ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judicial proceedings—Decision taken by way of reasoned order—Conditions—Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)

(see paras 5, 6)
Appeals—Grounds—Inadequate or contradictory grounds—Scope of the obligation to state reasons—Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning—Lawfulness—Conditions

(Art. 296 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 56, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 119)

(see para. 14)
Case C‑356/16

Criminal proceedings

against

Wamo BVBA and Luc Cecile Jozef Van Mol

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel, strafzaken)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — National legislation prohibiting the advertising of procedures relating to plastic surgery or non-surgical plastic medicine)

Summary — Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 26 October 2017

Approximation of laws — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices — Directive 2005/29 — National law prohibiting any natural or legal person from disseminating advertising for procedures relating to plastic surgery or non-surgical plastic medicine — Lawfulness

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29, Art. 3(3) and (8))

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which protects public health and the dignity and integrity of the professions of plastic surgeon and plastic doctor by prohibiting any natural or legal person from disseminating advertising for procedures relating to plastic surgery or non-surgical plastic medicine.

However, according to Article 3(3), that directive is without prejudice to EU or national rules relating to the health and safety aspects of products. Moreover, it must be pointed out that, according to Article 3(8), that directive is without prejudice to the deontological codes of conduct or other specific rules governing regulated professions in order to uphold high standards of integrity on the part of the professional, which Member States may, in conformity with EU law, impose on professionals.

Thus, it follows from those provisions that Directive 2005/29 does not call into question the national rules relating to the health and safety aspects of products or the specific provisions governing regulated professions (judgment of 4 May 2017, Vanderborght, C‑339/15, EU:C:2017:335, paragraph 28).

(see paras 20-22, 24, operative part)
Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Concept — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings — Included

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)

(see paras 30-32)
Appeal—Grounds—Appeal brought against a judgment ruling on joined cases—Whether possible for any party to raise a plea against any ground of the General Court which adversely affects it, irrespective of the pleas put forward by that party before the General Court

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 36)
22

In those circumstances, the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid (Administrative Court No 8, Madrid), decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Must clause 4 of the framework agreement be construed as precluding rules such as those described from allowing a reduction in working hours solely because the person involved is an interim civil servant? If the answer is in the affirmative: — Can the economic situation, which makes a reduction in expenditure necessary, and which has been compelled by the reduction in the budget appropriation, be regarded as an objective ground which justifies this difference in treatment? — Can the administration’s prerogative to organise itself be regarded as an objective ground which justifies this difference in treatment? 2. Must clause 4 of the framework agreement be construed to the effect that the administration’s prerogative to organise itself is, always and in any event, limited by the obligation not to discriminate against or to treat differently employees in its service, irrespective of whether they are classified as career civil servants, or interim, casual or temporary civil servants? 3. Can the interpretation and application of point 3 of the second additional provision of Basic Law 4/2007 be construed as being contrary to clause 4 of the framework agreement in so far as, in the process for college lecturers joining the body of university lecturers, college lecturers [appointed on a permanent basis] are allowed to retain all their rights and their full capacity to teach, even though they do not have a doctorate degree, while this is not allowed for interim college lecturers? 4. In so far as the requirement for a doctorate degree is the objective justification claimed for interim college lecturers without such a degree having their working hours reduced to 50%, which does not, however, apply to non-interim college lecturers who do not have a doctorate degree either, can this be construed as discriminatory and therefore contrary to clause 4 of the framework agreement?’
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

3 September 2021 ( )

(Rectification of judgment)

In Case C‑588/16 P‑REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 18 November 2016,

Generics (UK) Ltd, established in Potters Bar (United Kingdom), represented by I. Vandenborre, advocaat, T. Goetz, Rechtsanwalt, and M. Brealey QC,

appellant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Commission, represented by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel,

defendant at first instance,

supported by:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented initially by D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and J. Holmes QC, and subsequently by D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and J. Holmes QC,

intervener in the appeal,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of M. Vilaras, President of the Chamber, D. Šváby (Rapporteur), S. Rodin, K. Jürimäe and P.G. Xuereb, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Kokott,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 25 March 2021, the Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered the judgment in Generics (UK) v Commission (C‑588/16 P, not published, EU:C:2021:242).

2 That judgment contains, in its introductory part, errors which it is appropriate to rectify at the request of the European Commission, pursuant to Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to appeal proceedings in accordance with Article 190(1) of those rules.

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

1. In the introductory part of the judgment of 25 March 2021, Generics (UK) v Commission (C‑588/16 P, not published, EU:C:2021:242), the reference to the representatives of the European Commission shall be rectified as follows:

‘European Commission, represented by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel,’

2. The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified judgment. A note of this order shall be made in the margin of the original of the rectified judgment.

Luxembourg, 3 September 2021.

A. Calot Escobar M. Vilaras
Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 4)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 —

Caixa Económica Montepio Geral

(Case C‑333/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 21 and 38 — Non-discrimination — Consumer protection — Contract for a bank loan — Question which does not concern a rule of EU law other than those contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Jurisdiction of the Court—Limits—Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union—Subject matter of the national dispute not having any connection with EU law—Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1) and (2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

(see paras 10-19)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga (District Court, Braga, Portugal) by decision of 29 March 2017.

( 1 ) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 6, 7)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 November 2017 —

Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio v Parliament and Council

(Case C‑467/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Actions for annulment — Failure to observe the time-limit for instituting proceedings — Company established after the time-limit for instituting proceedings — Alleged existence of force majeure — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy and right to a fair trial — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

Judicial proceedings—Time-limit for instituting proceedings—Claim barred by lapse of time—Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure—Definition—Acquisition by the applicant of legal personality after the time-limit for instituting proceedings—Not included—No infringement of the right to effective judicial protection

(Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 263, fourth para, (6)., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 52(7); Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.)

(see paras 15, 18-20, 27-30)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 —

Woonhaven Antwerpen

(Case C‑446/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Unfair terms — Rental contract concluded between a recognised social housing association and a tenant — Model rental contract made binding by an act of national legislation — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 1(2) — Inapplicability of that directive)

Consumer protection—Unfair terms in consumer contracts—Directive 93/13—Scope—Exclusion provided for contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions—Conditions in a rental contract concluded between a recognised social housing association and a tenant, which are determined by national legislation—Inapplicability of the directive

(Council Directive 93/13, Art. 1(2))

(see paras 25-31, operative part)

Operative part

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to conditions contained in the social rental contract concluded between a recognised social housing association and a tenant, which are determined by national legislation such as Article 11 of the model rental contract annexed to the Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot reglementering van het sociale huurstelsel ter uitvoering van titel VII van de Vlaamse Wooncode (Flemish Government Decree to regulate the social rental system implementing Title VII of the Flemish Housing Code), of 12 October 2007.

( 1 ) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Appeal—Grounds—Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded—Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see para. 3)
Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 7)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 June 2018 — Karp v Parliament

(Case C‑714/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Civil service — Act having an adverse effect — Accredited parliamentary assistant — Member of the contract staff — Recruitment — Classification in grade)

1. Appeal—Grounds—Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see para. 5)

2. Actions brought by officials—Prior administrative complaint—Time limits—Mandatory (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90) (see paras 8-10)

3. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Definition—Preparatory act—Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 15, 18, 19)

4. Appeal—Grounds—Inadequate statement of reasons—Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning—Lawfulness—Conditions (see paras 31, 32)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
Order of the vice-President of the Court of 28 May 2018 — BASF Grenzach v ECHA

(Case C‑565/17 P(R))

(Appeal — Order for interim measures — Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) relating to the substance evaluation of triclosan — Suspension of operation — Urgency — Intervention — No direct, existing interest)

1. Judicial proceedings—Intervention—Admissibility criteria—Interest in the result of the case—Concept—Need for a direct and existing interest—Dispute concerning a decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency concerning the evaluation of the substance triclosan—No direct and vested interest of an animals rights association—Limits—Solution capable of modifying the legal situation of that association (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.) (see paras 32-34, 36-39)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Balancing of all the interests involved—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 47, 65, 66)

3. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 48, 49)

4. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Financial loss—Situation capable of endangering the financial viability of the applicant (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 58)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. BASF Grenzach GmbH shall pay the costs.

3. The application to intervene of PETA International Science Consortium Ltd is dismissed.
Judicial proceedings – Costs – Claim for recovery of costs – Time limit for submission – Obligation to submit the claim for recovery within a reasonable period of time – Taxation of costs – No time limit for submission of an application for taxation of costs

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 145)

(see paras 20-23)
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2019 — Cipollone

(Case C‑600/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Justices of the Peace — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Limits — Hypothetical questions — Lack of jurisdiction of the referring court to adjudicate on the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU)

(see paras 23, 24, 27, 28)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Giudice di pace di Roma (Justice of the Peace, Rome, Italy), by decision of 25 August 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 437 of 18.12.2017.
18

The referring court expresses doubts in this respect in so far as it has available to it only a judgment delivered by the Bulgarian Supreme Court concerning liquidation of property acquired during marriage, handed down in the context of a divorce. According to that judgment, the exception referred to in Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012 relates only to cases concerning the matrimonial property regime as defined in certain articles of the Family Code, which do not include such liquidations. It follows, in that court’s view, that those liquidations come within the scope of that regulation. If that were the case, the Italian courts would, according to that court, have jurisdiction to give judgment in the main proceedings, in accordance with Article 4(1) of that regulation. However, if that regulation were not applicable, the Bulgarian courts would have jurisdiction under Article 4(1)(2) of the Private International Law Code.
23

Secondly, the Commission considers that the use of 13 lawyers for the period from 7 March 2017 to 16 January 2019 to be excessive. The period of work to be taken into account is approximately six months only and starts to run on the day the appeal was notified to UPS and ends on the day UPS’s rejoinder was lodged. The hourly rates applied by the two main lawyers, that is EUR 862 per hour and between EUR 695 and over EUR 820 per hour, are also excessive in the light of the fees of between EUR 360 and EUR 495 that the Court appears to have accepted in previous cases. UPS seeks reimbursement of 878.4 hours of work for lawyers at an average hourly rate of EUR 600 per hour, although many junior lawyers and trainees were involved. The Commission considers that an average rate of EUR 350 per hour should be granted. The use of 13 economists, who the Commission infers, by adding the entries referred to by UPS in its annexes, worked 363.5 hours for an average hourly rate of EUR 824 per hour is also disproportionate.
Appeal—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. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

(see para. 6)
Order of the vice-President of the Court of 5 July 2018 — Müller and Others v QH

(Case C‑187/18 P(I))

(Appeal — Intervention — Application to intervene made after the period of six weeks laid down in Article 143(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Admissibility — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 129(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Force majeure — Excusable error)

1. Judicial proceedings—Intervention—Time limits—Mandatory (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 143(1)) (see paras 19-21, 24, 25)

2. Appeal—Grounds—Inadequate statement of reasons—Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning—Lawfulness—Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see paras 29, 30)

3. Judicial proceedings—Intervention—Time limits—Claim barred by lapse of time—Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure—Definition (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 143(1)) (see para. 39)

4. Judicial proceedings—Intervention—Time limits—Claim barred by lapse of time—Excusable error—Definition (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45) (see para. 42)

Operative part

1. The order of the President of the First Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 22 February 2018, QH v Parliament (T‑748/16, unpublished, EU:T:2018:104) is set aside.

2. The application to intervene in Case T‑748/16 submitted by Ute Müller, Anna Colombo, Utta Tuttlies and Michael Hoppe is dismissed.

3. Ute Müller, Anna Colombo, Utta Tuttlies and Michael Hoppe are to bear their own costs both in the appeal proceedings and in the proceedings at first instance.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO

(Case C‑409/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Word mark HP — Invalidity proceedings — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity)

Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Review by the Court of the findings of fact—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — Ccc Event Management v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C‑23/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice –Article 281, second paragraph, TFEU — Request by the Court of Justice of the European Union to amend provisions of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Abstention — Article 267 TFEU — National courts referring a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling — Abstention — Actions for damages — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Omissions of EU institutions—Requirement that a legal duty to act be disregarded (see paras 25-28)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Reference to the Court—Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred—Assessment by the national court—Decision not to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling—Obligation to inform the Court of such a decision—No such obligation (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 31-37)

3. EU law—Rights conferred on individuals—Infringement by a Member State—Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals (see para. 38)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 5, 6)
Appeal — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paras 3, 6)