ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Legislative measure involving choices of economic policy – Sufficiently established breach of a superior rule of law conferring rights on individuals – Requirement of manifest, grave disregard of the limits of the broad discretion enjoyed by the Union legislature (Art. 340(2) TFEU) (see paras 20-25)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (see para 30)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Plea directed at a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part – Ineffective plea in law (see para 38)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Damage – Duty of the person injured to show reasonable diligence in order to limit the extent of the damage (Art. 340(2) TFEU) (see paras 39-40)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 in Case T-162/07 Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia v Council and Commission , in which that Court dismissed an action for damages to compensate for the damage alleged to have been suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact that the Council and the Commission did not adopt provisions enabling the customs authorities of a Member State, in this case the Greek customs authorities, to accept as proof of the Community nature of products fished by a Greek vessel belonging to the applicant documents issued by a third State other than the T2M form provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of establishment

–

Restrictions

–

National legislation requiring prior administrative authorisation for the opening and transfer of pharmacies in a given area (Art. 49 TFEU) (see paras 33-34, operative part 1 and 2

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte – Interpretation of Arts 43, 152 and 153 EC – Opening of new pharmacies – National legislation making authorisation for the moving of a pharmacy subject to the keeping of a minimum distance between one pharmacy and another.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not, in principle, precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which places limits on the setting up of pharmacies by providing that:

– in each pharmaceutical area, only one pharmacy may be created, in principle, per 4 000 or 5 000 inhabitants; and

– each pharmacy must keep a minimum distance from pre-existing pharmacies, that distance being, as a general rule, 200 metres.

2. However, Article 49 TFEU precludes such national legislation in so far as the basic rules of 4 000 or 5 000 inhabitants and 200 metres prevent the creation, in any geographical area with particular demographic characteristics, of a sufficient number of pharmacies capable of providing an appropriate pharmaceutical service, which it is for the national court to verify.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Victor Guedes – Indústria e Comércio SA shall pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 – Portela v Commission

(Case C‑85/09 P)

Appeal – Non‑contractual liability – Claim for compensation for damage sustained on account of various omissions by the Commission in the application of Directive 93/42/EEC – No causal connection between the omission alleged and the damage suffered by the applicant in the marketing of defective digital thermometers – Appeal manifestly unfounded

1. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – Scope of the objection to state reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (see paras 31-32)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Injury/damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 34)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2008 in Case T-137/07 Portela v Commission , in which the Court rejected as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, for the remainder, manifestly unfounded an application claiming, primarily, that the Court of First Instance should impose on the Commission the obligation to act in accordance with Article 14b of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), as amended by Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (OJ 1998 L 331, p. 1), by ordering the certification company TÜV Rheinland Product Safety GmbH, through the Federal Republic of Germany, to activate, in favour of the appellant, the mandatory civil liability insurance provided for in point 6 of Annex XI to Directive 93/42, concluded by that company or, if the alleged damage could not be remedied by the main claim, a claim for compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant on account of the various omissions on the part of the Commission.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 March 2010 – Organismos Sillogikis Diacheirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon v Divani Akropolis Anonimi Xenodocheiaki kai Touristiki Etaireai

(Case C‑136/09)

Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Copyright and related rights in the information society – Directive 2001/29/EC – Article 3 – Concept of ‘communication to the public’ – Works communicated by means of television sets installed in hotel rooms

Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 3(1)) (see para. 43, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Arios Pagos – Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) – Concept of ‘communication to the public’ – Works transmitted by means of television sets installed in hotel rooms and connected to the central antenna of the hotel with no other action by the hotel to ensure reception of a signal by hotel customers.

Operative part:

The hotelier, by installing televisions in his hotel rooms and by connecting them to the central antenna of the hotel, thereby, and without more, carries out an act of communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.
Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 August 2009 in Case T-141/09

Molter

v

Germany

, by which that Court dismissed, by reason of manifest lack of jurisdiction, an action seeking a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Community law on non-discrimination or, alternatively, damages for the loss allegedly sustained on account of the German courts’ infringement of the duty to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 – DSV Road v Commission

(Case C-358/09 P)

Appeal – Customs Code – Import of diskettes originating in Thailand – Post-clearance recovery of import duties – Application for remission of import duties

1. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 45-46)

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties – Conditions for non-entry of import duties in the accounts set out in Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b)) (see paras 47-52, 58-59)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the evidence duly produced – Inadmissible except in the case of clear distortion of the sense ‑ Duty of the General Court to state the reasons for its assessment of the evidence – Extent (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 68-69)

4. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import duties – Fairness clause introduced by Article 239 of the Customs Code – Special situation – Meaning – Incorrect certificates issued by the customs authorities on the basis of the exporter’s untrue declarations, but those authorities not obliged to check the validity of those declarations – Excluded (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 904(c)) (see paras 79-83)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 8 July 2009 of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) in Case T–219/07 DSV Road v Commission dismissing an application for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 24 April 2007 informing the Belgian authorities that they might proceed with post-clearance recovery of import duties on diskettes originating in Thailand and that there were no grounds for granting remission of those duties (File reference: REC 05/02).

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 May 2011 – Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v Royal Appliance International

(Case C-448/09 P-DEP)

Taxation of costs

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 16)

Re

Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure – Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), of 30 June 2010, in Case C-448/09 P Royal Appliance International v OHIM .

Operative part

The total amount of costs that Royal Appliance International GmbH must pay BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH is fixed at EUR 3 303.20.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Franssons Verkstäder AB shall bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Internal taxation

–

Pollution tax imposed on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 20-25, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureş – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax levied on motor vehicles upon first registration in a Member State – Whether national legislation is compatible with Articles 23, 25 and 90 EC – Possible derogation on the basis of Article 174 EC.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 in Case T-34/07 Goncharov v OHIM – DSB (DSBW) by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2006 refusing registration of the word sign ‘DSBW’ as a Community trade mark for certain services in Classes 39, 41 and 43 and upholding the opposition of the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘DSB’ – Likelihood of confusion – Account not taken, during the examination of the likelihood of confusion, of the particularities of marks consisting of acronyms – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Goncharov is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices – Directive 2005/29

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29)

Summary

Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for a general prohibition of announcements of price reductions or announcements suggesting such reductions during the period preceding sales, in so far as the provision pursues objectives relating to consumer protection and therefore falls well within the scope of that directive, which is for the national court to determine.

Since Directive 2005/29 fully harmonises the rules relating to unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, Member States may not adopt stricter rules than those provided for in the directive, as expressly provided for in Article 4 thereof, even in order to achieve a higher level of consumer protection.

The same directive establishes, in its Annex I, an exhaustive list of 31 commercial practices which, in accordance with Article 5(5) of that directive, are regarded as unfair ‘in all circumstances’. Consequently, as recital 17 in the preamble to that directive expressly states, only those commercial practices can be deemed to be unfair without a case-by-case assessment against the provisions of Articles 5 to 9 of that directive.

However, the practices of announcing price reductions to consumers do not appear in Annex I to Directive 2005/29. Therefore, they cannot be prohibited in all circumstances, but can be prohibited only following a specific assessment allowing the unfairness of those practices to be established.

(see paras 28, 33, 37-38, 40, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Jurisdiction of the Court

–

Limits

–

Interpretation of a Community directive in proceedings antedating the accession of a Member State to the European Union

–

Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 25-27

)

Subject of the case

Re

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Varhoven kasatsionen sad – Interpretation of Articles 2(1)(c), 4(1)(b)(iv) and 5(2)(3) and (4) of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59) – Concept of ‘other tourist services’ not ancillary to transport or accommodation to be borne by the organiser – Obligation of the organiser to conclude an individual insurance contract for each consumer and to provide the consumer with the original before travel – Obligation of the organiser to conclude an individual insurance contract covering costs of repatriation in case of accident – Concept of ‘damage’ resulting for the consumer from the failure to perform or the improper performance of the contract – Non-material damages included.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to rule on the questions referred by the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Appeals – Suspension of operation of a measure – Claim relating to measures drafted in a language other than that of the addressee – Contested measures replaced by new measures essentially the same in substance but drafted in another language – No need to adjudicate – (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83) (see paras 16-19)

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for – Lodging of a supplementary pleading for the purpose of putting right deficiencies – Incompatibility with proceedings for interim measures (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 28-31, 37)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2010 in Case T-431/10 R Nencini v Parliament rejecting an application for suspension of the operation of various measures of the Parliament relating to the recovery of Parliamentary allowances said to have been overpaid.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Nencini is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Effects of the Community trade mark

–

Limitations

–

Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94

–

Purpose

–

No decisive effect on the interpretation of Article 7(1)(c) of the regulation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 12(b)) (see para. 33

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T‑66/07 and in Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM , by which that court dismissed the six actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2006 (Cases R 1033/2006-4, R 1034/2006-4, R 1035/2006-4, R 1276/2006‑4, R 1277/2006–4 and R 1278/2006-4) concerning applications for registration of the word marks 150, 250, 350, 222, 333 and 555 as Community trade marks – Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 76 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) – Descriptive character of marks composed exclusively of figures.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeals are dismissed.

2. Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Appeals — Pleas in law — 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(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 30, 31, 47)

2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Review by the Court of Justice of the General Court’s refusal to order measures of inquiry — Ambit (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 66(1)) (see paras 21-23)

3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Challenging of the decision contested before the General Court and not of the judgment given by the latter — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 36, 37)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Extent — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, in response to a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the successful tenderer — Contracting authority not obliged to produce a detailed analysis comparing the offer accepted and the offer of the unsuccessful tenderer — Plea manifestly unfounded (Art. 256 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 39, 40, 44)

5. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para 47)

6. Appeals — Pleas in law — 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(1)) (see para 57)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Lagardère v Éditions Odile Jacob

(Case C‑551/10 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Fees paid by a company to its lawyer — Included — Elements to be taken into account for the purposes of the taxation (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 32)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber, former composition) of 6 November 2012 in Case C‑551/10 P Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission.

Operative part:

The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Odile Jacob SAS to Lagardère SCA is fixed at EUR 95 000.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Lagardère v Éditions Odile Jacob

(Case C‑551/10 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Fees paid by a company to its lawyer — Included — Elements to be taken into account for the purposes of the taxation (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 32)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber, former composition) of 6 November 2012 in Case C‑551/10 P Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission.

Operative part:

The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Odile Jacob SAS to Lagardère SCA is fixed at EUR 95 000.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2011 – Umbach v Commission

(Case C-609/10 P)

Appeal – Access to the documents of the institutions – ‘TACIS programme’ – Contract concluded by the Commission – Termination of the contract – Dispute between the contracting parties – Application for access to documents – Manifest inadmissibility

Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – 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 of Justice, Arts 112(1)(c) and 119) (see paras 14-17)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 October 2010 in Case T‑474/08 Umbach v Commission , by which that court dismissed an action for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 2 September 2008 refusing the appellant access to certain information included in documents relating to a contract concluded between the appellant and the Commission and concerning assistance with the drafting of an administrative code on behalf of the Russian Federation in the context of the TACIS programme – Application for access concerning the dispute between the appellant and the Commission following the termination of that contract – Infringement of Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.