ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of 8 July 1998. - Ermanno Agostini and Emanuele Agostini v Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL and Ligue belge de judo ASBL. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de première instance de Namur - Belgium. - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility. - Case C-9/98.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-04261



Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility of reference - Questions put without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context - Questions put in a context which excludes a useful reply

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the assumptions of fact on which those questions are based. The information provided in orders for reference not only enables the Court usefully to reply but also gives the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court.

Consequently, a request from a national court which does not describe the factual context of the dispute or the assumptions of fact on which it is based, or explain the national legislative context, or the precise reasons which have prompted it to consider the interpretation of Community law and deem it necessary to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling, is manifestly inadmissible, in that it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law.
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 May 2010 – Petrides v Commission

(Case C‑64/98 P-REV)

Application for revision – Rules of the Court of Justice governing languages – Manifest inadmissibility

1. Procedure – Revision of a judgment – Conditions for the admissibility thereof – New fact – Meaning (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44) (see para 12)

2. Procedure – Rules on languages – Choice of the language of the case ‑ Obligation to respect choice in the case of an appeal or application for revision (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 29(3) and 100(3)) (see paras 13-15)

Re:

Application for revision of the judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 9 September 1999 in Case C-64/98 P by which that court dismissed the appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 1997 in Case T-152/95 – Rules of the Court governing languages.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for revision;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals Interest in bringing proceedings Event subsequent to the judgment of the Court of First Instance having removed the prejudicial effect thereof for the prospective appellant

2. Appeals Pleas in law Plea put forward for the first time at the stage of the appeal Inadmissible

(ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

3. ECSC Aid to the steel industry Prohibition Conditions Prejudicial to competition Excluded

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 4(c))

Summary

1. The Court of Justice can declare an appeal to be inadmissible where an event subsequent to the judgment of the Court of First Instance has removed the prejudicial effect thereof for the prospective appellant. The fact that the appellant has an interest in bringing the proceedings assumes that the appeal is likely, if successful, to procure an advantage to the party bringing it.

( see para. 18 )

2. To allow one party to raise for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea which it had not raised before the Court of First Instance would amount to allowing it to bring before the Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a case of wider scope than that which was before the Court of First Instance for adjudication. On appeal, the competence of the Court of Justice is confined to examining the Court of First Instance's assessment of the pleas argued before it.

( see para. 25 )

3. Under Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty, unlike Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC), for aid to be considered incompatible with the common market, it is not necessary for it to distort or threaten to distort competition. That provision of the ECSC Treaty prohibits all aid without any restriction, with the result that it cannot contain any a de minimis rule.

( see para. 41 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Decisions against which an appeal may be brought - Order of the Court of First Instance requiring production of documents - Not covered - Appeal must be dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 49, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 119)

Summary

$$Pursuant to Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of the Justice, an appeal seeking to have an order made by the Court of First Instance set aside must be dismissed as clearly inadmissible where the order under appeal instructs the Commission to produce documents so that they can be placed in the case-file and made available to the other party. Such an order does not fall within one of the categories of measure against which an appeal may be brought pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 49 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 1999. - Claude Willeme v Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal - Order of the President of the Court of First Instance in proceedings for interim relief. - Case C-65/99 P.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-01857



Summary



Keywords

1 Applications for interim measures - Procedure - Whether it is desirable to hear oral argument from the parties - Discretion of the court hearing an application for interim relief

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36, first para., and 46, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 105)

2 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Circumstances in which the non-material damage cannot be remedied more satisfactorily by means of interim relief than by a ruling on the substance - No urgency

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

1 The question whether it is desirable to hear oral argument from the parties falls within the discretion of the court hearing an application for interim relief.

2 If the suspension sought cannot better remedy the purported non-material damage than the ruling on the substance, the condition concerning urgency is not satisfied. The purpose of proceedings for interim relief is not to ensure reparation for damage but rather to ensure that the ruling on the substance has full effect.
Keywords



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt - Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(3))

2. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Exclusive jurisdiction - Proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property - Definition - Action for rescission of a contract of sale of immovable property and for damages for rescission - Excluded

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 16(1))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals - Pleas in law - Incorrect assessment of the facts - Inadmissibility

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

2. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions governing admissibility - Main action prima facie admissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2))

Summary

1. Under Articles 225 EC and 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal must be limited to points of law and lies on the grounds of lack of competence of the Court of First Instance, a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the appellant as well as the infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance. Consequently the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to make findings of fact, save where the documents in the file submitted to it show that its findings are materially incorrect, and, second, to assess those facts.

( see paras 31-32 )

2. Although it is true that the question of the admissibility of the main action should not, in principle, be examined in the context of proceedings for interim relief, so as not to prejudge the merits of the case, it may nevertheless be necessary, in order for an application to suspend the operation of a measure to be declared admissible, for the applicant to prove the existence of certain matters permitting the conclusion prima facie that the main action to which his application for interim relief relates is admissible, so as to prevent him from obtaining, by way of proceedings for interim relief, the suspension of the operation of a measure which the Court may subsequently refuse to annul, his action having been ruled inadmissible when examined on its merits. Such examination of the admissibility of the action is necessarily summary because the proceedings for interim relief are by nature urgent, and the question of admissibility can be considered only on the basis of the facts adduced by the applicant. However, the decision of the judge hearing an application for interim relief does not prejudge the decision to be made by the Court of First Instance on hearing the main action.

( see paras 34-35 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC - Definition - Amtsgericht acting in its capacity as court responsible for keeping the commercial register and not ruling on any dispute - Excluded

(Art. 234 EC)

Summary

$$It follows from Article 234 EC that a national court may refer a question to the Court of Justice only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature.

The Amtsgericht Heidelberg (Germany) may not therefore make a reference to the Court in its capacity as authority responsible for keeping the commercial register, in a case concerning an entry in that register, where there is nothing to indicate that there is a dispute pending before that court, which is the first authority to have before it the application for registration, that application not having given rise to a decision against which an application for review was made to the court.

( see paras 11, 14-15 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Interim relief - Jurisdiction of the judge hearing an application for interim relief - Limits - Jurisdiction of the judge hearing an application for interim relief in the Court of First Instance to order measures intended to have effect until the date on which the Court of Justice delivers a judgment - No such jurisdiction

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC)

2. Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments raised before the Court of First Instance - Error of law relied on not identified - Inadmissible

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

Summary

1. Under Article 107(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, unless the order of the judge hearing an application for interim relief fixes the date on which the interim measure is to lapse, the measure lapses when final judgment is delivered. It follows that the President of the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to grant, by way of reasoned order, suspension of the operation of an act in the context of proceedings that are pending before that court but may not extend the effects of such an order to any appeal which may be brought before the Court of Justice and that only the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to rule on any application for suspension of operation of a measure made in the context of an appeal.

( see para. 76 )

2. It follows from Article 225 EC, the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the contested judgment, confines itself to reproducing the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts which were expressly rejected by that court. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for a re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake.

( see para. 81 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods or services — Aim — Requirement of free availability — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods or services — Definition — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

3. Appeals — Grounds — Review by the Court of Justice of the appraisal of the facts submitted to the Court of First Instance — Excluded — Word marks for which registration as Community trade marks is sought — (Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

Summary

1. By prohibiting the registration as Community trade marks of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate characteristics of the goods or service in respect of which registration is sought, Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 pursues an aim in the public interest, namely that such signs or indications may be freely used by all. That provision therefore precludes such signs or indications from being reserved to a sole undertaking on account of their registration as trade marks.

see paras 26-27

2. In order for the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to refuse to register a trade mark under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, it is not necessary that the signs and indications composing the mark that are referred to in that article actually be in use at the time of the application for registration in a way that is descriptive of goods or services such as those in relation to which the application is filed, or of characteristics of those goods or services. It is sufficient, as the wording of that provision itself indicates, that such signs and indications could be used for such purposes. Thus, under Article 7(1)(c), registration of a word mark must be refused if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods or services concerned.

see para. 28

3. The Court of First Instance ' s assessment of the facts in the context of an action for annulment brought against the decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) ─ which leads that court to consider, first, that the word marks for which registration is sought have specific meanings in and are properly formed in accordance with the grammatical rules of a given language and are composed of common words in that language and, second, that those word marks designate the kind of goods and the intended use of the services for which registration is sought ─ is not a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal.

see paras 30-35
ORDER OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

29 January 2004

((Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Freedom of movement for persons – Directive 91/439/EEC – Driving licences – Mutual recognition – Compulsory exchange))

and

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

the national court having been informed that the Court proposes to give its decision by way of a reasoned order in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice having been invited to submit any observations which they might wish to make in this regard, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following

Order

1

2

Relevant provisions

3

4

5

6

7

8

1.

2.

3.

4.

9

10

11

1.

(h)

12

1.

(a)

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

1.

2.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

R. Grass A. Rosas
Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 9 September 2002. - Commission of the European Communities v Ireland. - Removal from the register. - Case C-120/01.



European Court reports 2002 Page I-06739



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure - Discontinuance by the applicant - Removal from the Register

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 78)

Parties

In Case C-120/01,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by R.B. Wainwright, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Ireland, represented by D.J. O'Hagan and C. O'Rourke, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Nyland, BL, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing by 16 September 1999 to prepare and communicate to the Commission the plans, outlines and summaries required pursuant to Articles 11 and 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT

after hearing Advocate General Mischo

makes the following

Order

Grounds

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 16 March 2001, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action pursuant to Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by failing by 16 September 1999 to prepare and communicate to the Commission the plans, outlines and summaries required pursuant to Articles 11 and 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2 By letter of 15 July 2002 received at the Court Registry on 17 July 2002, the Commission informed the Court, in accordance with Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure, that it wished to discontinue the proceedings.

3 Ireland did not submit any observations relating to that discontinuance within the time allowed to it for that purpose.

4 Pursuant to the third indent of Article 69(5) of the Rules of Procedure, the parties should be ordered to bear their own costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT

hereby orders:

1. Case C-120/01 is removed from the register.

2. The Commission of the European Communities and Ireland shall bear their own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Conditions of payment — Leaving the geographical territory of the Community — Definition — (Commission Regulation No 2730/79, Art. 9(1))

Summary

Article 9(1) of Regulation No 2730/79, which makes the payment of the export refund subject to the condition that, as matters stand, the product must have left the geographical territory of the Community, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression "geographical territory of the Community" refers to a physical concept and that the requirement that the product in respect of which export refunds have been applied for must have left the geographical territory of the Community is not satisfied either by placing the product under customs control or by bringing it within the customs warehousing procedure.

see para. 46, operative part
Case C-23/02





Office national de l'emploi

v

Mohamed Alami





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Cour de cassation)

«(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement – Article 41 – Principle of non-discrimination in the field of social security – Scope – Unemployment benefit)»

Order of the Court (Second Chamber), 12 February 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order
ORDER OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

16 October 2003

((Article 104(3) Rules of Procedure – Procurement contracts – Directive 93/36/EEC – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Incorrect assessment as regards the criterion for determining the most economically advantageous tender – Procurement procedure discontinued))

and

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

the national court having been informed that the Court proposes to give its decision by reasoned order in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice having been invited to submit any observations which they might wish to make in this regard, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following

Order

1

2

Legal background

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

R. Grass V. Skouris