ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark – Condition – Express or implied consent of the proprietor to putting on the market in the Community or the European Economic Area – Products put on the market by an intermediary in breach of a clause in the distribution agreement

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 13(1); Council Directive 89/104, Art. 7(1))

Summary

Article 13(1) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and Article 7(1) of Directive 89/104 on trade marks are to be interpreted as meaning that the rights conferred by the trade mark are exhausted only if, according to an assessment which it is for the national court to make, it may be concluded that the proprietor of the mark expressly or impliedly consented to a putting on the market, either in the Community or in the European Economic Area, of the goods in respect of which that exhaustion is claimed to exist.

Where ‘perfume testers’ are made available, without transfer of ownership and with a prohibition on sale, to intermediaries who are contractually bound to the trade mark proprietor for the purpose of allowing their customers to test the contents, where the trade mark proprietor may at any time recall those goods and where the presentation of the goods is clearly distinguishable from that of the bottles of perfume normally made available to the intermediaries by the trade mark proprietor, the fact that those testers are bottles of perfume which bear not only the word ‘Demonstration’ but also the statement ‘Not for Sale’ precludes, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, which it is for the national court to assess, a finding that the trade mark proprietor impliedly consented to putting them on the market.

(see paras 47-48, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification (Art. 226 EC) (see para 18)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 226 EC) (see para 19)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para 31)

4. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see point 34)

5. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable amount – Deduction of input tax – Obligations of persons liable for payment of the tax (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 73, 168 and 273) (see para 39, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 73, 168 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – International carriage of persons by road – National rules requiring transporters domiciled abroad to pay VAT under a flat-rate system based only on the number of persons transported to the national territory and which does not allow any right to deduct tax paid at an earlier stage.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by charging value added tax in the manner set out in Chapter 13, Paragraph 35(1), (3), (4) and (5), of the Regulation of the Minister for Finance of 27 April 2004 on the implementation of certain provisions of the Law on the taxation of goods and services, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 73, 168 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Visas, asylum, immigration – Asylum policy – Refugee status or subsidiary protection status – Directive 2004/83

(Council Directive 2004/83, Art. 12(1)(a), first sentence)

Summary

For the purposes of the first sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, a person receives protection or assistance from an agency of the United Nations other than UNHCR, when that person has actually availed himself of that protection or assistance.

Article 1D of the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, to which Article 12(1)(a) of the directive refers, merely excludes from the scope of that convention those persons who are at present receiving protection or assistance from an organ or agency of the United Nations other than UNHCR. It follows from the clear wording of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention that only those persons who have actually availed themselves of the assistance provided by UNRWA come within the clause excluding refugee status set out therein, which must, as such, be construed narrowly and cannot therefore also cover persons who are or have been eligible to receive protection or assistance from that agency.

(see paras 50-51, 53, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts. 8 and 5(1)(b))

Summary

1. When examining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the existence of a similarity between two marks does not presuppose that their common component forms the dominant element within the overall impression created by the mark applied for. In order to assess the similarity of two marks, it is necessary to consider each of the marks as a whole, although that does not rule out the possibility that the overall impression created in the mind of the relevant public by a complex trade mark may, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components. However, it is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element.

(see para. 56)

2. In opposition proceedings brought under Article 8 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the similarity of the marks at issue must be assessed from the point of view of the average consumer by referring to the intrinsic qualities of the marks and not to circumstances relating to the conduct of the person applying for a Community trade mark. It is therefore not necessary to take account of alleged wrongful conduct on the part of the trade mark applicant. While such conduct is a particularly significant factor in invalidity proceedings brought under Article 51(1)(b) of that regulation, it is not, on the other hand, a factor that must be taken into account in opposition proceedings.

(see paras 46-47)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for damages – Subject-matter – Claim for compensation for damage attributable to the Community

(Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC)

Summary

An action for damages brought against the European Community on the basis of non-contractual liability, even if it is brought under national legislation establishing special statutory rules that differ from the ordinary rules of law governing civil liability in the Member State concerned, does not, pursuant to Article 235 EC, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, fall within the jurisdiction of the national courts.

The fact that such an action may be brought only in special circumstances, in that, for example, the person concerned can incur liability only in the event of ‘serious misconduct’, does not obscure the fact that that action has the general characteristics of an action for damages based on non-contractual liability, for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, which, according to Article 235 EC, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Community Courts.

(see paras 17, 22, 26, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Evets Corp. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Motor vehicles – Community type-approval procedure – Directives 92/61 and 2002/24

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/24; Directive 92/61)

2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect

(Arts 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU)

Summary

1. Directive 92/61 relating to the type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles, and Directive 2002/24 relating to the type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles and repealing Directive 92/61 are to be construed as meaning that, when a vehicle or a component or separate technical unit thereof does not qualify for the type-approval procedure established by those directives, on the ground that it does not come within their ambit, the provisions of those directives do not prevent a Member State from introducing, in its domestic law and in relation to such vehicle, component or separate technical unit, a similar mechanism for recognising the checks carried out by other Member States. In that regard, as Union law now stands, a component or separate technical unit cannot qualify for the Union type-approval mechanism if its purpose is to modify the technical characteristics of a moped in such a way that the moped can no longer be defined as such under Directives 92/61 and 2002/24 having regard, in particular, to its power.

In any event, such legislation must comply with Union law, in particular Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU.

(see paras 40, 48, operative part)

2. A general prohibition of the sale and use of equipment designed to increase the power and/or speed of mopeds may impede the free movement of these goods. Such an obstacle is prohibited by Article 34 TFEU unless it can be justified on one of the public interest grounds set out in Article 36 TFEU or in order to meet imperative requirements. If such a prohibition can be justified, in particular, by the objective of ensuring road safety, that measure must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. In that regard, as the general prohibition of the sale and use of equipment designed to increase the power and/or speed of mopeds travelling on the public highway necessarily has the effect of impeding their use, for example, for sporting activities off the public highway, it must be asked if there is a measure less restrictive than a general prohibition but effective in ensuring road safety, which it is a matter for the national court to determine.

(see paras 44-47)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers – Legislation applicable

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1390/81, Art. 13(2)(d))

Summary

What is meant by ‘civil servants’ and ‘persons to be treated as such’, for the purpose of Article 13(2)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1390/81, is to be determined solely by reference to the national law of the Member State to which the administration employing the person concerned is subject. A person who, in a Member State, is subject partly to the social security scheme for civil servants and partly to the social security scheme for employed persons may thus be subject, in accordance with the provision made by Article 13(2)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71, only to the legislation of the Member State to which the administration employing that person is subject.

(see para. 31, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber):

1. Declares that, in failing, firstly, to establish monitoring programmes on the status of inland surface water and make them o perational in accordance with Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, and, secondly, to submit summary reports on the monitoring programmes on the status of inland surface water in accordance with Article 15(2) of that directive, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8 and 15 of that directive.

2. Orders the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of the merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/1) (see paras 10-13

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) – Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations – Obligation to ensure that such installations operate in accordance with the requirements of the directive.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent national authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, not later than 30 October 2007, without prejudice to specific Community legislation, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration – Directive 89/48 – Lawyers – Practice of the profession on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained – Directive 98/5 – Practice of the profession under the title of lawyer of the host Member State

(European Parliament and Council Directive 98/5; Council Directive 89/48, as amended by Directive 2001/19)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Lawyers – Practice of the profession on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained – Directive 98/5 – Practice of the profession under the title of lawyer of the host Member State

(European Parliament and Council Directive 98/5; Council Directive 89/48, as amended by Directive 2001/19)

Summary

1. Neither Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19, nor Directive 98/5 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained precludes national rules laying down the requirement to be a member of a body such as a Bar Association in order to practise the profession of lawyer under the title of lawyer of the host Member State.

(see para. 42, operative part 1)

2. Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19, and Directive 98/5 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained complement one another by establishing two means by which lawyers from Member States may gain admission to the profession of lawyer in a host Member State under the professional title of that Member State.

Although, in the context of the rules allowing access to the profession of lawyer under the title of the host Member States, a lawyer qualified in another Member State has dispensation from the conditions referred to in Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/48, it must be stated that Directive 98/5 does not deprive such a lawyer, particularly when he has not yet effectively and regularly pursued a professional activity for a period of at least three years in the host Member State, of the opportunity of applying to take up the profession of lawyer under the title of that Member State by relying on Directive 89/48.

(see paras 32, 35, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 80/987 – Payment of the claims of employees having been employed in a Member State other than that in which their employer is established – Competent guarantee institution

(Council Directive 80/987, Art. 3)

Summary

Article 3 of Directive 80/987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in the version thereof as it existed before being amended by Directive 2002/74, is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the payment of the outstanding claims of workers having been habitually employed in a Member State other than that where their employer is established, when the employer was declared insolvent before 8 October 2005 and that employer is not established in that other Member State and fulfils its obligation to contribute to the financing of the guarantee institution in the Member State where it is established, it is that institution that is liable for the obligations defined by that article.

Directive 80/987 does not preclude a Member State’s legislation from providing that employees may avail themselves of the salary guarantee from that Member State’s institution in accordance with its law, either in addition to or instead of the guarantee offered by the institution designated as competent under that directive, provided however that that guarantee results in a greater level of worker protection.

(see para. 34, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Action for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Formal notice – Definition of the subject-matter of the dispute – Reasoned opinion – Detailed list of complaints

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Action for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down by the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226, second para., EC)

3. Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Tax legislation

(Art. 56 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 40)

Summary

1. Whilst, in the context of a pre-litigation procedure for failure to fulil obligations, the reasoned opinion must contain a coherent and detailed statement of the reasons which led the Commission to conclude that the State in question failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treaty, the letter of formal notice cannot be subject to such strict requirements of precision, since it cannot, of necessity, contain anything more than an initial brief summary of the complaints. There is therefore nothing to prevent the Commission from setting out in detail in the reasoned opinion the complaints which it has already made more generally in the letter of formal notice.

(see paras 17, 20)

2. The question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. Thus, an action for failure to fulfil obligations concerning a temporary tax regularisation scheme which is no longer in force at the expiry date of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion but which continues to produce effects at that date, which is the relevant date for assessing the admissibility of the action, is not devoid of purpose.

(see paras 31, 33-34, 42)

3. A Member State which provides, in the context of an extraordinary scheme for the tax regularisation of assets not situated in national territory, for preferential tax treatment in respect of public debt securities issued only by that State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement (EEA).

Whilst the objectives of combating tax evasion and tax avoidance may justify a restriction of the free movement of capital, it is necessary also that that restriction be appropriate for attaining those objectives and not go beyond what is necessary for attaining them.

A scheme providing for different treatment for public debt securities issued by that Member State compared with those issued by other Member States does not meet those requirements. Moreover, such a difference in regularisation rates cannot be justified by the pursuit of an objective of an economic nature, namely, compensation for loss of tax receipts of the Member State concerned. An objective of a purely economic nature cannot justify restriction of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty.

(see paras 60-62, 64-65, 70, operative part)