ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

1. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Protocol on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention - National courts which may request the Court to give a preliminary ruling - French Tribunal de commerce acting at first instance - Excluded - Court clearly lacking jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the questions referred to it

(Protocol of 3 June 1971, Art. 2)

2. Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments - National courts which may request the Court to give an interpretation - Courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law

(Arts 61(c) EC and 68(1) EC; Council Regulation No 44/2001)
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs

–

Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 13-14

)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision declaring a system of aid notified compatible with the common market — No distinct change in the situation of a Member State which requested an assessment of the legality of that system of aid — Not possible to bring an action for annulment against such a decision — (Arts 87 EC, 88 EC and 230 EC)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Grounds of a decision — Excluded — (Art. 230 EC)

Summary

1. Only a measure whose legal effects are binding on the applicant and are capable of affecting his interests by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 230 EC.

To determine whether an act or decision produces such effects, it is necessary to look to its substance.

A decision, adopted under Article 87(1) EC and under Article 87(3)(c) EC declaring a system of aid notified to be compatible with the common market, in so far as in its notification of the system the authorities of that Member State requested the Commission to assess the legality of that measure in the light of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, does not have such an effect, because it does not bring about a distinct change in the legal position of the Member State.

see paras 18-20

2. Regardless of the grounds on which a Commission decision is based, only the operative part thereof is capable of producing legal effects and, as a consequence, of adversely affecting a person ' s interests. By contrast, the assessments made in the recitals to a decision are not in themselves capable of forming the subject of an application for annulment. They can be subject to judicial review by the Community judicature only to the extent that, as grounds of an act adversely affecting a person ' s interests, they constitute the essential basis for the operative part of that act.

see para. 21
Case C-259/02





La Mer Technology Inc.

v

Laboratoires Goemar SA





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division)

«(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Articles 10(1) and 12(1) – Revocation of a trade mark – Notion of genuine use of a trade mark)»

Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 27 January 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Reasons for revocation of the trade mark – Lack of genuine use of the trade mark – Definition

(Council Directive 89/104, Arts. 10(1) and 12(1))

2.. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Reasons for revocation of the trade mark – Lack of genuine use of the trade mark – Consideration of circumstances subsequent to the filing of the application for revocation – Whether permissible – Conclusion to be drawn by the national court

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 12(1))

1.

2.
Case C-75/02 P





Territorio Histórico de Álava ─ Diputación Foral de Álava and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – State aid – Aid in the steel sector – Action for annulment – Article 33 CS – Action brought by an intra-State authority – Appeal manifestly unfounded)»

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 28 March 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order

1.. Actions for annulment – Action based on Article 33 CS – Action brought by an intra-State authority – Inadmissible

(Art. 33 CS)

2.. Actions for annulment – Action based on the second paragraph of Article 33 CS – Restrictive conditions for admissibility – Limitation offset by flexible rules governing intervention

(Art. 33, second para., CS; ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 34)

3.. Actions for annulment – Action based on the second paragraph of Article 33 CS – Interpretation contra legem of the condition relating to the need to have locus standi – Not permissible

(Art. 33, second para., CS)

1.

2.

3.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Fiscal legislation – Income tax – Gains secured on the assignment for valuable consideration of shares or stock in companies established in the Member State of taxation not chargeable to tax – Not permissible – Restriction on the freedom of movement of capital where the assignee does not obtain sufficient influence in the company

(Arts 43 EC, 48 EC and 56 EC)

Summary

Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude national legislation pursuant to which gains secured on the assignment for valuable consideration, otherwise than in the exercise of a business activity, of shares or stock in companies, associations, establishments or bodies, attract a charge to tax where the transfer is made to companies, associations, establishments or bodies established in another Member State, whereas, in the same circumstances, those gains are not chargeable to tax where that transfer is made to companies, associations, establishments or bodies established in the Member State concerned, provided that the shareholding transferred gives its holder definite influence over the company’s decisions and allows him to determine its activities.

Article 56 EC precludes such national legislation, where the shareholding transferred is not of that kind.

(see para. 28, operative part 1-2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Co-responsibility levy — Scope — All deliveries by a producer to another person, regardless of the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of which the deliveries are made — (Council Regulation No 1079/77, Art. 1(1); Commission Regulation No 1822/77, Art. 1(2))

Summary

Regulations Nos 1079/77 on a co-responsibility levy and on measures for expanding the markets in milk and milk products and 1822/77 laying down detailed rules for the collection of the co-responsibility levy introduced in respect of milk and milk products apply to all deliveries of cows ' milk made by a producer to another person, regardless of the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of which the deliveries are made.

see para. 23, operative part
Case C-365/03 P(R)





Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – Procedure for interim relief – Application for suspension of operation – Plant-protection products – Active substances – Metalaxyl)»

Order of the President of the Court, 21 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order

1.. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law on the part of the Judge hearing the application – Effect on the validity of the interlocutory order

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 57(2); Council Directive 91/414, Annex I)

2.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable harm – Balancing of all the interests in issue – Commission's general interest in having Community legislation applied before the decision on the merits – Assessment

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Commission Regulation No 3600/92)

1.

2.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs

–

Factors to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 27

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Courts having jurisdiction on appeal (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(1) (see paras 21-23)

2. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 25, 39)

3. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Intervener (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 33)

4. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Several lawyers involved (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 41-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 September 2006.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

Fixes the total amount of the costs which Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie BV must, to the extent to which they are individually liable, reimburse to CEF City Electrical Factors BV and to CEF Holdings Ltd at EUR 15 000.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions

(Arts 49 EC to 55 EC)

Summary

Articles 49 EC to 55 EC do not preclude the domestic legislation of a Member State from prohibiting a person who resides and works in that State from using, in that State, a vehicle which he has rented from a leasing company established in another Member State, when that vehicle has not been registered in the first State and it is intended that it should be used there essentially on a permanent basis or is, in fact, used in that manner.

(see para. 16, operative part)
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2007 – Krafft v Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann

(Case C-512/04 P-DEP

Taxation of costs

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 19, 30)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 December 2005.

Operative part:

The total amount of costs which Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG must repay to Krafft SA is fixed at USD 6 125.44.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(c))

Summary

The first part of Article 13B(c) of Sixth Council 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for which it provides applies only to the resale of goods previously acquired by a taxable person for an exempted activity under that article, in so far as the value added tax paid upon initial acquisition of the goods in question was not deductible.

(see para. 31, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

Grounds of appeal

–

Error of law relied on not identified

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 7-10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 26 November 2001 in Case T-248/01 Papoulakos v Italy and Commission dismissing the action brought by Mr Papoulakos on the ground of a manifest lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of First Instance, in so far as it was brought against the Italian Republic, and as manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking in any legal basis, in so far as it was directed against the Commission.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Papoulakos to bear his own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Officials

–

Actions

–

Prior administrative complaint (Staff Regulations, Arts 25, third para., and 90(2)) (see paras 21, 24

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case T-326/03 Vounakis v Commission , dismissing as inadmissible an application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the appellant to Grade A4 under the 2002 promotion procedure

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Vounakis to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible –Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 39-41)

2. Officials – Organisation des services – Assignment of staff (Staff Regulations, Art. 7(1)) (see paras 45-48, 54-57, 75, 78)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Insufficient reasoning (see paras 82-84)

4. Appeal – Grounds – Error of law pleaded not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 95-96)

5. Officials – Measure of internal organisation taken in the interests of the service and not affecting either the position of the official under the Staff Regulations or the principle that grade and post should correspond (Staff Regulations, Art. 25) (see para. 104)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Whether admissible – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts before the Court of First Instance – Excluded except in the case of distortion of the facts (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 28-29)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 43)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 22 June 2005 in Case T-34/04 Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v OHIM , by which the Court of First Instance rejected the application for the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM rejecting the appeal brought by the appellant, proprietor of the trade mark ‘POWER’, against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition filed against the application for registration of the figurative mark ‘TURKISH POWER’ – Likelihood of confusion between trade marks

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court :

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Ground not supported by legal argument – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 64, 70, 116, 120, 161, 165-166)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law made by the Court of First Instance – Whether admissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 71-72, 80-81, 90, 102, 112, 168)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissible (see para. 74)

4. Appeals – Production of new pleas in the course of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see paras 76, 137)

5. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import duties (Council Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 905 and 906a) (see paras 84-86)

6. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1) (see paras 95-96, 105, 115, 119, 131, 142, 148, 158, 171)

7. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239(1)) (see paras 113-114, 118, 121-122, 134-136, 138, 143-144)

8. Appeals – Grounds – Plea directed against the decision of the Court of First Instance on costs – Inadmissible where all other pleas dismissed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 2) (see para. 174)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 September 2005 in Case T-53/02 Ricosmos v Commission , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 09/00 of 16 November 2001 informing the Netherlands authorities that there were no grounds for remission of import duties in respect of a consignment of cigarettes intended for the Czech Republic on the ground that fraud committed by third parties in the course of an external Community transit operation does not constitute a special situation justifying remission of the import duties.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Ricosmos BV is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2006 – Creative Technology v OHIM

(Case C-314/05 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion – Application for Community word mark ‘PC WORKS’ – Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative mark ‘W WORK PRO’ – Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-32, 37-39)

2. Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts before the Court of First Instance – Excluded except in the case of distortion of the facts (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 35-36)

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 25 May 2005 in Case T‑352/02 Creative Technology v OHIM , dismissing as unfounded an action brought by the applicant for the Community trade mark ‘PC WORKS’ for goods in Class 9 against decision R 265/2001‑4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 4 September 2002 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing to register that trade mark in opposition proceedings brought by the holder of the national figurative mark ‘W WORK PRO’ for goods in Class 9.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 – Hakala v L. Simons Transport

(Case C-93/05)

Second subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Question the answer to which admits of no reasonable doubt – Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 – Harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport – Payments to wage-earning drivers related to distances covered – Prohibition of such a pay regime unless it does not endanger road safety

Transport – Road transport – Social provisions (Council Regulation No 3820/85, Art. 10) (see paras 24-28, 30)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Korsholms tingsrätt – Interpretation of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1) – Payments to a wage-earning driver based on distances covered

Operative part:

A pay scheme based on distances covered is contrary to Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, unless such a scheme is of such a kind as not to endanger road safety. It is for the national court to ascertain, in view of all the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, whether that is the case.
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 April 2006 – L’Oréal v OHIM

(Case C-235/05 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Similarity between two trade marks – Likelihood of confusion – Application for Community trade mark FLEXI AIR – Earlier word mark FLEX – Refusal to register

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38-47)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2005 in Case T-112/03 L’Oréal v OHIM dismissing as unfounded an application brought by the applicant for the Community word mark FLEXI AIR for goods in Class 3 for the annulment of decision R 0396/2001-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 15 January 2003 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national word marks FLEX for goods in Classes 3 and 34.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Whether admissible

–

Questions not providing sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context

–

Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful reply (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 8-10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale civile di Bolzano – Interpretation of Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union – Provincial administration adopting regulations capable of impeding the application of a decision of an administrative court that is res judicata – Compatibility with Community law.

Operative part

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale civile di Bolzano, by decision of 4 January 2006, is inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Jurisdiction of the Court

–

Limits (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 21-25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi (Poland) – Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ English Special Edition 1967(I), p. 14), and Articles 2, 10(1)(a), 10(2) and 27(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – National legislation providing for the imposition of an additional tax in cases where irregularities are found in the return submitted by the taxable person.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi.