ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 41-43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 in Case T-546/10 Nordmilch v OHIM — LACTIMILK (MILRAM) by which the General Court dismissed an action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2010 (Joined Cases R 1041/2009-4 and R 1053/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Lactimilk SA and Nordmilch AG — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks at issue — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2014 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission

(Case C-248/12 P)

‛Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Admissibility of the action for annulment — Situation of the appellant not directly affected by the contested decision’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Commission decision excluding certain expenses incurred by Member States from EU financing under EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Action by a regional body benefiting from that financing and acting as management authority for the funds received — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 21-26, 32-34, 40)

Re:

Appeal against the Order of 6 March 2012 in Case T-453/10 Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission, by which the General Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed as inadmissible an action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/399/EU [notified under No C(2010) 4894] of 15 July 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 184, p. 6), to the extent that it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — medi v OHIM

(Case C‑410/12 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the Community word mark medi — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distortion of the evidence — None’

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(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 24-26)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 in Case T‑470/09 medi v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2009 (Case R 692/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign ‘medi’ as a Community trade mark — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Distinctive character of the word sign ‘medi’.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. medi GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — medi v OHIM

(Case C‑410/12 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the Community word mark medi — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distortion of the evidence — None’

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(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 24-26)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 in Case T‑470/09 medi v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2009 (Case R 692/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign ‘medi’ as a Community trade mark — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Distinctive character of the word sign ‘medi’.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 July 2012 —

Trevisanato v Commission



(Case C-25/12 P)

Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Application seeking an order that the Commission take a position concerning the interpretation and the transposition of a directive — Manifest inadmissibility

1. Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 15-18)

2. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any legal basis — Order delivered without a defence having been submitted — Lawfulness (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 111) (see paras 21-23)

Re:

Appeal against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11 Trevisanato v Commission , in which the General Court dismissed an action seeking an order that the Commission take a position on the complaint lodged by the applicant — Failure by the Commission to adopt a binding opinion on the scope of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies — (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Conditions for application of Article 111 of the Rules and Procedures of the General Court

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Ellinika Nafpigeia and 2. Hoern v Commission

(Case C‑616/12 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal manifestly unfounded — Second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Time-limit for instituting proceedings’

1. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Scope — Lack of, or insufficient, grounds — Lack of access to the file — Included (Art. 263, second para. TFEU) (see para. 29)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant — Inadequate statement of reasons for the measure — No effect — Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection — No such infringement (Art. 263, sixth para. TFEU) (see paras 29-31)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 October 2012 in Case T‑466/11 Ellinika Nafpigeia and Hoern v Commission, in which the General Court declared an action for the annulment of Commission decision C(2010) 8274 final of 1 December 2010, accepting the undertakings offered by Greece in exchange for measures required by the Commission in its decision C(2008) 3118 final of 2 July 2008, declaring aid granted by the Greek authorities to Ellinika Nafpigeia (Hellenic Shipyards, ‘HSY’), to be incompatible with the common market, in the context of amendments to the initial investment plan relating to the restructuring of that shipyard (State aid C 16/2004 (ex NN29/2004, CP 71/2002 and CP 133/2005)).

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem – Interpretation of the concept of ‘technical regulation’ in Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18) – Obligation on the part of a Member State to communicate to the Commission all draft technical regulations – Law of a Member State concerning games of chance.
8

Article 5 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which is entitled ‘Prohibition of unfair commercial practices’, is worded as follows: ‘(1) Unfair commercial practices shall be prohibited. (2) A commercial practice shall be unfair if: (a) it is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence, and (b) it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour with regard to the product of the average consumer whom it reaches or to whom it is addressed, or of the average member of the group when a commercial practice is directed to a particular group of consumers. ... (4) In particular, commercial practices shall be unfair which: (a) are misleading as set out in Articles 6 and 7, or (b) are aggressive as set out in Articles 8 and 9. (5) Annex I contains the list of those commercial practices which shall in all circumstances be regarded as unfair. The same single list shall apply in all Member States and may only be modified by revision of this Directive.’
Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice specifies that the pleas in law and legal arguments relied on must identify precisely those points in the grounds of the decision of the General Court which are contested. An appeal that does not have such characteristics cannot be the subject of a legal assessment which would allow the Court to exercise its function in the area under examination and to carry out its review of legality. That rule makes it possible for equality between litigants to be maintained. Whether the Court is able easily to identify the contested points in the grounds of a judgment under appeal depends on a number of factors, such as the length of the judgment under appeal and that of the appeal itself, the number of grounds of appeal and the complexity of the reasoning developed in both the judgment under appeal and the appeal itself. However, the admissibility of an appeal cannot turn on such factors.

Moreover, in view of the function of the reply as set out in Article 175(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the reply cannot remedy the irregularity arising from a failure to comply with Article 169(2) in the application initiating the appeal.

(see paras 27-30)
The provisions of Regulation No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in particular Articles 61 and 62 thereof, must be interpreted as not requiring nor, in principle, prohibiting, the adoption of national provisions to the effect that a local action group which meets all of the conditions listed in Article 62(1) of that regulation may not operate unless it does so under a particular form of legal organisation. It is, however, for the referring court to ensure that, bearing in mind all of its relevant characteristics, such legislation does not obstruct the direct applicability of that regulation and that it specifies the exercise of the margin of discretion granted to the Member States by that regulation whilst remaining within its bounds. It is likewise for the referring court to ensure that such national legislation observes the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principles of EU law.

EU law does not preclude, in principle, national legislation which provides that local action groups may not operate unless they do so under a specific legal form from applying, at the end of a transitional period of one year, to local action groups that have been validly created under a different form of legal organisation under earlier national legislation, even though the aid programmes and the programming period relating thereto are underway. That is so, however, only in so far as it is for the national court to verify that, in the light, in particular, of the specific characteristics of the abovementioned successive rules of national law and of the practical implications thereof, the application of the new legislation to such local action groups specifies the exercise of the margin of discretion granted to the Member States by Regulation No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) whilst remaining within its bounds and that such application is in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principles of EU law.

(see para. 37, operative part 2)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Hârsulescu v Romania

(Case C‑78/13 P)

‛Appeal — Representation by a lawyer — Action concerning the legality of judgments delivered by national courts — Action manifestly inadmissible’

1. Appeals — 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 paras 12, 13)

2. Judicial proceedings — Action brought by a natural or legal person seeking the annulment of judgments delivered by national courts — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court (Art. 263 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119) (see para. 19)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2012 in Case T‑400/12 Hârsulescu v Romania by which the General Court rejected the action brought by the applicant as being manifestly inadmissible because it did not comply with Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The application for legal aid is dismissed.

3. Mr Constantin Hârsulescu is ordered to pay his own costs.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Hârsulescu v Romania

(Case C‑78/13 P)

‛Appeal — Representation by a lawyer — Action concerning the legality of judgments delivered by national courts — Action manifestly inadmissible’

1. Appeals — 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 paras 12, 13)

2. Judicial proceedings — Action brought by a natural or legal person seeking the annulment of judgments delivered by national courts — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court (Art. 263 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119) (see para. 19)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2012 in Case T‑400/12 Hârsulescu v Romania by which the General Court rejected the action brought by the applicant as being manifestly inadmissible because it did not comply with Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The application for legal aid is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 March 2014 — Gmina Wrocław

(Case C‑72/13)

‛VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Disposal by a municipality of parts of its assets’

1. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — ‘Economic activities’ within the meaning of Article 9 of Directive 2006/112 — Property marketing — Included — Conditions — Assessment by the national court (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 9(1)) (see paras 15-19, 23, operative part)

2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable persons — Bodies governed by public law — Treatment as non-taxable persons in respect of activities in which they engage as public authorities — Exceptions — Activities taxable in the event of significant distortions of competition — Conditions — ‘Significant’ distortions — Scope — Current or potential distortions of competition which must be more than negligible (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 9(1) and 13(1)) (see paras 19-21, 23, operative part)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Taxation of the transactions of a municipality — Sale of property acquired by operation of law, by inheritance or by donation — Transfer of such property to companies

Operative part:

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding transactions such as those envisaged by the gmina Wrocław (municipality of Wrocław) from being subject to value added tax, in so far as the referring court states that those transactions constitute an economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive and such transactions are not carried out by that municipality as a public authority within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive. However, if those transactions were to be considered to be carried out by that municipality acting as a public authority, Directive 2006/112 would not prohibit their taxation to the extent that the referring court should find that their exemption would be capable of giving rise to significant distortions of competition within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM

(Case C‑448/13 P)

‛Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD — Advertising slogan — Refusal of registration — No distinctive character’

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 TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 22)

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 in Case T‑515/11 Delphi Technologies v OHMI (T‑515/11), by which that court dismissed an action seeking the annulment of Decision R 1967/2010-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 June 2011, which dismissed the action brought against the examiner’s decision refusing the registration of the word mark ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’ for goods in Classes 7, 9, 10 and 12 — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and of the principles of equal treatment and good administration.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Delphi Technologies, Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM

(Case C‑448/13 P)

‛Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD — Advertising slogan — Refusal of registration — No distinctive character’

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 TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 22)

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 in Case T‑515/11 Delphi Technologies v OHMI (T‑515/11), by which that court dismissed an action seeking the annulment of Decision R 1967/2010-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 June 2011, which dismissed the action brought against the examiner’s decision refusing the registration of the word mark ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’ for goods in Classes 7, 9, 10 and 12 — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and of the principles of equal treatment and good administration.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed;
1.

Appeals — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see paras 13, 14)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 —

Liivimaa Lihaveis

(Case C‑175/13) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Action against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling — No case pending before the court hearing that action — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — No dispute pending before the national court — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 17, 20, 21)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Riigikohus (Estonia), by decision of 21 March 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 —

Liivimaa Lihaveis

(Case C‑175/13) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Action against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling — No case pending before the court hearing that action — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — No dispute pending before the national court — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 17, 20, 21)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Riigikohus (Estonia), by decision of 21 March 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.