ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 June 2006 – Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft v OHIM

(Case C-324/05 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion – Application for mixed word and figurative mark containing the word element ‘Turkish Power’ – Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier word mark POWER – Rejection of the opposition – Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

1. 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)

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:

The Court :

1. Dismisses the appeal;
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.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 – Criminal proceedings against D’Antonio

(Case C‑395/05)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Rules of competition applicable to undertakings – Interpretation of Articles 31 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC – Games of chance – Collection of bets on sporting events – Licensing requirement – Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form – Requirement of police authorisation – Criminal penalties

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)

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:

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.

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.

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.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Free movement of goods

–

Quantitative restrictions

–

Measures having equivalent effect (Art. 28 EC) (see para. 15 and operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Diikitiko Protodikio Tripolis – Interpretation of Art. 28 EC – Marketing of pre‑cooked bakery products (‘bake‑off’ products) – Requirement of a licence.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

Article 28 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the sale of ‘bake‑off’ products subject to the same requirements as those applicable to the complete process of manufacturing and marketing bread and traditional bakery products.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 28, 37)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 31)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03 Alecansan v OHIM by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the national figurative mark ‘COMP USA’ in respect of goods in Class 39 for annulment of Decision R 711/2002-1 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2003 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition lodged against the application for registration of the figurative Community trade mark ‘COMP USA’ in respect of goods in Classes 9 and 37 – Similarity between the marks – 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. Alecansan SL is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – 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; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 28)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law pleaded not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 55, 78)

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support its operative part – Plea inoperative (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 64, 80)

4. Competition – Concentrations – Examination by the Commission – Decision to open the detailed examination stage (Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 6(1)(c)) (see para. 72)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 in Case T-48/03 Schneider Electric v Commission , rejecting as inadmissible an application for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 4 December 2002 to initiate a detailed examination of the concentration between Schneider and Legrand (Case COMP/M.2283 – Schneider/Legrand II) and of the Commission’s Decision of 13 December 2002 to close the proceedings examining the concentration.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Schneider Electric SA is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Answer clearly able to be deduced from case-law – Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 104(3)) (see para. 20)

2. Protection of public health – Compound feedingstuffs – Directive 2002/2 (Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council No 178/2002, Arts 8 and 16; Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2002/2, Art. 1(4) (see para. 45, operative part 1)

3. Protection of public health – Compound feedingstuffs – Directive 2002/2 (Arts 233 EC and 234 EC; Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2002/2, Art. 1(1)(b)) (see para. 63, operative part 2)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consiglio di Stato – Effects of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C 12/04 and C-194/04 ( ABNA and Others ) by which Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ 2002 L 63, p. 23) was declared partially invalid – Obligation for the institutions to adopt a new act.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC, which lays down an obligation to indicate, on the labels of compound feedingstuffs for animals, the percentages in weight of the raw materials of which the feedingstuff is composed with a tolerance of ± 15% of the declared value as regards those percentages, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not contradict Articles 8 and 16 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, which are intended, inter alia, to prevent the labelling and presentation of feedingstuffs for animals from misleading the consumer.

2. Since Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/2 laid down an independent obligation bearing no relation to the obligations laid down by the other provisions of that directive, the Court’s declaration, in its judgment of 6 December 2005 in Joined Cases C‑453/03, C‑11/04, C‑12/04 and C‑194/04 ABNA and Others , that that provision was invalid did not create a legal vacuum or a situation of inconsistency requiring the Community institutions to adopt the substantive amendments of Directive 2002/2.

In any event, the invalidity of a Community provision results directly from the judgment of the Court declaring that invalidity and it is for the national authorities and courts of the Member States to draw the consequences from that declaration in their national legal order.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 January 2007 – Carrefour-Marinopoulos v Nomarchiaki Aftodiikisi Tripolis

(Case C‑126/06)

Free movement of goods – Article 28 EC – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Marketing of frozen bakery products

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Art. 28 EC) (see para. 15 and operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Diikitiko Protodikio Tripolis – Interpretation of Art. 28 EC – Marketing of pre‑cooked bakery products (‘bake‑off’ products) – Requirement of a licence.

Operative part

The Court:

Article 28 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the sale of ‘bake‑off’ products subject to the same requirements as those applicable to the complete process of manufacturing and marketing bread and traditional bakery products.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Decision to refer reversed by an appeal court having itself adjudicated on the dispute between the parties to the main proceedings – Absence of a dispute pending before the referring court – No need to adjudicate

(Art. 234 EC)

Summary

The justification for a reference for a preliminary ruling is not that it enables advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions to be delivered but rather that it is necessary for the effective resolution of a dispute. Therefore, there is no need for the Court to reply to a reference for a preliminary ruling from a referring court where the decision to refer such a question has been reversed by an appeal court which itself adjudicated on the dispute between the parties to the main proceedings, thereby assuming responsibility for ensuring compliance with Community law and when, by virtue of the appeal, there is no longer any dispute before the referring court.

There is no need to reply to such a reference for a preliminary ruling even though the referring court – whose responsibility it is, in principle, to draw the proper inferences from a judgment delivered on an appeal against its decision to refer and, in particular, to come to a conclusion as to whether it is appropriate to maintain the reference for a preliminary ruling, or to amend it or to withdraw it – has not withdrawn that reference.

(see paras 8-11, operative part)
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2007 – Yedaș Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret v Council and Commission

(Case C‑255/06 P)

Appeal – International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Customs Union between the European Community and Turkey – Compensatory financial aid

1. International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Direct effect – Conditions – Articles 2(1), 3(1), and 6 of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and preamble to the additional protocol (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Arts 2(1), 3(1) and 6; Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement) (see paras 36-40)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 46, 52, 56-57, 64)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Illegality (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see para. 48)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 61)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2006 in Case T-367/03 Yeda ş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed, as being unfounded, an action seeking to recover compensation in respect of damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of the respondent institutions’ failure to comply with the obligations laid down in the provisions governing the Customs Union between the European Union and Turkey, in particular the obligation to provide financial aid for the purpose of offsetting the negative effects of the Customs Union on the Turkish economy.

Operative part:

The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2007 – Arizona Chemical and Others v Commission

(Case C‑150/06 P)

Appeal – Directive 67/548/EEC – Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance – Action for annulment – Act not open to challenge – Breach of the right to an effective legal remedy – Action for damages – Appeal clearly unfounded

1. Actions for annulment – Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 22-24)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 40-41)

3. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 45-46)

4. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support its operative part – Invalid plea in law (see para. 47)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2005 in Case T-369/03 Arizona Chemical and Others v Commission , in which the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible an action for annulment of Commission Decision D(2003)430245 of 20 August 2003, rejecting the applicant’s request to withdraw rosin from the list of dangerous substances set out in Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234).

Operative part

The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2009 – Gas Naturel v ENDESA

(Case C‑122/06 P(R)-DEP)

Taxation of costs

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Meaning (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 15-17)

Re:

Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure – Taxation of costs following the order of the Court of 14 June 2006.

Operative part:

The total costs to be reimbursed by Endesa SA to Gas Natural SDG SA are fixed at EUR 6 150.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2007 – Stahlwerk Ergste Westig

(Case C‑415/06)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Answer clearly able to be deduced from case-law – Free movement of capital – Taxation on income – Company having permanent establishments in a non-Member State – Account taken of losses incurred by those establishments

1. Preliminary rulings – Answer clearly able to be deduced from case-law – Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 104(3)) (see paras 9-10)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope (Arts 43 EC and 56 EC) (see paras 14, 16, 18-19 and operative part)

Re:

Preliminary ruling – Bundesfinanzhof – Interpretation of Articles 56 EC, 57(1) EC and 58 EC – Deduction from the taxable profits of a German company of losses resulting from the activity of a permanent establishment in a non-member country – Deduction refused on the basis of a bilateral double taxation convention concluded with that non-member country.

Operative part:

A national system of taxation under which a company having its head office in a Member State, when determining its results, cannot deduct losses incurred by an establishment in a non-Member State fundamentally affects the exercise of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 43 EC to 48 EC. Those provisions cannot be relied upon in a situation involving such an establishment in a non-Member State.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Intervention – Conditions of admissibility – Interest in the result of the case – Meaning – Need for a direct and existing interest (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.) (see paras 5-6)

2. Procedure – Proof – Burden of proof – Obligation to prove matters within common knowledge – None (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 9)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 11)

4. Appeals – Production of new evidence – Inadmissible (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 12)

5. Procedure – Assimilation of regional and local authorites to Member States – Excluded (see para. 15)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (President of the Second Chamber) of 4 September 2007 in Case T‑407/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes v Council rejecting an application for leave to intervene in an action for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Provincia di Ascoli Piceno and the Comune di Monte Urano to bear their own costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Commission of the European Communities shall pay the costs.

Luxembourg, 22 November 2007.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Turnover taxes

–

Common system of value added tax

–

Taxable persons (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(5), first para.) (see para. 23

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky – Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) 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) – Treatment of a body governed by public law as a non-taxable person in respect of activities or operations engaged in as a public authority – Inclusion of bailiffs in the exercise of their public duties – Direct effect.

Operative part

Operative part

An activity exercised by a private individual, such as that of a bailiff, is not exempted from value added tax merely because it consists in engaging in acts falling within the rights and powers of a public authority. Even on the assumption that, in the exercise of his duties, a bailiff does carry out such acts, he does not, under legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, exercise his activity in the form of a body governed by public law, not being integrated into the organisation of the public administration, but in the form of an independent economic activity carried out in a self-employed capacity, and, consequently, he is not covered by the exemption provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

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(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 38

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 February 2007 in Case T‑204/04 Indorata-Serviços e Gestão Ldª v OHIM , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for the annulment of the decision refusing registration of the word mark HAIRTRANSFER for goods and services in Classes 8, 22, 41 and 44 – Distinctiveness of the mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Ldª to pay the costs.