ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Atlas Air v Atlas Transport

(Case C‑406/11 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Fees paid by a company to its lawyer — Inclusion (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 144(b) and 184(1)) (see para. 9)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings — Inclusion (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 10-12)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Involvement of more than one lawyer — No effect — Assessment in the light, primarily, of the total number of hours deemed objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 13)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2012 in Case C‑406/11 P Atlas Transport v OHIM.

Operative part:

The total costs which Atlas Transport GmbH is ordered to reimburse to Atlas Air Inc., corresponding to the appeal which gave rise to the order of 9 March 2012 in Case C‑406/11 P Atlas Transport v OHIM, is fixed at EUR 3 700.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — DHL Danzas Air & Ocean v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

(Case C‑227/11)

Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Network analysers — Classification — Legal value of a classification opinion of the World Customs Organisation

1. Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Interpretation — Recourse to classification opinions of the World Customs Organisation — Recourse to the Combined Nomenclature — Limits — Opinion incapable of providing grounds for the invalidity of a classification regulation — Goods imported before that opinion was adopted (see paras 40, 43)

2. Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Active network analysers — Classification in subheading 9030 40 90 or in subheading 9030 40 00 of the Combined Nomenclature — Condition (Commission Regulations No 1810/2004 and No 1719/2005) (see para 53 and operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Haarlem — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 129/2005 of 20 January 2005 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature and amending Regulation (EC) No 955/98 (OJ 2005 L 25, p. 37) — Network analysers.

Operative part

The combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, respectively, must be interpreted as meaning that network analysers such as those at issue in the main proceedings may be classified in subheading 9030 40 90 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1810/2004, or in subheading 9030 40 00 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1719/2005, depending on the date of their import, provided that the devices are intended to measure or check electrical quantities, which it is for the national court to ascertain. If they are not, those devices must be classified in subheading 9031 80 39 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1810/2004, or in subheading 9031 80 38 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1719/2005, depending on the date of their import.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2011 – Deutsche Bahn v OHIM

(Case C‑45/11 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Application for registration of a Community trade mark consisting of a horizontal combination of the colours grey and red –Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 7(1)(b)

1. 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 para. 46)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Extent (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 57-58)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2010 in Case T-404/09 Deutsche Bahn v OHIM , by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register a colour sign consisting of a combination of the colours grey and red as a Community trade mark for certain services in Class 39 – Distinctive character of a sign consisting of a combination of colours.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 March 2012 —

Cantiere navale De Poli v Commission



(Case C‑167/11 P)

Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — State aid — Incompatibility with the common market — Commission decision — Alteration to existing aid — Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 — Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 — Temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding

1. State aid — Planned aid — Notifying the Commission — Member States’ discretion concerning the date of notification — In the case of a temporary defensive mechanism, notification necessary before the regulation authorising the grant of aid expires (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 1177/2002, Art. 5) (see paras 31, 32)

2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea raised against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part — Plea ineffective (see para. 43)

3. State aid — Planned aid — Examination by the Commission — Application of the rules of substantive law in force when the Commission took its decision (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 1177/2002, Art. 5) (see paras 51-53)

4. Union law — Principles — Equal treatment — Meaning — Unequal treatment as a result of the temporal limitation of authorisation to grant State aid in a given sector of the market — Whether objectively justified (Council Regulation No 1177/2002, Art. 5) (see paras 74-76)

5. State aid — Commission decision finding a national measure compatible with Article 87(1) EC — No legitimate expectations in the case of alteration to the aid scheme going beyond the bounds of the authorisation decision (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 85-87)

6. Appeals — Setting out in the application of the pleas in law and legal arguments — Plea plainly not intended to challenge the judgment — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 99, 100, 115)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 in Case T‑584/08 Cantieri Navale De Poli v Commission , by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/38/EC of 21 October 2008 on State aid C‑20/08 (ex N 62/08) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/04 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding (OJ 2010 L 17, p. 50).

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Cantiere navale De Poli SpA is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 February 2012 — Internationaler Hilfsfond v Commission

(Case C‑208/11 P)

Appeal — Access to documents — Action for annulment of the Commission’s decisions refusing access to documents concerning a contract for the co-financing of a medical aid programme in Kazakhstan — Action inadmissible because brought out of time — Incorrect determination of the moment from which the time allowed for bringing the action began to run

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included — Position originally adopted in the procedure for access for the public to Commission documents — Preparatory act (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 29-30)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadmissibility of the action before the General Court — Ground involving a question of public policy — Considered of the Court’s own motion (see para. 34)

3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Union law — Operative part sound on other legal grounds — Rejection (see para. 35)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T‑36/10 Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission , by which that court dismissed as inadmissible in part the application for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 9 October 2009 and 1 December 2009 refusing Internationaler Hilfsfonds full access to the file concerning contract LIEN 97-2011 for the co-financing of a medical aid programme in Kazakhstan — Application inadmissible as being out of time — Incorrect determination of the starting-point of the period allowed for bringing proceedings.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 —

Audi and Volkswagen v OHIM



(Case C-467/11 P)

Appeal — Community trade mark — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

Appeals — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it (see para. 11)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2011 in Case T-318/09 Audi and Volkswagen v OHMI (TDI) , by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 226/2007-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TDI as a Community trade mark for the goods in Class 12 (Vehicles and constructive parts thereof) — Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Distinctive character of the word sign TDI.

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 October 2012 —

ara v OHIM



(Case C-611/11 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8(1)(b) – International registration designating the European Community – Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs – Earlier national word mark A – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion

1. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – Admissibility (see para. 35)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice 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. 41)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 46)

4. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) (see para. 58)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2011 in Case T-174/10 ara v OHIM — Allrounder (A with two triangular motifs) , by which the General Court rejected the action brought for the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2010 (Case R 481/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between ara and Allrounder — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘A’ — Likelihood of confusion between two marks — Erroneous assessment of distinctive character.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2012 —

Fuchshuber Agrarhandel v Commission

(Case C-491/11 P)

Appeal — Common Agricultural Policy — Purchase of maize from the Hungarian intervention agency — Insufficient stocks — Alleged failure by the Commission in its obligation to conduct checks — Non-contractual liability

1. Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1)(2) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 27, 28, 47)

2. 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)(2) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para. 53)

3. Judicial proceedings — No obligation on the General Court to commence the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility — (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 111 and 114(1) and (3)) (see paras 57, 58)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 in Case T-451/10 Fuchshuber Agrarhandel v Commission , by which that Court dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law the action for damages seeking to obtain compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by reason of the Commission’s failure to check the conditions governing the implementation of standing invitations to tender for the resale on the Community market of cereals, in this case maize held by the Hungarian intervention agency.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

—

Admissibility

—

Request containing no precise questions and not giving enough details of the factual and legislative background

—

Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92 and 103(1)) (see paras 4‑9

)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Städter v ECB

(Case C‑102/12 P)

‛Appeal — Decisions adopted by the European Central Bank — Action for annulment — Action brought out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date on which the measure at issue was published — Calculation (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102) (see paras 10-12)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Application lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility (Art.263, sixth para., TFEU) (see paras 13-15)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T‑532/11 Städter v ECB, by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the action brought by the applicant seeking annulment, first, of the decisions of the ECB of 6 May 2010, 31 March 2011 and 7 July 2011 on temporary measures relating to the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or guaranteed by the Greek, Irish and Portuguese Governments (OJ 2010 L 117, p. 102; OJ 2011 L 94, p. 33; OJ 2011 L 182, p. 31) and, second, the ECB’s decision of 14 May 2010 establishing a securities markets programme (OJ 2010 L 124, p. 8).

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Stefan Städter is ordered to bear his own costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Städter v ECB

(Case C‑102/12 P)

‛Appeal — Decisions adopted by the European Central Bank — Action for annulment — Action brought out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date on which the measure at issue was published — Calculation (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102) (see paras 10-12)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Application lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility (Art.263, sixth para., TFEU) (see paras 13-15)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T‑532/11 Städter v ECB, by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the action brought by the applicant seeking annulment, first, of the decisions of the ECB of 6 May 2010, 31 March 2011 and 7 July 2011 on temporary measures relating to the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or guaranteed by the Greek, Irish and Portuguese Governments (OJ 2010 L 117, p. 102; OJ 2011 L 94, p. 33; OJ 2011 L 182, p. 31) and, second, the ECB’s decision of 14 May 2010 establishing a securities markets programme (OJ 2010 L 124, p. 8).

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

—

Grounds

—

Ground concerning the assessment of the responsibility for costs

—

Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

—

Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see paras 19-21

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 23 March 2012 in Case T-498/09 P-DEP Kerstens v Commission by which that Court rejected the application for taxation of costs brought by the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Petrus Kerstens is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

—

Grounds

—

Error of law relied on not identified

—

Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 168(1)(d), 169 and 181) (see paras 12-15

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 September 2012 in Case T-311/12 Baleanu v Commission by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, first, an action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to initiate infringement proceedings against Romania for alleged infringements of the applicant’s rights to property and, second, an action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the actions of the Romanian authorities.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Mr Erusalim Baleanu is ordered to bear his own costs.
3.

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Discretion of the Court — Costs incurred in the context of an appeal (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 144(b) and 184(1)) (see para. 18)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 March 2014 – Bloomsbury

(Case C‑510/12)

‛Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC — Article 2(3) — Principle of a true and fair view — Article 2(4) — Obligation to inform — Article 2(5) — Obligation to depart from the principle of a true and fair view — Article 32 — Valuation method based on historical cost — Acquisition by a company of an asset free of charge’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 13, 14)

2. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Companies — Directive 78/660 — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Directive which concerns only accounting and which does not aim to lay down the conditions for determining the taxable base (Council Directive 78/660) (see para. 16)

3. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Companies — Directive 78/660 — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Evaluation of assets on the basis of their purchase price or production cost — Exceptions — Exceptional cases — Definition — Acquisition of certain assets at a price significantly lower than their real value thereby creating a false view of the company’s assets — Not included (Council Directive 78/660, Arts 2(3) to (5), 31(1)(c) and 32) (see paras 22-30, operative part)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 2(3), (4) and (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [44(2)(g) EC] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) — Principle of a true and fair view — Acquisition by a company of an important asset free of charge — Not possible for the company to enter the value of that acquisition in its accounts as a distorted impression would thereby be given of its assets, financial situation and results.

Operative part:

Article 2(3), (4) and (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [44(2)(g) EC] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies must be interpreted as meaning that, where a company acquires an important asset free of charge, it is under no obligation to enter that asset in the accounts at its true value.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a foreign national who has entered national territory illegally or has stayed there illegally — Whether it is permissible to regard illegal stay as a criminal offence — Whether it is possible to substitute for the fine an order for immediate expulsion for a period of at least five years or a measure restricting freedom (‘permanenza domiciliare’) — Member States’ obligations during the period for transposition of a directive.