ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals – Interest in bringing proceedings

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87, Arts 9 and 11)

Summary

1. The Court may declare an appeal to be inadmissible when an event subsequent to the judgment of the Court of First Instance has removed its prejudicial effect as regards the appellant. For an applicant to have an interest in bringing proceedings the appeal must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage to the party bringing it.

(see para. 48)

2. The possibility of determining more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom a measure applies, by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, as long as it is established that that application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question.

With regard to the application of Directive 2003/87 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Directive 96/61, a Commission decision addressed to a Member State and rejecting in part a National Allocation Plan (NAP) for such allowances for the second allocation period is of general application, since it applies to objectively determined situations and entails legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract. Also, the fact that that decision resulted in the prohibition of the maintenance in force of the allocation guarantee which could have been claimed by certain operators under a national law concerning allocation of allowances for the first allocation period is not capable of conferring on that decision the character of a conglomeration of individual decisions. In that regard, the fact that the NAP notified by the Member State to the Commission must contain a list of the installations covered by the emission trading scheme and a statement of the allowances which that State intends to grant to those installations, does not make it possible to conclude that, by that decision, the Commission ruled on the individual applications.

In any case, whilst they cannot apply for the annulment of the contested decision, the operators concerned retain the possibility of challenging the national measures taken in application of the contested decision and, in that context, of relying on its illegality before the national courts, adjudicating in accordance with Article 234 EC.

(see paras 70-73, 78)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Interpretation of a judgment

–

Application for interpretation of a preliminary ruling

–

Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 92(1)) (see paras 5, 8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for interpretation of a preliminary ruling given by the Court of Justice, on 19 March 2009, in Case C-309/07 Baumann .

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interpretation is dismissed.

2. Baumann GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs.
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2007 in Case T 322/05

Brinkmann

v

OHIM

–

Terra Networks

(

Terranus

) dismissing the action brought by the applicant for the Community word mark ‘TERRANUS’ (for goods in Class 36) for annulment of Decision R 1145/2004-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 June 2005, by which the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to refuse registration of the mark was dismissed in opposition proceedings brought by the holder of the Community trade mark and national figurative mark ‘TERRA’ for goods in Class 36 – Likelihood of confusion between the two marks.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 – Mihal v Daňový úrad Košice V

(Case C‑456/07)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Sixth VAT Directive – Taxable persons – Article 4(5), first subparagraph – Bodies governed by public law – Bailiffs – Natural and legal persons

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable persons (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(5), first para.) (see para. 23)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky – Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Treatment of a body governed by public law as a non-taxable person in respect of activities or operations engaged in as a public authority – Inclusion of bailiffs in the exercise of their public duties – Direct effect.

Operative part

An activity exercised by a private individual, such as that of a bailiff, is not exempted from value added tax merely because it consists in engaging in acts falling within the rights and powers of a public authority. Even on the assumption that, in the exercise of his duties, a bailiff does carry out such acts, he does not, under legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, exercise his activity in the form of a body governed by public law, not being integrated into the organisation of the public administration, but in the form of an independent economic activity carried out in a self-employed capacity, and, consequently, he is not covered by the exemption provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Turnover taxes

–

Common system of value added tax

–

Prohibition on the levying of other domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 33(1)) (see paras 36-38, 43, 46, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña – Interpretation of Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Definition of ‘turnover tax’ – Domestic duty on transfers of assets and documented legal transactions.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 33(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the charging of the variable or proportional amount of the duty on transfers of assets and documented legal transactions when it is chargeable on the conclusion of a purchase by an undertaking whose business activity consists of buying and selling immovable property or purchasing immovable property for development or letting.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Measures adopted by the national authorities – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 7-8)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of action reserved to the Commission and the Member States – Action brought by a natural or legal person – Inadmissible (Arts 226 EC and 227 EC) (see paras 9-10)

Subject of the case

Re:

Actions for annulment – Infringement, by a Member State, of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32) – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the present case.

2. Ms Raulin is ordered to bear her own costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Dorel Juvenile Group Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 January 2009 — Sack v Commission

(Case C-38/08 P)

‛Appeal — Civil service — Remuneration — Non-application of the increment provided for heads of unit to a legal adviser of grade A*14 — Principle of equal treatment’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Ground submitted for the first time in an appeal — Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see paras 23, 45)

2. Officials of the European Communities — Equal treatment — Limits — Advantage unlawfully granted (see para. 32)

3. Officials of the European Communities — Organisation of departments — Unit (see paras 46, 48)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2007 in Case T-66/05 Sack v Commission, by which that Court rejected an application for the annulment of the decisions relating to the setting of the applicant’s monthly salary for the period from May 2004 to February 2005, an application for that salary to be recalculated and an application for the annulment of the decision expressly rejecting the applicant’s claim — Non-application of the increment provided for heads of unit to a legal adviser of grade A*14 in the Commission’s legal service responsible for the coordination of a working group — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



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 having a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 28, 39, 43-44

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment in Case T‑128/06 Japan Tobacco v OHIM and Torrefacçao Camelo by which that Court dismissed the action brought by the appellant for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2006 relating to opposition proceedings between Japan Tobacco and Torrefacçao Camelo – Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) – Relative grounds for refusal to register a trade mark – Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character of an earlier trade mark, or detrimental to that distinctive character.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Japan Tobacco, Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Union citizenship – Treaty provisions – Substantive scope – Exclusion of purely internal situations (Arts 17 EC and 18 EC) (see paras 14-18, operative part 1)

2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Question referred in the course of a dispute relating to the application of a national provision which is not within the scope of Community law – Excluded (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 22-24, operative part 2)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia – Interpretation of Article 6 EU, Article 3 of the First Additional Protocol and Article 2 of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Interpretation of Articles 17 EC and 18 EC – Compatibility of regional legislation restricting the right of an Italian national to be nominated for election on the basis of a requirement of residence in the region.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. Articles 17 EC and 18 EC do not preclude national legislation which, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, includes among the requirements for eligibility for election to a regional assembly, the obligation to reside in the region concerned at the time when nominations are put forward.

2. The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly does not have jurisdiction to reply to the first question referred by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Absolute bar to proceeding (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 21)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 26, 28-30)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Need for natural or legal persons to proceed by way of a preliminary ruling on validity (Arts 10 EC, 230, fourth para., EC and 234 EC) (see para. 38)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 14 July 2008 in Case T-366/06 Calebus v Commission , in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the application for partial annulment of Article 1 of Annex 1 of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Ramblas de Gergal, Tabernas y Sur de Sierra Alhamilla’, which includes land belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Calebus SA is ordered to bear its own costs.

3. The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Transport

–

Road transport

–

Driving licences

–

Directive 91/439 (Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Arts 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4) (see paras 59-63, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) – Interpretation of Article 9 of Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991, on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) – Refusal to recognise a driving licence issued in another Member State in disregard of the residence condition – Whether possible for the host Member State, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the residence condition was satisfied at the time when the driving licence was issued, to rely on statements and information provided by the driving licence holder in the course of administrative procedures or court proceedings and which he was obliged to provide, or, where appropriate, to conduct further investigations in the issuing Member State – Holder having had his national licence withdrawn for drunk driving, and having been unable to produce the medical-psychological report required in order to obtain a new licence in his State of residence.

Operative part

Operative part:

Articles 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is precluded from refusing, within its territory, to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State to a person who has earlier, in the host Member State, had his previous driving licence withdrawn for drunk driving, and when that second licence has been obtained after any period in which he is forbidden to apply for a new licence, if it transpires:

– that, on the basis of the explanations and information provided by the holder of that licence in the course of administrative procedures or court proceedings pursuant to an obligation to cooperate imposed on him under the national law of the host Member State, the condition of residence was not observed by the Member State which issued that licence,

or

– that information obtained during investigations conducted by the national authorities and courts of the host Member State in the issuing Member State is not incontestable information from the issuing Member State attesting that the holder was not normally resident in the territory of that State when it issued a driving licence.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 December 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case C-528/08 P)

‛Appeal — Officials — Social security — Implied refusal of a request for 100% reimbursement of certain medical costs incurred by an official — Order of the Civil Service Tribunal disclaiming jurisdiction — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — 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. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 29)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-144/08 Marcuccio v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of the decision to refuse the appellant’s request for 100% reimbursement of certain medical expenses, and seeking an order that the Commission pay the appellant the amount of EUR 89.56 as a supplementary reimbursement of his medical expenses or as compensation for loss.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications to designate a product’s characteristics (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 29-31)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 36)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2008 in Case T-226/07 Prana Haus v OHIM , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action seeking annulment of the decision of 18 April 2007 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision to refuse registration of the word mark PRANAHAUS for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 35 – Descriptive character of the mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Prana Haus GmbH to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Rajani to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2009 – Mechel Nemunas v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C‑119/08)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – First VAT Directive – Sixth VAT Directive – Article 33(1) – Concept of ‘turnover taxes’ – Tax calculated on the basis of an undertaking’s turnover to finance the maintenance and development programme for national roads

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Prohibition on the levying of other domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 33(1)) (see paras 34-38, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas – Interpretation of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14) and of Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 45, p. 1) – Lithuanian road tax calculated on the basis of an undertaking’s turnover to finance the maintenance and development programme for national roads.

Operative part

Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a tax such as the levy on revenue laid down by the Lithuanian Law on the financing of the road maintenance and development programme (Lietuvos Respublikos kelių priežiūros ir plėtros programos finansavimo įstatymas).
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 – Gargani v Parliament

(Case C‑25/08 P)

Appeal – Action brought by the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliament against the ‘action’ of the President of the Parliament which led to the submission of observations in the name of the Parliament in a matter which related to a reference for a preliminary ruling – Time-limit for initiating proceedings

1. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect application of the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC as regards the time-limit for initiating proceedings (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 19-26)

2. Appeals – Operative part of order justified by ground stated ex abundanti cautela – Dismissal (see paras 24-25)

Re:

Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2007 in Case T-94/06 Gargani v Parliament , in which that Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the action brought by the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament, seeking a declaration of unlawfulness in relation to the decision of the President of the European Parliament to submit written observations in the name of the Parliament in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 23 of the Statute of the Court in relation to a reference for a preliminary ruling, contrary to the advice of the Commission of Legal Affairs, and his refusal to submit the issue to the plenary assembly.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Gargani to pay the costs.