ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Review of the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Annulment or alteration for reasons appearing after the judgment was delivered – Excluded (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 43-44)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 77)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 September 2009 in Case T-446/09 Royal Appliance International v OHIM – BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007, rejecting the registration of the word mark ‘Centrixx’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 7, by granting the opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘sensixx’ – Failure to stay the proceedings while awaiting the resolution of the dispute pending before the national courts concerning the application for revocation of the earlier mark – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion between two marks.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Royal Appliance International GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 January 2010 – Saenz Morales v Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social

(Case C‑389/09)

Preliminary rulings – Inadmissibility

Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context – Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 92(1) and 103(1) (see paras 9-20)

Re:

Interpretation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) – Scope – Civil service of the Regional Government of Andalusia – Principle of non‑discrimination.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 3 de Almería, by decision of 22 September 2009, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2010 – CPEM v Commission

(Case C‑350/09 P)

Appeal – European Social Fund – Financial assistance – Cancellation

1. Appeals – Grounds – Claims unsupported by any specific plea in law – Inadmissibility (Art. 225(1)(2) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 33-36)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Legal classification of the facts – Admissibility (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see paras 40-44)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Admissibility – Scope of the obligation to state reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para 51)

4. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (see para 72)

5. Community law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Application to all proceedings brought against a person that may lead to an act adversely affecting that person – Principle that must be guaranteed even when there are no rules governing the proceedings in question – Scope (see paras 75-79)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2009 in Case T–444/07 CPEM v Commission dismissing the appellant’s application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007 cancelling the assistance granted by the European Social Fund (ESF) by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999 – Microprojects promoting employment and social cohesion – Infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of equal treatment – Failure to take into account the concept of ‘co-responsibility’ – Failure to observe the principle of legal certainty as a result of the existence of several different versions of the ‘Promoter’s Guide’ – Doubts as to the applicability of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1) on which OLAF’s decision was based.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
2.

Case C-254/09 P-DEP is referred back to the General Court of the European Union in so far as concerns the application for taxation of costs incurred by Zafra Marroquineros SL in the proceedings before that Court.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

–

Admissibility

–

Questions asked without enough detail given of the facts

–

Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 9-12, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Apel Secţia Bacău Secţia Comercială, Contencios Administrativ şi Fiscal – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax on vehicles on their first registration in a Member State – Compatibility of the national rules with Article 110 TFEU – Discrimination in relation to second-hand vehicles already registered in the territory of that Member State and not subject to that tax on a subsequent sale or new registration.

Operative part

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Curtea de Apel Bacău by decision of 1 September 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Sistemul electronic de arhivare, criptare şi indexare digitalizată Srl (Seacid) shall bear its own costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Ravensburger AG shall pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby orders:

1. The appeals are dismissed.

2. Mr Eriksen, Mr Hansen and Ms Lind shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Internal taxation

–

Pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 20-22, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Appel Bacău Comercială, Contencios Administrativ şi Fiscal – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax on motor vehicles on first registration in a Member State – Compatibility of national legislation with Article 110 TFEU – Discrimination in relation to second-hand vehicles already registered in that Member State and not subject to that tax on subsequent sale and new registration.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State if that tax is arranged in such a way as to discourage the putting into circulation in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the domestic market.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

Grounds

–

Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence

–

Inadmissibility

–

Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence

–

Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para 41

)

Subject of the case

Re

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2010 in Case T-547/08 X Technology Swiss v OHIM , by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2008 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision, which refused registration of the sign consisting of the orange colouring of the toe of a sock as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 25 – Distinctive character of a sign consisting of the partial colouring of a product.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. X Technology Swiss GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
Case C-313/10

Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

v

Sylvia Jansen

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln)

‛Removal from the register’

Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen delivered on 15 September 2011 I - 10512

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court, 25 October 2011 I - 10543
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Apel Secţia Bacău Secţia Comercială, Contencios Administrativ şi Fiscal – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax on vehicles on their first registration in a Member State – Compatibility of the national rules with Article 110 TFEU – Discrimination in relation to second-hand vehicles already registered in the territory of that Member State and not subject to that tax on a subsequent sale or new registration.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2010 – Longevity Health Products v OHIM

(Case C‑84/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Word sign ‘Kids Vits’ – Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark VITS4KIDS – Level of attention of the relevant public – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Right to be heard

1. Appeals – Formal requirements – Proof that the authority granted to the applicant’s lawyer has been properly conferred on him by someone authorised for the purpose – Excluded (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 38(5)(b) and 112(1)) (see para. 19)

2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Permission to lodge a reply – General Court’s discretion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(2)) (see para. 24)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 30)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 in Case T-484/08 Longevity Health Products v OHIM – Merck (Kids Vits) , by which that court dismissed the action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008, refusing the registration of the word sign ‘Kids Vits’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 5, by upholding the opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘VITS4KIDS’ – Breach of the right to a judicial hearing – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion between two marks.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 March 2011 – Montoya Medina v Fondo de Garantía Salarial and Universidad de Alicante

(Case C-273/10)

Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work – Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector – Entitlement to triennial seniority bonuses – Principle of non-discrimination

1. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Conditions of employment – Definition – Seniority bonus – Included – Duty to apply the principle of non-discrimination (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4(1)) (see paras 32-34)

2. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Workers doing the same work – ‘Same work’ – Meaning – Workers in a similar situation – Criteria for assessment (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 3(2)) (see paragraphs 36-39)

3. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Objective reasons warranting different treatment – Meaning (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4(1)) (see paragraphs 34, 37, 40-43, 47, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana – Interpretation of clause 4(4) of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) – Contracts of employment as a university lecturer and researcher concluded with State universities – Exclusion of certain benefits from fixed-term contracts.

Operative part:

Clause 4(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, without any objective justification, restricts the right to receive a seniority bonus to university lecturers on permanent contracts, excluding lecturers on fixed-term contracts when, as regards receipt of that bonus, those two categories of workers are in comparable situations.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 January 2011 – Chihabi and Others v Geert Vandendriessche, acting in his capacity as receiver of Anneessen BVBA

(Case C-432/10)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility

Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 18-23)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Articles 5, 38 to 41 and 43, second indent of Article 177 and Articles 202(1) and (3) and 221(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and of Article 199(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties – Communication to the debtor – Creation of a customs debt following the unlawful introduction of goods.

Operative part
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 – Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM

(Joined Cases C-54/10 P and C-55/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Refusal to register signs ‘350’, ‘250’, ‘150’, ‘222’, ‘333’ and ‘555’ as trade marks for periodicals, books and game booklets – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1)(c) – Descriptive character – OHIM obliged to take account of its earlier decision-making practice

Community trade mark – Effects of the Community trade mark – Limitations – Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94 – Purpose – No decisive effect on the interpretation of Article 7(1)(c) of the regulation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 12(b)) (see para. 33)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T‑66/07 and in Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM , by which that court dismissed the six actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2006 (Cases R 1033/2006-4, R 1034/2006-4, R 1035/2006-4, R 1276/2006‑4, R 1277/2006–4 and R 1278/2006-4) concerning applications for registration of the word marks 150, 250, 350, 222, 333 and 555 as Community trade marks – Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 76 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) – Descriptive character of marks composed exclusively of figures.

Operative part

1. The appeals are dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 April 2011 – Marcuccio v Court of Justice

(Case C‑460/10 P)

Appeal – Non-contractual liability – Representation of the appellant – Lawyer not authorised to act – Service of an appeal – Claim for damages – Court of Justice of the European Union – Rejection – Action for annulment – Harm allegedly suffered – Action for damages – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 28-29, 45)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 32, 36, 38)

3. Procedure – Measures of inquiry – Hearing of witnesses – Discretion of the Court of First Instance (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 66(1)) (see paras 49-51)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2010 in Case T‑401/09 Marcuccio v Commission , in which that court dismissed, first, the action for annulment of the purported decisions of the Court of Justice dismissing the claim for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of an alleged unlawful act committed when the appeal was served on Mr Luigi Marcuccio in Case T‑20/09 P and, second, a claim for damages.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 November 2011 – Colapietro v Ispettorato Centrale Repressioni Frodi

(Case C-519/10)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 92(1), 103(1) and the second subparagraph of 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Wine sector – Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and Regulation (EC) No 343/94 – Answer to the question admitting of no reasonable doubt – Manifest inadmissibility

1. Preliminary rulings – Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt – Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(3)) (see para. 15)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Compulsory distillation of table wines – Purpose of Regulation No 343/94 – Implementation of Regulation No 822/87 (Council Regulation No 822/87, Arts 39(9) to (11) and 83; Commission Regulation No 343/94) (see paras 18-19, 22 and operative part.)

3. Member States – Obligations – Obligation to impose penalties for infringements of Union law – Observance of the principle of proportionality – Assessment by the national court (Art. 4(3) TEU) (see paras 24-25)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale di Bari – Wine sector – Compulsory distillation system – 1993/94 wine year – Scope ratione temporis of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1987 L 84, p. 1) – Repeal of that regulation by Commission Regulation (EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994 opening compulsory distillation as provided for in Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and derogating for the 1993/94 wine year from certain detailed rules for the application thereof (OJ 1994 L 44, p. 9) – Administrative sanction under national law for infringements of Regulation No 882/87 – Applicability in the case of infringement of Regulation No 343/94 – Proportionality of the administrative sanction imposed.

Operative part

Commission Regulation (EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994 opening compulsory distillation as provided for in Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and derogating for the 1993/94 wine year from certain detailed rules for the application thereof implements Regulation No 822/87 without either repealing or replacing it.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 September 2011 – Pagnoul v État belge

(Case C-314/10)

Articles 92(1), 103(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Examination of compatibility of national rule both with European Union law and with national Constitution – National legislation giving priority to a preliminary procedure reviewing constitutionality – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Necessity of a connection with Union law – Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Reference to the Court – Jurisdiction of the national courts – National legislation giving priority to a preliminary procedure reviewing constitutionality – Not permissible – Condition (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 21)

2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National decision not indicating any connection with the law of the Union – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 17, 47 and 51(1)) (see paras 22-25)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal de première instance de Liège – Interpretation of Articles 6 TEU, 267 TFEU and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Obligatory preliminary referral to the constitutional court by national courts in cases of presumed infringement of fundamental rights by national legislation – Compatibility with Union law of the provision of national law requiring that preliminary referral – Possibility for national courts of reviewing the compatibility of national rules with international treaties when the constitutional court has declared the national legislation at issue compatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium).
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Longevity Health Products, Inc. shall bear its own costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Tax provisions

—

Harmonisation of laws

—

Turnover taxes

—

Common system of value added tax

—

Supply of services

—

Transactions comprising several elements

—

Services consisting of parking vehicles in a car park outside an airport, on the one hand, and carrying passengers between that car park and the airport, on the other

—

Transaction that must be regarded as a single, complex supply (Council Directives 77/388 and 92/111) (see para 41, operative part 1

)
Keywords



Keywords

Social policy

–

Framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC

–

Directive 97/81

–

National legislation requiring the contracts and work schedules of part-time workers to be kept and published

–

Whether lawful

–

Conditions

–

Determination by the national court (Council Directive 97/81, Annex, Clauses 4 and 5(1)) (see paras 22-30, 32-33, 38-39 and operative part

)