark — Prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that an issue raised by the appeal is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-908/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
35500

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 18 March 2020.#European Food SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal — EU trade mark — Prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that an issue raised by the appeal is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-908/19 P.

cjeu_case ·