ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Lawyers – Examination determining access to the profession – Composition of the examination committee – Participation of lawyers – Whether permissible – Breach of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC – None

(Arts 43 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC)

Summary

Articles 43 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC do not preclude a national law which provides that, in connection with the examination regulating access to the profession of advocate, the examination committee is to be composed of five members appointed by the Minister for Justice, namely two judges, a professor of law and two advocates, the latter being nominated by the National Bar Council on a joint proposal by the bar councils of the district concerned.

As regards Article 43 EC, although an examination for access to the profession of advocate may indeed constitute an obstacle to the freedom of establishment, there is no evidence to suggest that, of itself, the rule relating to the composition of the examination committee constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment, irrespective of the restriction which might result from the examination itself. In any event, even assuming that the participation of advocates in the State examination committee constitutes in itself a restriction on freedom of establishment, that participation may be justified by the public interest, namely the need to assess as well as possible the aptitude and ability of persons called to practise as advocates, and is suitable for securing the attainment of that objective.

If, furthermore, Articles 81 EC and 82 EC are infringed where a Member State requires or encourages the adoption of agreements, decisions or concerted practices contrary to Article 81 EC or reinforces their effects, require or encourage abuses of a dominant position contrary to Article 82 EC or reinforce the effects of such abuses or, lastly, where it divests its own rules of the character of legislation by delegating to private economic operators responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere, that is not the case where the Member State concerned delegates to a committee which includes lawyers, responsibility for taking decisions concerning access to the profession of advocate, when it occupies a significant position on the examination committee itself by the presence of two judges, the Ministry of Justice has substantial powers enabling it to supervise each stage of the examination committee’s proceedings and even to intervene in those proceedings if necessary, and, finally, a negative decision by the examination committee may be subject to a legal remedy.

(see paras 30-33, 35, 37, 42-45, 47, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Officials — Social security — Insurance against accidents and occupational diseases — Establishment of the occupational origin of the disease — Disease not included in the European List of Occupational Diseases — Onus of proof resting on the official — General principle of law semper in dubiis benigniora praeferenda sunt — Inapplicable — (Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 3)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal — Inadmissible — (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 42(1), second subpara., and Art. 118)

Summary

1. Where a disease is not included in the European List of Occupational Diseases annexed to Commission Recommendation 90/326, proof of a causal link between the performance of duties and that disease is necessary in order for the occupational origin of the disease to be recognised. The competent administrative authority cannot be required to accept the occupational character of such a disease solely on the ground that there is doubt as to its origin. The onus is on the official concerned to prove the existence of a causal link between the performance of his duties and the disease, and he cannot rely on the general principle of law semper in dubiis benigniora praeferenda sunt.

see paras 38-39

2. A plea submitted for the first time in an appeal before the Court of Justice is inadmissible. In an appeal, the Court ' s jurisdiction is confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the Court of First Instance.

see paras 42, 44
Case C-180/03 P





Benito Latino

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – Officials – Occupational disease – Recognition of the occupational origin of arthrosis-related damage – Validity of the opinion of the Medical Committee – Exhaustion of the latter's competence and requirement that it act impartially – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure)»

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 11 February 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Officials – Social security – Insurance against accidents and occupational diseases – Establishment of the occupational origin of the disease – Disease not included in the European List of Occupational Diseases – Onus of proof resting on the official – General principle of law semper in dubiis benigniora praeferenda sunt – Inapplicable

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 3)

2.. Appeals – Grounds – Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal – Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 42(1), second subpara., and Art. 118)

1.

2.
Case C-39/03 P-R





Commission of the European Communities

v

Artegodan GmbH and Others





«(Appeal – Medicinal products for human use – Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation – Competence of the Commission – Anorectics: amfepramone, clobenzorex, fenproporex, norpseudoephedrine, phentermine – Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC – Judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling a decision of withdrawal – Suspension of operation of a judgment of the Court of First Instance – Urgency – Absence)»

Order of the President of the Court, 8 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order
Case C-192/03 P

Alcon Inc.

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Invalidity of the Community trade mark – Article 51 of Regulation No 40/94 – Absolute ground for refusal to register – Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 – Distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 – Term ‘BSS’)

Summary of the Order

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Registration in breach of the provisions of Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 – Material date for the examination of whether the mark has become customary – Taking account of circumstances subsequent to the date of filing the application for registration – Whether permitted

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(d) and 51(1)(a))

While the date of filing the application for registration of a Community trade mark is the material date for the examination of the absolute ground for invalidity referred to in Articles 7(1)(d) and 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, relating to whether the mark has become customary, it is possible without inconsistency in reasoning or error of law for material to be taken into account which, although subsequent to the date of filing the application, enables the drawing of conclusions on the situation as it was on that date.

(see paras 40-41)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Intervention – Interested persons – Proceedings relating to the annulment of a Council decision on the processing and transfer of personal data by air carriers – European Data Protection Supervisor – Admissibility – Conditions

(Art. 286(2) EC; European Council and Parliament Regulation No 45/2001, Art. 47(1)(i))

Summary

Article 47(1)(i) of Regulation No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data confers on the European Data Supervisor a right to intervene in actions brought before the Court of Justice, which is circumscribed within the limits of the task entrusted to him.

Under Article 41(2) of Regulation No 45/2001, that task is advisory in nature and concerns the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and also the duties provided for in Article 46 of that regulation and the power conferred on the Data Protection Supervisor by Article 47 of the regulation.

Accordingly, the intervention of the European Supervisor in a case having as its subject‑matter a Council measure concerning the processing of personal data by air carriers must be considered admissible, in so far as it relates to a situation coming within his task.

(see paras 14-18)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Pleas in law (Art. 230 CE) (see para. 28)

2. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 30-31)

3. Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Protection against arbitrary or disproportionate intervention by the public authorities – Right of natural persons to the inviolability of their home (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14) (see paras 32-33)

4. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14) (see paras 36-39, 46)

5. Appeals – Grounds (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 44, 54-55)

6. Appeals – Grounds – Failure to specify the error of law relied on – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 59)

7. Competition – Fines – Amount – Reduction of the amount of the fine in return for cooperation (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15) (see para. 63)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December 2003 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-65/99 Strintzis Lines Shipping SA v Commission dismissing as unfounded an action for the annulment of the Commission decision of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 – Greek Ferries)

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Dismisses the cross-appeal brought by the Commission of the European Communities;

3. Orders Strintzis Lines Shipping SA to pay 90% of the costs;

4. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay 10% of the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures — Conditions of admissibility — Assessment of whether the main application is prima facie admissible — Absence of case-law on the point — Not decisive

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

2. Community law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection — Transmission to the national authorities of information obtained in an investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Discretion of the national authorities as to the action to be taken — Protection against criminal proceedings ensured at national level

(Arts 10 EC and 234 EC; Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999, Art. 10(2))

Summary

1. The possibility of concluding, in proceedings for interim measures, that there are no grounds for considering that an application for annulment is prima facie admissible does not depend on the existence of Community case-law on the point or points of law raised in the main application. While the existence of such case-law may make it easier to reach such a conclusion, it is nevertheless the case that the manifest inadmissibility of an application may also follow from factors which have not or not yet been addressed in the Community case-law.

(see para. 26)

2. Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1073/1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) proceeds from the assumption that a measure such as the transmission to the national judicial authorities of information setting out the results of an internal investigation is not in itself capable of having adverse effect but may give rise, as the case may be, to administrative or criminal proceedings brought by the competent national authorities. The action taken by the national authorities in response to the information forwarded to them by OLAF is therefore, within the framework of Article 10 EC, within their sole and entire responsibility. It is thus for those authorities to ascertain themselves whether such information justifies or requires the bringing of criminal proceedings. Consequently, judicial protection against such proceedings must be ensured at national level with all the guarantees provided by national law, including those which follow from the fundamental rights that, as an integral part of the general principles of Community law, must also be observed by the Member States when they implement Community rules. In proceedings brought at national level, the court seised has the possibility, by means of a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, of putting questions to the Court, possibly at the instigation of the parties, on the interpretation of provisions of Community law which it considers necessary in order to give judgment.

(see paras 32-33, 38-39)
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 September 2006 – Banca Popolare FriulAdria v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio Pordenone

(Case C-336/04)

State aid – Decision 2002/581/EC – Tax advantages granted to banks – First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Question referred for a preliminary ruling identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled

State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – National measure ordering repayment of the aid (Art. 87 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14) (see para. 38, operative part 2)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commissione tributaria provinciale di Pordenone – Validity of Commission Decision 2002/581/EC of 11 December 2001 on the tax measures for banks and banking foundations implemented by Italy (notified under document number C(2001) 3955) (OJ 2002 L 184, p. 27).

Operative part

1. Consideration of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Decision 2002/581/EC of 11 December 2001 on the tax measures for banks and banking foundations implemented by Italy;
Case C-317/04

European Parliament

v

Council of the European Union

(Intervention)

Order of the Court (Grand Chamber), 17 March 2005.

Summary of the order

Procedure – Intervention – Interested persons – Proceedings relating to the annulment of a Council decision on the processing and transfer of personal data by air carriers – European Data Protection Supervisor – Admissibility – Conditions

(Art. 286(2) EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 45/2001, Art. 47(1)(i))

Article 47(1)(i) of Regulation No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data confers on the European Data Supervisor a right to intervene in actions brought before the Court of Justice, which is circumscribed within the limits of the task entrusted to him.

Under Article 41(2) of Regulation No 45/2001, that task is advisory in nature and concerns the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and also the duties provided for in Article 46 of that regulation and the power conferred on the Data Protection Supervisor by Article 47 of the regulation.

Accordingly, the intervention of the European Supervisor in a case having as its subject‑matter a Council measure concerning the processing of personal data by air carriers must be considered admissible, in so far as it relates to a situation coming within his task.

(see paras 14-18)
Keywords



Keywords

Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Whether admissible – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts – Excluded except in the case of disortion of the facts (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 17-18)

2. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Cour of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see para. 20)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Contradictory reasoning – Whether admissible (see para. 25)

4. Procedure – Duty of the court to respect the context of the dispute as defined by the parties (see para. 41)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal

–

Grounds

–

Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments submitted before the Court of First Instance

–

No identification of the error of law pleaded

–

Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c), first para. (see paras 21-23

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04 ASAJA and Others v Council , declaring inadmissible the actions for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (OJ 2004 L 161, p. 48).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons

–

Freedom of establishment

–

Freedom to provide services

–

Restrictions (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 7, operative part 1-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale di Viterbo – Interpretation of Articles 31, 43, 49 and 81 to 89 EC – National law making exercise of activity of taking bets subject to obtaining authorisation.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

2. It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

3. Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes – and, moreover, continues to exclude – from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.

4. Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures (Arts 226 EC and 230(4) EC) (see paras 10-16, 22)

2. Procedure – Grounds of judgments – Scope (see paras 26-27)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2005 in Case T-209/05 Gisti v Commission , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 March 2005 refusing to initiate infringement proceedings under Art. 226 EC against the Italian Republic.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI) to pay its own costs.
Case C-339/05

Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols

v

Land Tirol

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the

Landesgericht Innsbruck)

(Removal from the register)

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 6 June 2006

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court, 4 August 2006 ?I – 0000





ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE COURT

4 August 2006 ( )

(Removal from the register)





In Case C-339/05,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria), made by decision of 22 June 2005 received at the Court on 19 September 2005, in the proceedings between

Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols

v

Land Tirol,





THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE COURT,

after hearing Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

makes the following

Order

1 By letter of 27 June 2006, received at the Court Registry on 5 July 2006, the Landesgericht Innsbruck informed the Court that the parties had agreed a permanent suspension (‘ewiges Ruhen’) of the proceedings.

2 In those circumstances, the present case must be removed from the register.

3 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court hereby orders:

Case C-339/05 is removed from the register.

Luxembourg, 4 August 2006.













R. Grass C.W.A. Timmermans
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 10

)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2006 – Gisti v Commission

(Case C-408/05 P)

Appeal – Refusal by the Commission of the European Communities to examine a complaint against the Italian authorities – Appeal manifestly unfounded

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures (Arts 226 EC and 230(4) EC) (see paras 10-16, 22)

2. Procedure – Grounds of judgments – Scope (see paras 26-27)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2005 in Case T-209/05 Gisti v Commission , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 March 2005 refusing to initiate infringement proceedings under Art. 226 EC against the Italian Republic.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;