ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Social policy

–

Framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC

–

Directive 97/81

–

National legislation requiring part-time workers’ contracts and work schedules to be kept and published (Council Directive 97/81, Annex, Clauses 4 and 5(1)) (see paras 45-46, 49-50, 55-56, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Afdeling Hasselt) – Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9) – National legislation providing for a system for the publication and monitoring of work schedules of part-time workers, consisting of the mandatory compilation and retention, subject to criminal or administrative penalties, of documents recording the exact duration of work performed by each worker.

Operative part

Operative part

Clause 4 of the Framework agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes employers responsible for the obligations of retention and publication of the contracts and work-schedules of part-time workers, if it is established that such legislation does not lead to their being treated less favourably than full-time workers in a similar situation or, if there is such a difference in treatment, it is established that it is justified on objective grounds and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives thus pursued.

It is for the referring court to perform the necessary factual and legal investigation, particularly with regard to the applicable national law, in order to determine whether that is so in the case before it.

If the referring court were to conclude that the national legislation at issue is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81, Clause 5(1) thereof would have to be interpreted as precluding such legislation.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – 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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 32, 34, 46)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Distortion of the sense of the national law relied on as evidence – Admissibility (see para. 33)

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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para., (c)) (see paras 62, 66-67)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgments of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 in Case T-62/08 ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni v Commission , Case T‑63/08 Cementir Italia v Commission , and Case T‑64/08 Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche v Commission by which that court dismissed the applications for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeals are dismissed.

2. ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA, Cementir Italia Srl and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA are ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Reference to the Court – Jurisdiction of the national courts – National legislation giving priority to an interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality – Not permissible – Condition (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para.16)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National decision not indicating any connection to the law of the Union – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFUE; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 17, 47 and 51(1)) (see points 17-20)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal de première instance, Liège – Interpretation of Articles 6 TEU, 267 TFEU and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National courts bound to make a referral beforehand to the Constitutional Court in cases of presumed infringement by national legislation of fundamental rights – Whether the national provision requiring that preliminary referral accords with Union law – Possibility for national courts of reviewing the compatibility of the national rules with international treaties when the Constitutional Court has declared the national legislation at issue compatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Operative part

Re:

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium).
Keywords



Keywords

Privileges and immunities of the European Union

—

Members of the European Parliament

—

Immunity in respect of opinions expressed and votes cast in the performance of their duties

—

Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of duties

—

Application in connection with legal proceedings against a member of the Parliament

—

Jurisdiction of the national court before which the case was brought (Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Art. 8) (see paras 15-17, 19, operative part

)
Order of the President of the Court of 12 May 2010 – Torresan v OHIM

(Case C‑5/10 P-R)

Application for interim measures – Appeal – Application for stay of execution of the judgment under appeal – Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark CANNABIS – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Urgency

Applications for interim measures – Stay of execution of a judgment – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 14-17, 20-21)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 19 November 2009 in Case T-234/06 Torresan v OHIM , by which the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) dismissed an action contesting the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 (Case R 517/2005-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG and Giampietro Torresan.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the President of the Court of 16 December 2010 – Noko Ngele v Commission

(Case C‑526/10 P(R))

Appeal – Application for interim measures – Principles of good administration of justice and of the right to a fair hearing – Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded

Appeals – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Clear 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 14-16)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2010 in Case T-15/10 R II Noko Ngele v Commission , whereby that court dismissed as inadmissible the appellant’s application for interim relief seeking a declaration that the Commission minutes of 27 May 2009 ((2009) 1874 final) relating to the Commission’s decision to grant legal aid to one of its former members and to several of its agents are unlawful – Breach of the principles of good administration of justice and of the right to a fair hearing – Obvious conflict of interest.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2011 – Herhof v OHIM

(Case C-418/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Opposition proceedings – Earlier mark STABILAT – Figurative sign ‘stabilator’ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Absence of similarity of the goods and services

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the Union judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Review of the legal classificaiton made of the facts of the case – Included (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 47-48)

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 – Plea alleging such distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(1)(c)) (see paras 66-67)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2010 in Case T-60/09 Herhof v OHIM – Stabilator , by which that court dismissed the action brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark STABILAT in respect of goods and services in Classes 1, 7, 11, 20, 37, 40 and 42, against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2008, rejecting its opposition against registration of the figurative Community trade mark stabilator in respect of goods and services in Classes 19, 37 and 42 – Incorrect assessment of the similarity between the services covered by the marks at issue – Infringement of the right to be heard before a court.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 – X Technology Swiss v OHIM

(Case C-429/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Sign consisting of the partial colouring of a product – Orange colouring of the toe of a sock – Absolute ground for refusal – Absence of distinctive character – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1)(b)

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(1)) (see para 41)

Re

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2010 in Case T-547/08 X Technology Swiss v OHIM , by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2008 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision, which refused registration of the sign consisting of the orange colouring of the toe of a sock as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 25 – Distinctive character of a sign consisting of the partial colouring of a product.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings

–

Excluded (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 11-16

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2011 in Case T-487/10 Ruipérez Aguirre and ATC Petition v Commission, by which that court dismissed an action for the annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 27 July and 11 August 2010, refusing to initiate infringement proceedings against the Kingdom of Spain under Article 258 TFEU.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Ruipérez Aguirre and ATC Petition to pay their own costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Approximation of laws

–

Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices

–

Directive 2005/29

–

National legislation laying down a general prohibition of announcements of price reductions and of announcements suggesting such a reduction during the period preceding the sales

–

Not permissible

–

Condition (European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29) (see para. 32, operative part

)
Keywords



Keywords

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 of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para., (c)) (see para. 24)

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) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 29)
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Earlier mark only weakly distinctive — Effect (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 44)

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), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 48)

3. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Whether lawful — Examination by the Community judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 40/94) (see para. 92)
Keywords



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons

—

Workers

—

Equal treatment

—

Worker employed in one Member State and having transferred his residence to another Member State (Art. 39 EC) (see para. 33, operative part

)
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 — Deichmann v OHIM

(Case C-307/11 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlapping ambits of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 46-48)

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

3. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (see para. 65)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-202/09 Deichmann SE v OHIM, by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2009 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision, which refused registration of the figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 10 and 25 — Distinctive character of the mark.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Deichmann SE is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 — Deichmann v OHIM

(Case C-307/11 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlapping ambits of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 46-48)

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

3. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (see para. 65)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-202/09 Deichmann SE v OHIM, by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2009 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision, which refused registration of the figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 10 and 25 — Distinctive character of the mark.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings

—

Intervention

—

Conditions of admissibility

—

Interest in the result of the case

—

Meaning

—

Need for a direct and existing interest

—

Dispute concerning the lawfulness of a Commission decision finding there to be a cartel and imposing a fine

—

Lack of direct interest of the customers of undertakings participating in the cartel

—

Ability of a customer to seek compensation for harm caused by the cartel

—

Customer who has made an application for access to the documents of the administrative procedure concerning the cartel

—

Lack of relevance (Art. 101 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 10, 12-16, 23-25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2011 in Case T-63/11 Air France v Commission , by which the General Court rejected the application for leave to intervene made by Schenker AG — Interest in the result of the case — Dispute relating to an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Schenker AG is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2012 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission

(Case C‑647/11 P)

‛Appeal — Funding granted to a project in the environmental field — ‘LIFE’ — Decision for partial recovery of the amount paid — Determination of the obligations on the recipient — Legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons — Errors of law’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 28)

2. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Protection refused to any person committing a manifest infringement of the rules in force (see para. 43)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 49)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T‑312/07 Dimos Peramatos v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission decision of 7 December 2005, served on the appellant by bailiff on 17 May 2007, seeking recovery of sums paid in implementation of Commission Decision C(97)/1997/final of 17 July 1997 relating to a project falling within the framework of a reforestation programme or, in the alternative, for amendment of the contested decision.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Dimos Peramatos is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2012 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission

(Case C‑647/11 P)

‛Appeal — Funding granted to a project in the environmental field — ‘LIFE’ — Decision for partial recovery of the amount paid — Determination of the obligations on the recipient — Legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons — Errors of law’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 28)

2. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Protection refused to any person committing a manifest infringement of the rules in force (see para. 43)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 49)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T‑312/07 Dimos Peramatos v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission decision of 7 December 2005, served on the appellant by bailiff on 17 May 2007, seeking recovery of sums paid in implementation of Commission Decision C(97)/1997/final of 17 July 1997 relating to a project falling within the framework of a reforestation programme or, in the alternative, for amendment of the contested decision.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2011 – Vino v Poste Italiane

(Case C-161/11)

Articles 92(1), 103(1) and 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Social policy – Fixed-term employment contracts – Public sector – First or only contract – Derogation from the obligation to state objective reasons – Principle of non-discrimination – Lack of connection to European Union law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Question raised in a case concerning national, not Union, law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 35-41)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale di Trani – Interpretation of the general European Union principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Fields of application of those principles – Compatibility of national legislation validating in the national legal system a clause not specifying the reason for employment on a fixed-term basis for recruitment of workers at the SpA Poste Italiane.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunale di Trani (Italy) by decision of 7 February 2011.