References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 2018

Question 1

1.1 Case: C-781/18

Accepted Answer

Must Directive 2014/26/EU be interpreted as precluding national legislation that reserves access to the copyright intermediation market, or in any event the granting of licences to users, solely to entities which can be classified, according to the definition in that directive, as collective management organisations, to the exclusion of those which can be classified as independent management entities incorporated in that Member State or in other Member States?

Question 2

1.2 Case: C-720/18 and C-721/18

Accepted Answer

When assessing the question of whether use is genuine in terms of nature and extent within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC in the case of a trade mark which is registered in respect of a broad category of goods, in this case land vehicles, in particular motor cars and parts thereof, but is actually only used in respect of a particular market segment, in this case high-priced luxury sports cars and parts thereof, is account to be taken of the market for the registered category of goods overall or may account be taken of the particular market segment? If the use in respect of the particular market segment is sufficient, is the trade mark to be maintained in relation to that market segment in cancellation proceedings due to revocation?
Does the sale of used goods which have already been released onto the market by the trade mark proprietor in the European Economic Area constitute use of the trade mark by the trade mark proprietor within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC?
Is a trade mark which is registered not only in respect of a product, but also in respect of parts of that product also used in a right-maintaining manner in respect of the product if that product is no longer sold, but there are still sales of trademarked accessory and replacement parts for the trademarked product sold in the past?
When assessing whether there is genuine use, is consideration also to be given to whether the trade mark proprietor offers services which do not use [Or. 3] the trade mark but are intended for the goods already sold?
When examining the use of the trade mark in the Member State concerned (in this case Germany) within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC, pursuant to Article 5 of the German-Swiss Treaty of 13 April 1892 on the reciprocal protection of patents, designs and trade marks, are uses of the trade mark in Switzerland also to be taken into consideration?
Is it compatible with Directive 2008/95/EC to require the trade mark proprietor against which action is being taken due to revocation of the trade mark to comprehensively explain the use of the trade mark, but to impose the risk of evidence not being furnished on the cancellation applicant?

Question 3

1.3 Case: C-517/18

Accepted Answer

Must Article 13(1) and (3) of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 be interpreted as prohibiting the use, on unit packets, outside packaging and tobacco products, of any brand name calling to mind certain qualities however well-known it is?
Depending on the interpretation to be given to Article 13(1) and (3) of the Directive, do those provisions, in so far as they apply to names and trade marks, comply with the right to property, freedom of expression, the freedom to conduct a business and the principles of proportionally and legal certainty?
If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, do the provisions of Article 13 (1) and (3) of the Directive, taken in conjunction with those of Article 24(2) thereof, respect the right to property, freedom of expression, freedom to conduct business and the principle or proportionality?

Question 4

1.4 Case: C-517/18

Accepted Answer

Can an EU trade mark or a national trade mark registered in a Member State be declared wholly or partially invalid on the ground that some or all of the terms in the specification of goods and services are lacking in sufficient clarity and precision to enable the competent authorities and third parties to determine on the basis of those terms alone the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark?
If the answer to question (1) is yes, is a term such as ‘computer software’ too general and covers goods which are too variable to be compatible with the trade mark’s function as an indication of origin for that term to be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the competent authorities and third parties to determine on the basis of that term alone the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark?
Can it constitute bad faith simply to apply to register a trade mark without any intention to use it in relation to the specified goods or services?
If the answer to question (3) is yes, is it possible to conclude that the applicant made the application partly in good faith and partly in bad faith if and to the extent that the applicant had an intention to use the trade mark in relation to some of the specified good or services, but no intention to use the trade mark in relation to other specified goods or services?
Is section 32(3) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 compatible with Parliament and Council Directive 2015/2436/EU and its predecessors?

Question 5

1.5 Case: C-484/18

Accepted Answer

1.’Must Article 2(b), Article 3(2)(a) and Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those laid down in Article 49 II of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on freedom of communication, as amended by Article 44 of Law No 2006-961 of 1 August 2006, from establishing, for the benefit of the National Audiovisual Institute, the beneficiary of the exploitation rights of national broadcasting companies in the audiovisual archives, derogating provisions under which the terms on which performers’ works can be exploited and the remuneration for that exploitation are governed by agreements concluded between the performers themselves or the employee organisations representing performers and that institute, which must specify, inter alia, the scale of remuneration and the arrangements for payment of that remuneration?

Question 6

1.6 Case: C-313/18

Accepted Answer

1.1 What criteria are to determine whether material constitutes such preparatory design material as is referred to in Article 1(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs? Can documents which set out the requirements as to the functions which are to be performed by a computer program and the result which the computer program must achieve, for example detailed descriptions of investment principles or risk models for asset management including mathematical formulae to applied in the computer program, constitute such preparatory design material?

1.2 Must material, in order to constitute preparatory design material within the meaning of the directive, be so complete and detailed that in practice it requires no independent choices on the part of the person who actually writes the code of a computer program?

1.3 Does the exclusive right to preparatory design material within the meaning of the directive mean that the computer program in which the preparatory design material subsequently results is to be regarded as an adaptation of the preparatory design material and therefore a dependent work for the purpose of copyright (Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2009/24/EC), or that the preparatory design material and software are to be regarded as different forms of expression of the same work, or that they are two independent works?

2.1 Can a consultant employed by another company, but who has been working for a number of years for the same client and, in the execution of his duties or following the instructions given by the client, has created a computer program, be deemed an employee [of the client company] for the purpose of Article 2(3) of Directive 2009/24/EC?

2.2 On the basis of which criteria should it be assessed whether someone is an employee for the purposes of that provision?

3.1 Does Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights mean there must be a possibility of obtaining an injunction, even in a situation where the claimant holds the intellectual property right at issue jointly with the party against whom that injunction is directed?

3.2 If the answer to question 3.1 is in the affirmative, does that lead to any other conclusion if the exclusive right concerns a computer program and that computer program is not disseminated or made available to the public, but used only in a joint owner’s own business?

Question 7

1.7 Case: C-263/18

Accepted Answer

Is Article 4(1) of the Copyright Directive to be construed as meaning that ‘any form of distribution to the public by sale or otherwise of the original of their works or copies thereof’ as referred to therein includes making available remotely by downloading, for use for an unlimited period, e-books (being digital copies of books protected by copyright) at a price by means of which the copyright holder receives remuneration equivalent to the economic value of the work belonging to him?
If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is the distribution right with regard to the original or copies of a work as referred to in Article 4(2) of the Copyright Directive exhausted in the Union, when the first sale or other transfer of that material, which includes making available remotely by downloading, for use for an unlimited period, e-books (being digital copies of books protected by copyright) at a price by means of which the copyright holder receives remuneration equivalent to the economic value of the work belonging to him, takes place in the Union through the rightholder or with his consent?
Is Article 2 of the Copyright Directive to be construed as meaning that a transfer between successive acquirers of a lawfully acquired copy in respect of which the distribution right has been exhausted, constitutes consent to the acts of reproduction referred to therein, in so far as those acts of reproduction are necessary for the lawful use of that copy and, if so, which conditions apply?
Is Article 5 of the Copyright Directive to be construed as meaning that the copyright holder may no longer oppose the acts of reproduction necessary for a transfer between successive acquirers of the lawfully acquired copy in respect of which the distribution right has been exhausted and, if so, which conditions apply?

Question 8

1.8 Case: C-172/18

Accepted Answer

does an EU trade mark court in Member State B have jurisdiction to hear a claim for infringement of the EU trade mark in respect of the advertisement and offer for sale of the goods in that territory?
if not, which other criteria are to be taken into account by that EU trade mark court in determining whether it has jurisdiction to hear that claim?
in so far as the answer to (2) requires that EU trade mark court to identify whether the undertaking has taken active steps in Member State B, which criteria are to be taken into account in determining whether the undertaking has taken such active steps?

Case and subject	Parties	Legislation	Pre-hearing
C-883/18 The Registrar of the Court of Justice - request for preliminary ruling lodged pursuant to Article 267 TFEU	Brompton Bicycle Ltd V Chedech / Get2Get	Article 267 TFEU	Comments by 26 February 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 19 April 2019
C-825/18 P Concerning the powers of the EUIPO to examine the facts under Article 63(1) CDR in relation to disclosure of prior designs	Mamas and Papas v EUIPO	Article 63(1) CDR	Comments by 15 May 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 6 June 2019
C-818/18 P Concerning trademarks and whether a mark constitutes the shape of the goods within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94	Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO	Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94	Comments by 15 May 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 6 June 2019
C-809/18 P Concerning trademarks and the proper test for examining conflicting marks – purpose, scope, and interpretation of Article 8(3) of Regulation 207/2009	John Mills v EUIPO	Article 8(3) of Regulation 207/2009	Comments by 15 May 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 6 June 2019
C-783/18 P Concerning alleged infringement of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark- application of the test of the distinctiveness of the mark at issue, infringement of Articles 36 and 53 of the Statute of the CJEU	EUIPO v WAJOS GMBH	Articles 36 and 53 of the Statute of the CJEU	Comments by 10 April 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 3 May 2019
C-781/18 S.I.A.E. - copyright - collective management and licensing - whether national legislation reserving access to copyright intermediation market solely to collective management organisations is precluded by Directive 2014/26. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	S.I.A.E – Societa Italiana degli Autori ed Editori v Soundreef Ltd	Directive 2014/26/EU	Comments by 14 February 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 8 April 2019
C-753/18 - Copyright Request for preliminary ruling on the question of whether a person hiring a car with radio receivers is a user making a communication to the public. Within Article 267 TFEU.	STIM et SAMI	Article 267 TFEU	Comments by 4 February 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 29 March 2019
C-736/18 P Regulation 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark - assessment of the likelihood of confusion - economic link originating from owner	Gugler v EUIPO	Regulation 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark	Comments by 10 April 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 3 May 2019
C-720/18 and C-721/18 - Trade Mark Request for preliminary ruling on the question of whether use is genuine in terms of nature and extent within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Ferrari S.p.A., […] Modena, Italy v DU, […] Nuremberg	Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC	Comments by 7 January 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 4 March 2019
C-683/18 Youtube And Others - copyright - infringement - hosting of videos with content protected by copyright	Elsevier	Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 4 January 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 27 February 2019
C-682/18 Youtube And Others - copyright - infringement - hosting of videos with content protected by copyright	Youtube	Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 4 January 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 27 February 2019
C-673/18 Questions concerning the concept of different application as used within the judgment Neurim C-130/11 and if the limit of protection of the basic patent is relevant.	SANTEN SAS v Directeur général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle	Article 3(d) of Regulation 469/2009	Comments by 2 January 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 20 February 2018
C-666/18 IT Development - intellectual property - breach of licence for use of certain software - breach by use of software beyond trial period and exceeding number of permitted users etc - whether amounts to a breach within aspects of EU law.	IT Development SAS V Free Mobile SAS	Article 4 of Directive 2009/24/EC	Comments by 18 December 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 4 February 2018
C-622-18 Trade Mark Rights Preliminary ruling – imitation of a mark and use of an imitated mark, for goods or services	Cooper International Spirts	- Article 5 (1)(b) - Article 10 and Article 12 of Directive 2008/95	Comments by 03 December 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 25 January 2018
C-580/18 P EU Trade Mark - earlier mark and proof of genuine use - appeal against ruling in T-41/17 - error of General Court in amending decision of Board of Appeal - error in assessing	Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland v Lotte	- Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009,	Comments by 6 February 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 1 March 2019
C-567-18 Trade Mark Rights Preliminary ruling – Coty Germany	Amazon	Article 267 TFEU	Comments by 02 November 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 31 December 2018
C-541/18 - Trade mark case Preliminary ruling Deutsches Patent – und Markenamt	AS v Deutsches Patent – und Markenamt	Article 3 (1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC	Comments by 22 October 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 18 December 2018
C-534/18 - Trade mark case Appeal against judgment of the General Court T-577/15.	Uribe-Etxebarria Jimenez v EUIPO	Appeal Regulation (EC) 207/2009	Comments by 30 January 2019 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 22 February 2019
C-517/18 - Trade mark case Preliminary ruling – prohibition of brand names suggesting certain qualities on outside packaging of tobacco. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Federation des fabricants de cigares	Article 13(1) and (3) of Directive 2014/40/EU. -Article 24(2)	Comments by 8 October 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU - 4 December 2018.
C-484/18 Request for a preliminary ruling under Article 98(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	SPEDIDAM (Referring court: Cour de cassation – France)	- Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Directive 2001/29 - French legislation Law No 86-1067 - Article 49 II of Law No 2006-961	Comments by 13 September 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU – 9 November 2018
C-474/18 Appeal case against the judgement of the General Court in Case T-554/14	J-M. E.V. e Hijos V Messi Cuccittini	Article 8(1)(b)	Comments by 14 November 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU – 10 December 2018
C-371/18 Claimants contend that the Defendants have infringed four European Union trade marks owned by the Claimants. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Sky Plc, Sky International AG, Sky UK Ltd v SkyKick UK Ltd, SkyKick Inc.	-Article 12(a) of Council Regulation 207/2009 EC - European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001/EU or under section 11(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 implementing Article 6(1)(a) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95/EC and of European Parliament and Council Directive 2015/2436/EU.	Comments by 19 July 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 17 September 2018.
C-328/18P – Trade mark case Appeal brought on 17/5/18 by the EUIPO against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 7/3/18 in Case T-6/17.	EUIPO v Equivalenza Manufactory, S.L and ITM Entreprises SAS.	Article 8(1)(b) of EU trade mark regulation.	Comments by 10 October 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU - 5 November 2018.
C-320/18 Appeal brought on 14/05/18 by Crocs, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 14/03/18 in Case T-651/16.	Crocs V EUIPO	- Article 7 CDR - Article 137 - Article 184 - Article 63 CDR - Article 61 CDR	Comments by 26 September 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU – 22 October 2018
C-313/18 Request for a preliminary ruling lodged 9 May 2018. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Dacom Ltd v IPM	- Article 1(1)(2), 2(2)(3) and 4(1)(b) of Directive 2009/24/EC - Article 3 of Directive 2008/104/EC - Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC	Comments by 9 July 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 4 September 2018.
C-307/18 Preliminary ruling lodged pursuant to Article 267 TFEU in the case.	Generics (UK) e.a.	- Article 101(1)(3) - Article 102	Comments by 6 July 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 3 September 2018.
C-282/18P Appeal brought on 25/4/18 by The Green Effort Ltd against the judgement of the General Court delivered on 23/2/18 in Case T-794/17	The Green Effort Ltd v EUIPO	-Article 3 (4) Decision No. 17-4 of the Executive Director of the Office of 16 August 2017 concerning communication by electronic means	Comments by 29 August 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 24 September 2018.
C-281/18P Appeal brought on 24/4/18 by Repower AG against the judgement of the General Court delivered on 21/2/18 in Case T-727/16.	Repower AG v EUIPO	- Article 80 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 8 August 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 3 September 2018.
C-263/18 Preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. Lodged 16 April 2018. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers v Tom Kabinet BV	- Article 4(1)(2) of Copyright Directive - Article 2 of Copyright Directive - Article 5 of Copyright Directive - Articles 2,4 and 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC - Articles 1, 12, 12b, 13, 13a and 16b of the Law of 23/9/1912 containing new regulation of copyright.	Comments by 14 June 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 10 August 2018.
C-240/18P Appeal brought on 4 April 2018 by Constantin Film Production Gmbh against the judgement of the General Court delivered on 24/1/18 in Case T-69/17.	Constantin Film Production GmbH v EUIPO	- Article 7(1)(f) of the EU Trade Mark regulation (EUTMR).	Comments by 1 August 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 27 August 2018.
C-223/18P Appeal brought on 27/3/18 by Deichmann SE against the judgement of the General Court delivery on 17/1/18 in Case T-68/16.	Deichmann SE v EUIPO	- Article 51 (1)(a) and 15 (1) CTMR. - Article 58 (1)(a) and 18 (1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14/6/17.	Comments by 1 August 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 27 August 2018.
C-209/18 Action brought on 23 March 2018.	European Commission v Republic of Austria	- Article 14(1) - Article 15(1), (2)(b) and (c) and (3) - Article 25 of the Services Directive - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU	Comments by 20 June 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 26 July 2018.
C-207/18 Action brought on 22 March 2018.	European Commission v Kingdom of Spain	- Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament - Article 43(1) - Article 260(3) TFEU	Comments by 27 June 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 2 August 2018.
C-206/18 Copyright Directive 2014/26/EU on collective management etc of copyright - failure by Poland to fully transpose the Directive	European Commission v Republic of Poland: intellectual property	Directive 2014/26/EU on collective management etc of copyright	Comments by 14 June 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 19 July 2018.
C-172/18 Preliminary ruling on appeal from the High Court of Justice Chancery Divison. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	AMS Neve and Others	-Article 97(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 -Article 267 and 20	Comments by 23 April 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 19 June 2018.
C-158/18P Appeals brought by Tulliallan Burlington Ltd against the judgement of the General Court in Cases – T-120/16, T-121/16, T-122/16 and T-123/16.	Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v EUIPO	- Article 8 (1), (4), (5) EUTMR(1)	Comments by 19 July 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 17 September 2018.
C-157/18P Appeals brought by Tulliallan Burlington Ltd against the judgement of the General Court in Cases – T-120/16, T-121/16, T-122/16 and T-123/16.	Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v EUIPO	- Article 8 (1), (4), (5) EUTMR(1)	Comments by 19 July 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 17 September 2018.
C-156/18P Appeals brought by Tulliallan Burlington Ltd against the judgement of the General Court in Cases – T-120/16, T-121/16, T-122/16 and T-123/16.	Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v EUIPO	- Article 8 (1), (4), (5) EUTMR(1)	Comments by 19 July 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 17 September 2018.
C-155/18P Appeals brought by Tulliallan Burlington Ltd against the judgement of the General Court in Cases – T-120/16, T-121/16, T-122/16 and T-123/16.	Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v EUIPO	- Article 8 (1), (4), (5) EUTMR(1)	Comments by 19 July 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 17 September 2018.
C-124/18 Appeal brought on 15 Feb 2018 against the judgement of the General Court delivered on 30 Nov 2017 in joined cases T-101/15 and T-102/15.	Red Bull GmbH v EUIPO	- Article 7(1)(a) and 4 CTMR - Article 134(1) - Article 135 (1)	Comments by 27 June 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 23 July 2018.
C-114/18 Preliminary Reference on the Interpretation of Regulation (EC) 469/2009	Sandoz Ltd, Hexal AG v G.D. Searle LLC, Janssen Sciences Ireland	Regulation (EC) 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council	Comments by 6 April 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 4 June 2018.
C-99/18 Appeal against judgment rejecting opposition to registering purportedly similar trademark	Fti Touristik GMBH v European Union Intellectual Property Office	Article 8(1)(b) Regulation 207/2009	Comments by 13 June 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 9 July 2018.
C-48/18P Appeal brought by Toontrack Music AB against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 22/11/17 in Case T-771/16, Toontrack Music AB v EUIPO.	Toontrack Music v EUIPO	- Article 7 (1)(b), (1)(c) and (2). - Article 76 - Articles 65 and 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009. - Article 86	Comments by 16 May 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 19 June 2018.
C-27/18 Action brought on 16 Jan 2018.	European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria	Article 43(1) of directive 2014/26 EU Article 260(3) TFEU	Comments by 21 March 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 26 April 2018.
C-20/18 - Copyright Action brought on 9 January 2018.	European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg	Article 43(1) of Directive 2014/26/EU Article 260(3) TFEU	Comments by 4 April 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU, 10 May 2018.

References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 2018

1. Table of cases

1.1 Case: C-781/18

1.2 Case: C-720/18 and C-721/18

1.3 Case: C-517/18

1.4 Case: C-517/18

1.5 Case: C-484/18

1.6 Case: C-313/18

1.7 Case: C-263/18

1.8 Case: C-172/18

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK

Cookies on GOV.UK

1. Table of cases

1.1 Case: C-781/18

1.2 Case: C-720/18 and C-721/18

1.3 Case: C-517/18

1.4 Case: C-517/18

1.5 Case: C-484/18

1.6 Case: C-313/18

1.7 Case: C-263/18

1.8 Case: C-172/18

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK