ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the Court of 25 January 2008 – Provincia di Ascoli Piceno and Comune di Monte Urano v Council

(Case C‑462/07 P(I))

Appeal – Intervention – Interest in the result of the case

1. Procedure – Intervention – Conditions of admissibility – Interest in the result of the case – Meaning – Need for a direct and existing interest (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.) (see paras 5-6)

2. Procedure – Proof – Burden of proof – Obligation to prove matters within common knowledge – None (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 9)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 11)

4. Appeals – Production of new evidence – Inadmissible (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 12)

5. Procedure – Assimilation of regional and local authorites to Member States – Excluded (see para. 15)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (President of the Second Chamber) of 4 September 2007 in Case T‑407/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes v Council rejecting an application for leave to intervene in an action for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 June 2010 – Commission v Schneider Electric

(Case C‑440/07 P)

Appeal – Partial annulment of the judgment under appeal – Final judgment where the state of the proceedings so permits – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Evaluation of the loss

1. Non-contractual liability – Damage – Evaluation – Criteria – Making good of various expenses borne by an undertaking as a result of the annulment of a decision declaring a merger operation incompatible with the common market and of a decision ordering the separation of the entities merged (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 41-50)

2. Procedure – Costs – Rules applicable (see paras 51-53)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T‑351/03 Schneider Electric v Commission , by which that Court ordered the European Commission to make good, first, the expenses incurred by Schneider Electric SA in respect of its participation in the resumed merger control procedure which followed delivery of the judgments of the Court of First Instance on 22 October 2002 in Cases T‑310/01 and T‑77/02 Schneider Electric v Commission and, second, two thirds of the loss sustained by Schneider Electric as a result of the reduction in the transfer price of Legrand SA which Schneider Electric had to concede to the transferee in exchange for the postponement of the effective date of sale of Legrand until 10 December 2002 – Conditions governing the establishment of non-contractual liability on the part of the Community – Concepts of wrongful act, damage and direct causal link between the wrongful act and the damage suffered – ‘Sufficiently serious’ breach of Community law vitiating the procedure for examination of the compatibility of a concentration with the common market.

Operative part:

1. Fixes the amount of the loss to be made good in point 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 16 July 2009 in Case C-440/07 P Commission v Schneider Electric [2009] ECR I-6413 at EUR 50 000.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Jurisdiction of the Court

–

Limits (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 7-10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale ordinario di Milano – Interpretation of Article 6(2) EU and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Right to a fair trial – National legislation with retroactive effect which introduces changes in salary conditions under the contract of employment.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions posed by the Tribunale ordinario di Milano by decision of 16 June 2008.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Time-limits (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 71(1)) (see paras 21-24)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Opposition proceedings (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 43(2) and (3), and 74(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 22(1)) (see paras 35-36)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-86/05 K & L Ruppert Stiftung v OHIM – Lopes de Almeida Cunha and Others by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment by the proprietor of the national and international word marks ‘LIVRE’ for goods in Class 25 against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2004 rejecting the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing the opposition filed against the registration of the figurative Community trade mark ‘CORPO LIVRE’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 – Opposition proceedings – Rejection of the opposition on the ground of late submission of proof of use of earlier marks.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Turnover taxes

–

Common system of value added tax

–

Prohibition on the levying of other domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 33(1)) (see paras 34-38, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas – Interpretation of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14) and of Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 45, p. 1) – Lithuanian road tax calculated on the basis of an undertaking’s turnover to finance the maintenance and development programme for national roads.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a tax such as the levy on revenue laid down by the Lithuanian Law on the financing of the road maintenance and development programme (Lietuvos Respublikos kelių priežiūros ir plėtros programos finansavimo įstatymas).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Reference to the Court

–

National court unable to provide clarification required by the Court since the case is no longer before it by reason of an appeal brought against the order for reference

–

No need to adjudicate (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 9-11

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brugge – State aid – Definition – Interpretation of Articles 87(1) and 88(3) EC – Sale of a plot of land by an intercommunal organisation to an undertaking active in Benelux on preferential terms, following a compulsory purchase order – Whether or not obligation to notify exists.

Operative part

Operative part

There is no need to reply to the reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C‑129/08.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Breach of the principle audi alteram partem – Order ruling on the objection to admissibility without oral argument having been heard – Defendant having submitted observations on that objection – Ground of appeal manifestly unfounded (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114(1)) (see paras 15-19)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law – Order ruling on the appellant’s capacity to bring legal proceedings in the light of its national law – Determination necessary in the case of actions brought by infrastate territorial bodies – Ground of appeal manifestly unfounded (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 22-26)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 in Case T‑236/06 Landtag Schleswig‑Holstein v Commission , by which the Court rejected as inadmissible an application for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 10 March and 23 June 2006 refusing to grant the applicant access to the document SEC (2005) 420, of 22 March 2005 containing a legal analysis of a draft framework decision, under discussion in the Council, on the retention of data processed and stored in relation to the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of data transmitted by means of the public communications networks, for purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences, including terrorism – Capacity of a regional parliament to be a party to legal proceedings – Right to be heard before a court – Definition of ‘legal person’ in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Landtag Schleswig‑Holstein to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Alcon Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

References for a preliminary ruling

–

No need to adjudicate (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 15-17, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg – Interpretation of Articles 18 EC, 49 EC and 50 EC and Article 34(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and to their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 159) – Reimbursement of medical costs incurred in connection with emergency treatment of a national of a Member State in a private hospital of another Member State as a result of the refusal of the competent public hospital to provide that benefit on the ground of insufficient capacity – National legislation of the competent Member State excluding reimbursement of medical costs incurred for emergency treatment in a private hospital of another Member State but allowing reimbursement of those costs if charged by a private hospital situated in national territory.

Operative part

Operative part

There is no need to reply to the reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) by decision of 27 June 2008.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 December 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case C-513/08 P)

‛Appeal — Officials — Social security — Express refusal of an application for reimbursement of 100% of certain medical expenses incurred by the official — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 30)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 40-44)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-143/08 Marcuccio v Commission, by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of the decisions of the Settlements Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities refusing to give prior authorisation for 100% of certain medical expenses incurred by the appellant and to reimburse the cost of a medical consultation in accordance with the rules applicable to consultations of medical experts, and an application that the Commission be ordered to pay certain medical expenses.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2008 – Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB

(Case C‑84/08 P)

Appeals – Time-limit – Inadmissibility

1. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Appeals (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 37(6) and 81(2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(2)) (see paras 8 to 12)

2. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Force majeure – Meaning (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45) (see paras 14 to 15)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 2007 in Joined Cases T-3/00 and T-337/04 Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB , which annulled the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 21 October 1999 refusing access to certain documents concerning the Basle/Nyborg Agreement, dismissed the claim seeking annulment of the Council’s decision of 30 July 1999 refusing the applicant access to such documents and dismissed the action for compensation in respect of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the decisions of the Council and the ECB refusing him access to certain documents concerning the Basle/Nyborg Agreement (1987) which he had requested for the purpose of preparing his doctoral thesis.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Claim for recovery of costs — Time-limit for submission — Obligation to submit the claim for recovery within a reasonable period of time (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 145) (see paras 15, 16)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer — Included — Elements to be taken into consideration for the purposes of taxation of costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 20, 23)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 145) (see para. 32)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 December 2009.

Operative part

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed by Mr Luigi Marcuccio to the European Commission in Case C-528/08 P are fixed at EUR 1 250.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2008 – Cabrera Sánchez v OHIM

(Case C‑81/08 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Likelihood of confusion – Mixed word and figurative mark – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier mark

Appeal – 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. 225(1) EC; Statute of the court of Justice, Art 58, first para.) (see para. 24)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2007 in Case T-242/06 Cabrera Sánchez v OHIM – Industrias Cárnicas Valle , by which that Court dismissed the action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2006 (Case R 790/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Cabrera Sánchez and Industrias Cárnicas Valle SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2009 – Carlos Cloet and Jacqueline Cloet v West-Vlaamse Intercommunale voor Economische Expansie, Huisvestingsbeleid en Technische Bijstand

(Case C‑129/08)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – No need to reply

Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – National court unable to provide clarification required by the Court since the case is no longer before it by reason of an appeal brought against the order for reference – No need to adjudicate (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 9-11)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brugge – State aid – Definition – Interpretation of Articles 87(1) and 88(3) EC – Sale of a plot of land by an intercommunal organisation to an undertaking active in Benelux on preferential terms, following a compulsory purchase order – Whether or not obligation to notify exists.

Operative part

There is no need to reply to the reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C‑129/08.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2009 – Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt v Bezirksrevisorin beim Landgericht Magdeburg für die Landeskasse des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt

(Joined Cases C‑404/08 and C-409/08)

Preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility

Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 92(1) and 103) (see paras 25-40)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Oberlandesgericht Naumburg – Interpretation of Article 86 EC, in conjunction with Article 81(1)(a) and (d) and 81(2) EC – National rules granting exemption from court fees to an investment bank established by the Land .

Operative part:

The references for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg made by decisions of 1 and 2 September 2008 are manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Action brought by a natural or legal person to establish an infringement of Community law by a Member State

–

Community judicature manifestly lacking jurisdiction

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC et seq.; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119) (see paras 4-6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 August 2009 in Case T-141/09 Molter v Germany , by which that Court dismissed, by reason of manifest lack of jurisdiction, an action seeking a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Community law on non-discrimination or, alternatively, damages for the loss allegedly sustained on account of the German courts’ infringement of the duty to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Molter is ordered to bear his own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Excusable error – Concept – Meaning

Summary

In the context of the Community rules on time-limits for instituting proceedings, the concept of excusable error justifying a derogation from those rules can concern only exceptional circumstances in which, in particular, the conduct of the institution concerned has been, either alone or to a decisive extent, such as to give rise to a pardonable confusion in the mind of a party acting in good faith and displaying all the diligence required of a normally well-informed person. The institution concerned is the one which adopted the contested measure. An excusable error can also be the result of the conduct of the court itself, which gives rise to confusion in the mind of the party concerned.

Furthermore, with regard to the time-limits for instituting proceedings before the General Court, Article 101(1)(a) and (b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court are clear and present no particular difficulty of interpretation. There was therefore no need for a normally well-informed person, when applying that provision, to have recourse to an interpretation made by another institution of any similar provision, such as Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits.

In addition, since it is not part of the duties and powers of the officials of the Registry of the General Court to express an opinion on the calculation of the time-limit for the commencement of an action, an applicant cannot reasonably argue that, having sought confirmation from the Registry of the General Court that its calculation of the time-limits was correct, it had displayed all the diligence required of a normally well-informed person.

(see paras 20, 22, 24, 27, 29)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 45-46)

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties – Conditions for non-entry of import duties in the accounts set out in Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b)) (see paras 47-52, 58-59)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the evidence duly produced – Inadmissible except in the case of clear distortion of the sense ‑ Duty of the General Court to state the reasons for its assessment of the evidence – Extent (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 68-69)

4. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import duties – Fairness clause introduced by Article 239 of the Customs Code – Special situation – Meaning – Incorrect certificates issued by the customs authorities on the basis of the exporter’s untrue declarations, but those authorities not obliged to check the validity of those declarations – Excluded (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 904(c)) (see paras 79-83)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 8 July 2009 of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) in Case T–219/07 DSV Road v Commission dismissing an application for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 24 April 2007 informing the Belgian authorities that they might proceed with post-clearance recovery of import duties on diskettes originating in Thailand and that there were no grounds for granting remission of those duties (File reference: REC 05/02).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders DSV Road NV to pay the costs.