ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal—Grounds—Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court—Error of law relied on not identified—Inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

(see para. 4)
19

As regards, lastly, the interpretation sought of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 and of Article 14 of the ECHR, it is admittedly true that those provisions are coterminous, in part, with Article 17 of the Charter dedicated to the protection of property rights, and with Article 21 of the Charter concerning the prohibition of discrimination. However, as has already been noted in paragraph 17 of the present order, the decision to refer contains no evidence in the order for reference to indicate that the order for reference does not contain any specific information enabling the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings to be considered to be connected with EU law. In that situation, the Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to rule on a reference for a preliminary ruling (see, to that effect, order of 1 March 2011 in Chartry, C‑457/09, EU:C:2011:101, paragraphs 25 and 26 and the case-law cited).
4

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 17 August 2017, Xellia and Alpharma argued that the United Kingdom’s application to intervene had to be dismissed as being out of time, having been submitted after the expiry of the period referred to in Article 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and that there was no justification for that application. They also submitted that the fact that that Member State neither submitted its application to intervene in time nor provided a statement of reasons for that application did not enable the President of the Court to assess whether those reasons would justify allowing such a later intervention and to be satisfied that that Member State was not thereby seeking to gain a procedural advantage. Xellia and Alpharma submitted that such an application impaired their procedural rights inasmuch as the reasons for that application to intervene had not been communicated to them. Consequently, they were unable to challenge either those reasons or the arguments which that Member State was liable to put forward during the hearing.
Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Meaning — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings — Included — Assessment

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b))

(see para. 22-24, 41)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 — Bericap

(Case C‑53/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Aid granted by Member States — Derogations from the prohibition of aid — Aid capable of being regarded as compatible with the internal market — Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 — Definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises — Linked enterprises — Enterprises exercising their activities on the same market and forming part of a global group of enterprises owned by the members of one single family — Concept of ‘group of natural persons acting jointly’)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law—Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 15, 16)

2. State aid—Prohibition—Exceptions—Regulation No 800/2008—Definition of ‘small and medium-sized enterprises’—Notion of ‘linked enterprises’—Notion of ‘group of natural persons acting jointly’—Scope (Commission Regulation No 800/2008, Annex I, Arts 3(3), paras 1 and 4) (see paras 17-19, operative part)

Operative part

Article 3(3) of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] (General block exemption Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that enterprises may be regarded as ‘linked’, within the meaning of that provision, where it is clear from the analysis of both the legal and economic relations existing between them that they constitute, through a natural person or a group of natural persons acting jointly, a single economic unit, even though they do not formally feature any of the relationships referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that annex. Natural persons who work together in order to influence the commercial decisions of the enterprises concerned, with the result that those enterprises cannot be regarded as being economically independent of one another, are to be regarded as acting jointly for the purposes of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that annex. Whether such a condition is satisfied will depend on the circumstances of the individual case and is not necessarily conditional on the existence of contractual relations between those persons or even on a finding that they intended to circumvent the definition of micro, small or medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Annex I to Regulation No 800/2008.

( 1 ) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 November 2017 —

IJDF Italy

(Case C‑344/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — National legislation which permits the main debtor and the guarantor to be brought together before the same court — Derogation from the rules establishing the domicile of the consumer — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court)

Consumer protection—Unfair terms in consumer contracts—Directive 93/13—Scope—National legislation relating to the determination of the court with jurisdiction to hear related cases, which permits the main debtor and the guarantor to be brought together before the same court—Inapplicability of the directive

(Council Directive 93/13)

(see points 28-34)

Operative part

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not being applicable in the context of a dispute concerning the determination of the court with jurisdiction to hear related cases, where that dispute does not fall within the scope of Directive 93/13.

( 1 ) OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 — Alandžak

(Case C‑187/17)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context—Scope

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

(see paras 9-13)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Općinski Sud u Vukovaru (Municipal Court of Vukovar, Croatia), by decision of 5 April 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 — Ukraine v Yanukovych

(Case C‑551/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal relating solely to the amount of the costs set at first instance — Manifest inadmissibility)

Appeal—Grounds—Plea directed against the decision of the General Court on costs—Inadmissible if sole plea

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paras 4-7)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context—Scope—Application not providing sufficient detail on the factual and legal context—Impossibility for the Court to provide a useful answer to the referring court—Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94; Council Directive 2011/16)

(see paras 29-32)
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. 256 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 23, 24)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 — JYSK v Commission

(Case C‑402/17 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Refusal to grant a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘European Shared Services Centre’ — Action for annulment — Undertaking responsible for project implementation — Conditions of admissibility — Lack of direct concern)

Appeal—Grounds—Error of law relied on not identified—Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169)

(see para. 22)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. JYSK sp. z o.o. shall pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 November 2019 — Hamed and Omar

(Joined Cases C‑540/17 and C‑541/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Area of freedom, security and justice — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 33(2)(a) — Rejection by the authorities of a Member State of an application for asylum as being inadmissible because of the prior granting of refugee status in another Member State — Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Substantial risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment — Living conditions of those granted refugee status in that other Member State)

Fundamental rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Scope — Systemic flaws on completion of the procedure to grant international protection in a Member State, on account of the living conditions of beneficiaries of that protection — Other Member States prohibited from rejecting an application for asylum as being inadmissible because of the prior granting of refugee status in that Member State — Conditions — Assessment of whether those flaws are established — Criteria — Need for there to be a situation of extreme material poverty

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; European Parliament and Council Directive 2013/32, Art. 33(2)(a))

(see paras 34-43, operative part)

Operative part

Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from exercising the option under that provision to reject an application for international protection as being inadmissible on the ground that the applicant has already been granted refugee status by another Member State where the living conditions which the applicant could be expected to encounter as a refugee in that other Member State would expose him or her to a serious risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

( 1 ) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Appeal—Grounds—Mistaken 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. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 63, 64)
4.

Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Conditions for granting—Balancing of all the interests involved—Suspension of execution of a prohibition order adopted by a Member State against a governor of the national central bank—Weighing up the interest in ensuring the proper functioning of the Union’s monetary policy with the interest in protecting the criminal investigation concerning the alleged conduct of the governor—Satisfaction of the interests at issue by making it possible for the governor to designate an alternate member (Art. 278 TFEU; Protocole No 4 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties, Arts 10.2 and 10.3; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3); Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank, Arts 4.4 and 4.5) (see paras 78-82)
Appeal — Grounds — Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of EU law — Operative part well founded for other legal reasons — Rejection

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 17, 18)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 October 2018 — Council départemental de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de la Haute-Garonne

(Case C‑296/18)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 2000/31/EC — Information society service — Online advertising — Regulated profession — Dental surgeon — National legislation prohibiting all online advertising)

1. Approximation of laws—Electronic commerce—Directive 2000/31—Provision of information society services—Permissibility of commercial communications which are part of such a service provided by a member of a regulated profession—Concept of commercial communication—Advertising via an internet site created by a dentist relating to oral and dental care services—Included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/31, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 14-16)

2. Approximation of laws—Electronic commerce—Directive 2000/31—Provision of information society services—Permissibility of commercial communications which are part of such a service provided by a member of a regulated profession—National legislation which imposes a general and absolute prohibition of any online advertising by members of the dental profession—Unlawful (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/31, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 17-19, 22, operative part)

Operative part

Article 8 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a general and absolute prohibition of any advertising by members of the dental profession, in that that profession prohibits any recourse to online advertising methods that promotes specific dentists or their company.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2019 — Farmland

(Case C‑489/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Direct support schemes — Single payment scheme — Single area payment application — Criteria — Lawful user of agricultural land)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Statement of the reasons for requiring an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 20, 22-31, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Labour Court, Budapest, Hungary), by decision of 17 July 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) JO C 381 of 22.10.2018.
Order of the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 — Telefónica Móviles España and Others

(Joined Cases C‑119/18 to C‑121/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 6(1) and part A of the annex — Authorisation of electronic communications networks and services — Telecommunications operators — Operating in an area greater than an Autonomous Community — Annual financial contribution — Participation in the financing of the Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española)

Approximation of laws — Telecommunications sector — Electronic communications networks and services — Authorisation — Directive 2002/20 — Scope — Annual financial contribution, imposed on telecommunications companies operating in Spain that operate in an area greater than that of an Autonomous Community, for the purpose of participating in the financing of public broadcasting — Not included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/20, Arts 1(2), 2(2)(a), 6(1) and 12, and Annex, Part A, point 2)

(see paras 24, 25, 30, 31, operative part.)

Operative part

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), must be interpreted as meaning that an annual financial contribution, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, imposed on telecommunications companies operating in Spain that operate in an area greater than that of an Autonomous Community, for the purpose of participating in the financing of public broadcasting, does not fall within the scope of that directive.

( 1 ) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2019 — Pólus Vegas

(Case C‑665/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Games of chance — National taxes on the operation of slot machines in amusement arcades — National legislation increasing the amount of a tax five-fold and introducing an additional tax)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question raised concerning a dispute confined within a single Member State — Jurisdiction in the light of the possible posting of persons from other Member States — Operation of slot machines — Requirement for the national court to provide evidence of the use by customers from other Member States of the gaming opportunities being offered

(Arts 56 and 267 TFEU)

(see paras 17-19, 24, operative part)

Operative part

Article 56 TFEU, read in the light of the judgment of 11 June 2015, Berlington Hungary and Others (C‑98/14, EU:C:2015:386), must be interpreted as meaning, in so far as concerns the operation of slot machines in a Member State, a cross-border situation cannot be presumed to exist on the sole ground that EU citizens from other Member States may avail themselves of such gaming opportunities.

( 1 ) OJ C 122 du 1.4.2019.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 — SATI

(Case C‑475/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Public passenger transport services — Article 5 — Direct award of public service contracts — Prohibited under national law — Article 8(2) — Transitional arrangements)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see para. 26)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of the relevant aspects of EU law — Reformulation of the questions (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 33)

3. Transport — Public passenger transport services by rail and by road — Regulation No 1370/2007 — Direct award of public service contracts — Article 5(4) — Scope ratione temporis — Decision of a competent local authority on the direct award of a public service contract for local transport adopted before 3 December 2019 — Not included (Regulation No 1370/2007, Arts. 5(4) and 8(2)) (see paras 34, 37-42, operative part)

Operative part

Article 5 and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that Article 5(4) of that regulation is not applicable to a decision of a competent local authority on the direct award of a public service contract for local transport adopted before 3 December 2019.

( 1 ) OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of provisions of EU law manifestly inapplicable in the dispute in the main proceedings — Inapplicability of Directive 2014/59 — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2); European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/59, Art. 1(1), first para.)

(see paras 22-25, 46, operative part)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2019 — Di Girolamo

(Case C‑618/18) ( 1 )

(Request for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term employment —ETUC-UNICE-CEEP —Definition of a ‘fixed-term worker’ — Magistrates Court — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Limits — Hypothetical questions — Lack of jurisdiction of the referring court to rule on the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility — Referring court that is still hearing the dispute in the main proceedings after the first reference for a preliminary ruling decides to make a new request for a preliminary ruling — No new facts justifying a new assessment of the jurisdiction of that court by the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

(see paras 25-38, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila (Magistrates Court, L’Aquila, Italy), made by decision of 19 September 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 25,21.1.2019.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2020 – Prokuratura Rejonowa w Słubicach

(Case C‑623/18)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 267 TFEU – Interpretation of EU law required for the referring court to give judgment – None – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – General or hypothetical questions – Lack of a link between the dispute in the main proceedings and the provision of EU law referred to in the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Inadmissibility

(Art. 19(1), second para. (d) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)

(see paras 24-26, 30, 33, 35, 36, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim (tribunal régional de Gorzów Wielkopolski, Pologne), by decision of 24 September 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.