Search
× Search

Baza informacij za delovanje Partnerjev Mreže Modro Poslovanje

0 0

CELEX:62025CO0439:           Ordonnance de la Cour (huitième chambre) du 27 janvier 2026.#OMW Petrom Marketing contre Compania Naţională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA e.a.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Article 99 du règlement de procédure de la Cour – Réponse ne laissant place à aucun doute raisonnable – Réponse pouvant être clairement déduite de la jurisprudence – Réseau transeuropéen de transport – Règlement (UE) no 1315/2013 – Infrastructures de transport routier – Article 19, sous d) – Zones de stationnement – Article 39, paragraphe 2, sous c) – Aires de repos – Règlement (CE) no 561/2006 – Article 8 bis – Informations concernant les aires de stationnement sûres et sécurisées – Réglementation nationale interdisant la construction d’aires de service du réseau autoroutier, incluan

This document does not exist in English.
0 0

CELEX:62025CO0450: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2025.#DR v European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority.#Appeal – Civil service – Temporary staff – Dismissal following a conflict of interest – Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union – Article 11 – Principle of sound administration – Protection of personal data – Rejection of a complaint challenging the refusal to compensate the applicant – Action for annulment and for damages.#Case C-450/25 P.

0 0

CELEX:62025CO0450_INF: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2025.#DR v European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority.#Appeal – Civil service – Temporary staff – Dismissal following a conflict of interest – Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union – Article 11 – Principle of sound administration – Protection of personal data – Rejection of a complaint challenging the refusal to compensate the applicant – Action for annulment and for damages.#Case C-450/25 P.

0 0

CELEX:62025CO0502:           Ordonnance de la Cour (sixième chambre) du 18 décembre 2025.#« YETTEL BULGARIA » EAD contre FB.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Article 53, paragraphe 2, et article 94 du règlement de procédure de la Cour – Exigence d’indication des raisons justifiant la nécessité d’une réponse par la Cour ainsi que du lien entre les dispositions du droit de l’Union dont l’interprétation est demandée et la législation nationale applicable – Absence de précisions suffisantes – Irrecevabilité manifeste.#Affaire C-502/25.

This document does not exist in English.
0 0

CELEX:62025CO0516: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2026.#Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) and Bernard O'Connor v European Commission.#Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Public access to documents of the EU institutions – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Article 4 – Exceptions to the right of access – Request for access to certain documents relating to an application for registration of a name as a protected geographical indication – Partial refusal to grant access – Action for annulment – Time limit for bringing proceedings.#Case C-516/25 P.

0 0

CELEX:62025CO0516_INF: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2026.#Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) and Bernard O'Connor v European Commission.#Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Public access to documents of the EU institutions – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Article 4 – Exceptions to the right of access – Request for access to certain documents relating to an application for registration of a name as a protected geographical indication – Partial refusal to grant access – Action for annulment – Time limit for bringing proceedings.#Case C-516/25 P.

0 0

CELEX:62025CO0526:           Beschluss des Gerichtshofs (Neunte Kammer) vom 3. März 2026.#XV gegen Volkswagen AG.#Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung – Art. 53 Abs. 2 und Art. 94 der Verfahrensordnung des Gerichtshofs – Erfordernis der Darstellung des tatsächlichen und rechtlichen Zusammenhangs des Ausgangsrechtsstreits sowie der Gründe, aus denen sich die Notwendigkeit einer Antwort auf die Vorlagefrage ergibt – Keine hinreichenden Angaben – Offensichtliche Unzulässigkeit.#Rechtssache C-526/25.

This document does not exist in English.
RSS
First30513052305330543056305830593060Last

Poišči članke o davkih v bazi Modro poslovanje

Terms Of UsePrivacy StatementCopyright 2014-2014 by Srobotnik d.o.o.
Back To Top