Elika crespo dating updating wii wiikey

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Gipuzkoa — Extranjería v Samir Zaizoune (Case C-38/14) () ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Articles 6(1) and 8(1) - National legislation providing, in the event of illegal staying, for either a fine or removal, depending on the circumstances)) (2015/C 205/11) Language of the case: Spanish Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, in particular, Articles 6(1) and Article 8(1), read in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3), must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides, in the event of third-country nationals illegally staying in the territory of that Member State, depending on the circumstances, for either a fine or removal, since the two measures are mutually exclusive.Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes — France) — Jean-Claude Van Hove v CNP Assurances SA (Case C-96/14) () ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Insurance contract - Article 4(2) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract - Term intended to ensure that mortgage loan repayments are covered - Borrower’s total incapacity for work - Exclusion from cover in the event of recognised fitness to undertake an activity, paid or otherwise)) (2015/C 205/12) Language of the case: French Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a term of an insurance contract intended to ensure that loan repayments payable to the lender will be covered in the event of the borrower’s total incapacity for work falls within the exception set out in that provision only where the referring court finds: first, that, having regard to the nature, general scheme and the stipulations of the contractual framework of which it forms part, and to its legal and factual context, that term lays down an essential component of that contractual framework, and, as such, characterises it, and secondly, that that term is drafted in plain, intelligible language, that is to say that it is not only grammatically intelligible to the consumer, but also that the contract sets out transparently the specific functioning of the arrangements to which the relevant term refers and the relationship between those arrangements and the arrangements laid down in respect of other contractual terms, so that that consumer is in a position to evaluate, on the basis of precise, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him which derive from it.

) ((Failure to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications networks and services - Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC - Rights of use of the terrestrial digital television broadcasting radio spectrum - Public procurement procedure - Criteria for selection of tenderers - Proportionality - Special rights)) (2015/C 205/04) Language of the case: Bulgarian Declares that, by restricting, by virtue of Paragraph 5a(1) and (2) of the transitional and final provisions of the Law on electronic communications (Zakon za elektronnite saobshteniya), to two the number of undertakings to which a right of use of the terrestrial digital broadcasting radio spectrum may be allocated and to which a permit to supply corresponding electronic communications services may be issued, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services; Declares that, by prohibiting, by virtue of Articles 47a(1) and (2) and 48(3) of the Law on electronic communications, providers of televisual content whose programmes are not broadcast in Bulgaria and persons connected therewith from participating in the public procurement procedure for the award of rights of use of the terrestrial digital broadcasting radio spectrum and to provide corresponding services, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009; Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Article 2(2) and 4(2) of Directive 2002/77; Declares that, by prohibiting, by virtue of Article 48(5) of the Law on electronic communications, successful tenderers for the rights of use of the terrestrial digital broadcasting radio spectrum from establishing electronic communication networks for the broadcast of radio and television programmes, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/20, as amended by Directive 2009/140; Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Articles 2(2) and 4(2) of Directive 2002/77; Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — C. ) ((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from the regime - Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded - Set of indicia)) (2015/C 205/07) Language of the case: French ) ((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from the regime - Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded - Set of indicia)) (2015/C 205/08) Language of the case: French Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — SC ALKA CO SRL v Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Galați, formerly Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Municipiul (Case C-635/13) () ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common customs tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 1207 - Oilseeds - Heading 1209 - Seeds for sowing - Heading 1212 - Seeds principally used for human foodstuffs, not specified or included elsewhere - Import of raw shelled pumpkin seeds originating from China)) (2015/C 205/09) Language of the case: Romanian Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Galați, formerly Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Municipiul It is for the referring court, in order to make a tariff classification of the pumpkin seeds at issue in the main proceedings, to ascertain whether those seeds are normally used for the extraction of edible or industrial oils and fats, but are not covered by headings 1201 to 1206 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007.

To verify the electronic signature and authentic character of the OJ, download the PDF file of the e-OJ and its signature, then use Check Lex. v European Commission Case C-165/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-500/12: Ryanair Ltd.

The paper version of the OJ has legal value for OJs published before 1 July 2013, the date Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 entered into force. v European Commission Case C-166/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija (Latvia) lodged on 13 April 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs Case C-193/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2015 by Tarif Akhras against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2015 in Case T-579/11: Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union Case T-131/12: Judgment of the General Court of — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Orly International (SPARITUAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word mark SPARITUAL — Earlier Benelux figurative and word marks SPA and LES THERMES DE SPA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) Case T-423/12: Judgment of the General Court of — Skype v OHIM — Sky and Sky IP International (skype) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark skype — Earlier Community word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) Case T-183/13: Judgment of the General Court of — Skype v OHIM — Sky and Sky IP International (SKYPE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SKYPE — Earlier Community word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) Case T-184/13: Judgment of the General Court of — Skype v OHIM — Sky and Sky IP International (SKYPE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SKYPE — Earlier Community word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) Case T-433/13: Judgment of the General Court of — Petropars Iran and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Plea of illegality — Right to conduct business — Right to property — Protection of public health, security and the environment — Precautionary principle — Proportionality — Rights of defence) Case T-599/13: Judgment of the General Court of — Cosmowell v OHIM — Haw Par (GELENKGOLD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GELENKGOLD — Earlier Community figurative mark representing a tiger — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Alteration of the distinctive character of the earlier mark — Phonetic similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) Case T-715/13: Judgment of the General Court of — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community mark Castello — Earlier national figurative mark Castelló — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) Case T-383/13: Order of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Chatzianagnostou v Council and Others (Action for annulment — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Seconded National expert for the EULEX Kosovo mission — Decisions of a Head of Mission on disciplinary sanctions) Case T-393/13: Order of the General Court of 14 April 2015 — Solar World and Solsonica v Commission (Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China — Provisional anti-dumping duty) Case T-284/14: Order of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — Dyckerhoff Polska v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing an action — Out of time — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility — Plea of illegality) Case T-43/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 April 2015 — CRM v Commission (Application for interim measures — Registration of a protected geographical indication — Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) Case T-45/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 April 2015 — Hydrex v Commission (Application for interim measures — Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment — Recovery order — Application to suspend adoption — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility) ) ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Refusal of a Member State to recognise, in the case of a person having driven under the influence of narcotic substances, the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State)) (2015/C 205/02) Language of the case: German Article 2(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State in whose territory the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State is staying temporarily is not precluded from refusing to recognise the validity of that driving licence on account of unlawful conduct on the part of its holder in the territory of the first Member State after that driving licence has been issued that results, under the national law of the first Member State, in unfitness to drive motor vehicles.

In the context of the second part of the first ground of appeal, the CJEU, relying in this regard on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 July 2008 in (application no 67719/01), argues that the General Court failed to take account of the requirements of judicial independence and impartiality when it ruled that the CJEU had to represent the European Union in Aalberts Industries’ action for damages.

In view of the fact that, in the present case, first, the matter allegedly giving rise to liability came about in the exercise of judicial functions by a formation of a judicial body and, secondly, the formation that will have to take cognisance of the case (i) belongs to the same judicial body (the General Court) as the formation of the judicial body being held responsible for the matter giving rise to liability and (ii) is an integral part of the defendant party in this case (the CJEU), with which the judges of that formation are professionally affiliated, the abovementioned requirements are compromised, a fortiori where, as the General Court has held, damages such as those here being claimed must come from that part of the budget which relates to the CJEU.

Search for elika crespo dating:

elika crespo dating-19elika crespo dating-83elika crespo dating-23elika crespo dating-81

The CJEU takes the view that that approach should not be applied to the present case because it would, by reason of several factors, lead to a situation that would appear to be at variance with the interest of a sound administration of justice, which, according to the express wording of , is the rationale for that solution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “elika crespo dating”

  1. You can filter your search by location, language, characteristics, children, drinking habits, ethnicity, facial hair, hair length, height, occupation, smoking habits, pet types, body build, interests & hobbies, education, eye color, health condition, marital status, religion, yearly income and more!

  2. In dieser Session zeigen Leslie To und Google’s John Müller Techniken, mit denen ihr einen Audit eurer Website durchführen könnt, um sicherzustellen, dass ihr in einer Mobile-First Welt bestehen könnt.