ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 —

Bharat Heavy Electricals v Commission

(Case C‑602/14 P)

‛Appeal — Complaint concerning termination of a contract for the supply of transformers concluded between the appellant and a Greek public undertaking — Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Commission’s refusal to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations’

1. Appeals — 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 13, 14)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 81) (see para. 17)

3. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263, fourth chamber, TFEU) (see paras 18, 21-24)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 —

Bharat Heavy Electricals v Commission

(Case C‑602/14 P)

‛Appeal — Complaint concerning termination of a contract for the supply of transformers concluded between the appellant and a Greek public undertaking — Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Commission’s refusal to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations’

1. Appeals — 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 13, 14)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 81) (see para. 17)

3. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263, fourth chamber, TFEU) (see paras 18, 21-24)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Recital 8 of Regulation No 1121/2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Edam Holland (PGI)] states, by expressly referencing Article 13(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, that the term ‘edam’ may continue to be used. That provision of Regulation No 510/2006 provided that, when the name of an agricultural product or foodstuff, which is part of a name registered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications, is generic, the commercial use of that name does not infringe the protection of the aforementioned registered name. Such is the case for the name ‘edam’.

It follows from this that there is no legal interest in bringing proceedings on the part of the group of manufacturers and distributors of ‘edam’ for annulment of Regulation No 1121/2010, in so far as a possible annulment of that regulation would not procure any benefit to the members of the group, since that regulation provides that the name ‘edam’ may continue to be used, inter alia, for the marketing of cheeses, on condition that the principles and rules applicable in the European Union’s legal order are respected.

(see paras 21, 22)
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2016 — Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission

(Case C‑102/14 P) ( *1 )

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Contracts in respect of EU financial support for projects in the research and development field — Audit report identifying irregularities — Decision to recover advances paid by the European Commission — Action for annulment — Decision to suspend payments — Action to establish non-contractual liability — Decision not to conclude a contract — Action for damages — Inadmissibility)’

1. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Annulment of a debit note issued by the Commission — Lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 299 TFEU) (see paras 55, 58, 59)

2. Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Limits — Compliance with the conditions governing the admissibility of an action (Art. 6(1), third para., TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47, first para and 52(7)) (see para. 63)

3. Appeal — Grounds — Order of the General Court dismissing an action for annulment as manifestly inadmissible — Pleas raised in support of the appeal relating to substantive issues — Pleas which are manifestly unfounded (Art. 256 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see paras 70, 71, 91)

4. Actions for damages — Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment — Action seeking the withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive — Inadmissibility (Art. 268 TFEU) (see para. 80)

5. Actions for damages — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Limits — Character of the liability pleaded — Verification by the court — Action involving assessment of rights and obligations of a contractual nature (Art. 340 TFEU) (see para. 98)

6. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Review by the Court of its own motion (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 113)

7. Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of the General Court’s assessment of EU law — Admissibility (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 paras 117, 118)

Operative part

1) The appeal is dismissed.

2) Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT SA shall pay the costs relating to the appeal.

( *1 ) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
11

Under Article 8 of that regulation, entitled ‘Refusal to accept a document’: ‘1. The receiving agency shall inform the addressee, using the standard form set out in Annex II, that he may refuse to accept the document to be served at the time of service or by returning the document to the receiving agency within one week if it is not written in, or accompanied by a translation into, either of the following languages: (a) a language which the addressee understands; or (b) the official language of the Member State addressed or, if there are several official languages in that Member State, the official language or one of the official languages of the place where service is to be effected. 2. Where the receiving agency is informed that the addressee refuses to accept the document in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall immediately inform the transmitting agency by means of the certificate provided for in Article 10 and return the request and the documents of which a translation is requested. 3. If the addressee has refused to accept the document pursuant to paragraph 1, the service of the document can be remedied through the service on the addressee in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation of the document accompanied by a translation into a language provided for in paragraph 1. In that case, the date of service of the document shall be the date on which the document accompanied by the translation is served in accordance with the law of the Member State addressed. However, where according to the law of a Member State, a document has to be served within a particular period, the date to be taken into account with respect to the applicant shall be the date of the service of the initial document … …’
2.

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 51, 52)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 June 2015 —

Makhlouf v Council

(Case C‑136/15 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 169(2) — Content required in the application initiating an appeal — Manifest inadmissibility)’

Appeals — Grounds — Lack of specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning — Failure to indicate the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal that are contested — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2)) (see para. 24-26)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mohammad Makhlouf is ordered to pay in addition to his own costs those incurred by the European Council.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 June 2015 —

Makhlouf v Council

(Case C‑136/15 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 169(2) — Content required in the application initiating an appeal — Manifest inadmissibility)’

Appeals — Grounds — Lack of specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning — Failure to indicate the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal that are contested — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2)) (see para. 24-26)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2015 —

Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases C‑53/15 P to C‑56/15 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Commission decision adjusting the amount of the fines imposed on certain undertakings and fixing a new period for the payment of those fines — Other undertakings whose fines remained unchanged having no interest in bringing proceedings — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal manifestly unfounded)’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Action brought against a Commission decision amending the initial decision — Decision irrelevant to the amount of the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility (Arts 101 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 24-37)

Operative part

1. The appeals are dismissed.

2. Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA, Trefilerías Quijano SA, Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL and Global Steel Wire SA are ordered to pay the costs, respectively, in Cases C‑53/15 P, C‑54/15 P, C‑55/15 P and C‑56/15 P.

( 1 ) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, any person may intervene before the Courts of the European Union if such a person can establish an interest in the result of a case submitted to one of those courts.

The concept of an ‘interest in the result of a case’, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, must be defined in the light of the precise subject-matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law or arguments put forward. The words ‘result of a case’, used in that provision, refer to the final decision sought, as set out in the operative part of the future judgment.

In that regard, it is appropriate, in particular, to ascertain that the applicant to intervene is directly affected by the contested measure and that his interest in the result of the case is certain. In principle, an interest in the result of the case can be considered to be sufficiently direct only if that result is capable of altering the legal position of the applicant to intervene.

In the context of an action for annulment brought against a Commission decision on State aid, an adverse effect, even where it is significant, on the economic and financial interests of the shareholders of a company which is a main party in a case pending before the General Court, and the interests of the investment fund through which certain investors hold their shares in that company, cannot be considered to be a direct adverse effect on the interests of those shareholders and of that fund, justifying an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statue of the Court of Justice, since it does not alter their legal situation. Such economic and financial interests are mingled with those of the company itself, which is a main party in the case at issue and are affected only indirectly by the result of the case, through the consequences which that result has for that main party.

However, the fact that a minority shareholder of a company has interests that diverge from those of the main shareholder of the company and therefore, possibly, from those of the company itself, may, in certain cases, confer upon that minority shareholder an interest in the result of the case in which the company in question is one of the main parties, distinct from the latter’s interest. In order to invoke that exception, it is nevertheless necessary for the minority shareholder to put forward specific evidence establishing the existence of that divergence of interests in relation to the result of the proceedings in question, having regard to the purpose pursued by the latter.

(see paras 4-6, 20, 31)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 18 February 2016 —

Rîpanu

(Case C‑407/15)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to fair legal process — Decision of a constitutional court — Binding effect — Publication in the official journal of the Member State concerned — No suspensive effect between delivery and publication — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation not constituting a measure implementing EU law and not having any other 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 16, 19-23, operative part)

Operative part

The European Court of Justice manifestly lacks jurisdiction to provide an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Court of Appeal, Bacău, Romania), by decision of 18 May 2015.
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 —

Skype v OHIM

(Case C‑383/15 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — No need to adjudicate’

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — No need to adjudicate — Appeal brought by the applicant for a Community trade mark against a judgment of the General Court upholding the decision of a Board of Appeal which refused the registration — Withdrawal of the opposition brought against the application for registration — End of the dispute (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 149 and 190(1); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 11, 12)

Operative part

1. There is no need to rule on the appeal.

2. Skype Ultd is ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

( 1 ) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
3.

Appeals — 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 31, 46, 56)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 —

MB v Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT) SpA

(Case C‑697/15) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a call for tenders — Tenderer having omitted to mention in the tender the undertaking’s charges in relation to safety and security at work — That obligation created by case-law — Exclusion from the tendering procedure without the possibility of remedying that omission)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Questions identical to those already ruled on in the case-law—Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 18-20)

2. Approximation of laws—Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts—Directive 2004/18—Principle of equal treatment of tenderers—Obligation of transparency—Exclusion of an economic operator which has not complied with an obligation which was not expressly laid down in the contract documentation or in the national law from participating in a contract—No possibility of rectifying that omission—Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Arts 27(1) and 49 to 51) (see paras 31-34, operative part)

Operative part

The principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency, as implemented by Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of a tenderer from a tendering procedure for a public works contract following that tenderer’s failure to comply with the obligation to indicate separately in the tender the undertaking’s charges in relation to safety and security at work — the failure to comply with which carries the penalty of exclusion from the procedure — which is not set out expressly in the tender documents or the national rules, but is based on an interpretation of those rules and the filling in of the gaps in those documents carried out by the national court ruling at final instance. The principles of equal treatment and proportionality must also be interpreted as not precluding the possibility of granting that tenderer an opportunity to remedy the situation and to satisfy that obligation within a period prescribed by the contracting authority.

( 1 ) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 —

Mocek, Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v EUIPO

(Case C‑619/15 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — EU Trade Mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in green, white and grey representing the design of a crocodile containing the word element ‘KAJMAN’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the EU figurative mark in black and white representing the design of a crocodile — Partial refusal to register by a Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)’

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. 4)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 —

Best-Lock (Europe) v EUIPO

(Case C‑452/15 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community trade mark — Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a toy figure with protrusion — Invalidity proceedings — Rejection’

Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 15)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
1.

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 paras 13, 14, 19, 27-29, 33, 36, 44, 48, 74, 83, 94)
1.

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) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 26, 43)
Case C‑473/15

Peter Schotthöfer & Florian Steiner GbR

v

Eugen Adelsmayr

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz)

(Requests for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Extradition of a national of a Member State of the European Union to a third State where he risks being subjected to the death penalty — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection against extradition)

Summary — Order of the Court (First Chamber), 6 September 2017

Fundamental rights—Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union—Scope—Implementation of EU law—Decision of a Member State to extradite a Union citizen who has made use of his right to move freely in the Union—Included—Decision coming within the scope of Articles 18 and 21 TFEU (Arts 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1))

Citizenship of the Union—Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States—Request for extradition addressed to a Member State by a third country seeking extradition of a Union citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to move freely in the first Member State—Obligation to verify that the rights provided for in Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are safeguarded—Information needed for an assessment (Arts 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 19(2))

Citizenship of the Union—Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States—Request for extradition addressed to a Member State by a third country seeking extradition of a Union citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to move freely in the first Member State—Obligation to verify that the rights provided for in Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are safeguarded—Concept of existence of a serious risk within the meaning of that provision—Requirement of continued liability to death penalty should criminal proceedings be reopened following the extradition—Included (Arts 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 19(2))