ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Driving licences – Directive 91/439 – Mutual recognition of driving licences

(Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Directive 2006/103, Arts 1(2), and 8(2) and (4))

Summary

Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, as amended by Directive 2006/103, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, when exercising its authority under Article 8(2) to apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the holder of a driving licence issued in another Member State, from refusing to recognise, in its territory, the right to drive resulting from a valid driving licence issued in another Member State on account of a medical report on fitness to drive submitted by the holder of the driving licence in question if the medical report, although issued after the date of issue of the driving licence and based on an examination of the party concerned carried out after that date, has no connection, even in part, to conduct of the person concerned occurring after the issue of the driving licence and relates solely to circumstances that took place before that date.

In order for the Member State of normal residence of the holder of a driving licence issued in another Member State to exercise its authority under Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439 to apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the holder of that licence, there must be evidence to doubt the licence-holder’s fitness to drive on the basis of circumstances that must relate to conduct of the person concerned after he had obtained his driving licence in another Member State and call into question his fitness to drive a vehicle. That requirement must not necessarily be understood as meaning that it relates only to a violation of the road traffic rules. It remains true, however, that for such a requirement to apply it is necessary to establish, at a given time, that conduct on the part of the licence-holder after the issue of the licence gives grounds for doubting his fitness to drive a vehicle, or even to conclude that he is unfit to drive.

(see paras 72, 75, 77, operative part)
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2009 – Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v IPN Bulgaria

(Case C‑181/09)

Preliminary rulings – Inadmissibility

Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context (Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20) (see paras 8-11)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) – Interpretation of Article 5(3)(b) and (c), First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) – Concepts of import and export of goods bearing a trade mark – Original goods or counterfeit goods?

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad made by decision 13 April 2009 is manifestly inadmissible.
Case C-496/09 INT

Italian Republic

v

European Commission

‛Interpretation of a judgment — Inadmissibility’

Summary — Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 11 July 2013

Judicial proceedings — Interpretation of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility thereof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 158(1))

An application for interpretation of a judgment must, in order to be admissible, concern the operative part of the judgment in question, together with the essential grounds, and seek to resolve an obscurity or ambiguity that may affect the meaning or scope of that judgment, in so far as the Court was required to decide the particular case before it. An application for interpretation of a judgment must therefore be deemed inadmissible where it is not founded on any difficulty as to the meaning and scope of the judgment which the Court is asked to interpret.

An application seeking to call into question the consequences of a strictly literal reading of the operative part of the judgment which the Court is asked to interpret cannot be reconciled either with Articles 43 of the Statute of the Court and 158(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court or with the force of res judicata which attaches to judgments of the Court, and is therefore inadmissble.

(see paras 8, 11, 12)

Case C-496/09 INT

Italian Republic

v

European Commission

‛Interpretation of a judgment — Inadmissibility’

Summary — Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 11 July 2013

Judicial proceedings — Interpretation of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility thereof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 158(1))

An application for interpretation of a judgment must, in order to be admissible, concern the operative part of the judgment in question, together with the essential grounds, and seek to resolve an obscurity or ambiguity that may affect the meaning or scope of that judgment, in so far as the Court was required to decide the particular case before it. An application for interpretation of a judgment must therefore be deemed inadmissible where it is not founded on any difficulty as to the meaning and scope of the judgment which the Court is asked to interpret.

An application seeking to call into question the consequences of a strictly literal reading of the operative part of the judgment which the Court is asked to interpret cannot be reconciled either with Articles 43 of the Statute of the Court and 158(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court or with the force of res judicata which attaches to judgments of the Court, and is therefore inadmissble.

(see paras 8, 11, 12)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 March 2010 – SPM v Council and Commission

(Case C‑39/09 P)

Appeal – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Common organisation of the banana market – Arrangements for importing bananas originating in ACP countries into the Community – Loss allegedly suffered by an independent producer – Failure to comply with the rules on competition in the field of the common agricultural policy – Infringement of general principles of law and, in particular, of the principle of sound administration – Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded

1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – System of importation – Tariff quota – Allocation and distribution (Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 19) (see paras 38-40)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Paramountcy in relation to objectives of the Treaty in the sphere of competition (Art. 36 EC; Council Regulation No 404/93) (see paras 47-48)

3. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – System of importation – Amendment of the legislation on allocation of tariff quotas –Measures intended to ensure the viability of independent ACP producers – None (Council Regulations No 404/93, as amended by No 1637/98, and No 856/1999; Commission Regulations No 2362/98 and No 896/2001) (see paras 68-74)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Provision without direct effect (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 78-79)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 in Case T-128/05 SPM v Council and Commission , by which the Court dismissed the appellant’s action seeking damages for the loss which it suffered as a result of the allegedly illegal rules adopted by the Council and the Commission on the import of bananas into the Community – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Bananas originating in ACP countries – Loss allegedly suffered by an independent producer – Failure to comply with the rules on competition in the field of the common agricultural policy – Infringement of general principles of law and, in particular, of the principle of sound administration.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2010 – Greece v Commission

(Case C-43/09 P)

Appeal – Commission decision reducing the financial assistance initially granted by the Cohesion Fund for the project for the new Athens International Airport at Spata – Action for annulment – Principles of non-retroactivity, legal certainty and proportionality – Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part

1. Community law – Interpretation – Acts of the institutions (Council Regulation No 1164/94; Commission Regulation No 1386/2002, Art. 1) (see paras 33, 35)

2. Acts of the institutions – Temporal application – Immediate application of the new rule to the future effects of a situation arising when the old rule was in force (see paras 47-54)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – 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), first para., (c)) (see paras 61-63)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) in Case T-404/05 Greece v Commission , by which the Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3243 of 1 September 2005 reducing the financial assistance initially granted by the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/09/65/040, concerning the new Athens International airport at Spata.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 June 2010 – Thomson Sales Europe v Commission

(Case C-498/09 P)

Appeal – Customs Code – Remission of import duties – Waiver of post-clearance recovery – Anti-dumping duties – No obvious negligence – Complexity of the legislation – Professional experience – Operator’s diligence – Colour televisions made in Thailand – Challengeable acts

1. Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), (2), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 81-84)

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import duties (Council Regulations No 2913/92, Art. 239, No 710/95, No 2584/98 and No 1531/2002; Commission Regulations No 2454/93 and No 2376/94) (see paras 99-103, 107-109, 114-115, 118-135)

3. Procedure – Measures of inquiry – Discretion of the Court of First Instance (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 64(3)(d)) (see paras 137-138)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 29 September 2009 of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Joined Cases T-225/07 and T-364/07 Thomson Sales Europe v Commission by which the Court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of Commission Decision REM No 03/05 of 7 May 2007 informing the French authorities that remission of import duties on the colour television receivers manufactured in Thailand covered by their application of 14 September 2005 was not justified, and for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 20 July 2007 not confirming entitlement to a waiver of post-clearance recovery of import duties on those items – Procedure relating to the application for remission of duties claimed on the basis of Article 239 of the Customs Code and for waiver of post-clearance recovery of those duties on the basis of Article 220(2)(b) of the Code – Failure to respect the rights of the defence – Error in the legal characterisation of the facts.

Operative part

1.Dismisses the appeal.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

–

Jurisdiction of the Court

–

Limits

–

Questions submitted in a context precluding a useful answer

–

Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 11-14, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal Dolj – Registration of second‑hand vehicles previously registered in another Member State – Environmental tax on vehicles on their first registration in a given Member State – Compatibility of the national rules with Article 110 TFEU – Temporary exemption for vehicles with certain characteristics.

Operative part

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by Tribunalul Dolj by decision of 9 June 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Formal requirements – Proof that the authority granted to the applicant’s lawyer has been properly conferred on him by someone authorised for the purpose – Excluded (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 38(5)(b) and 112(1)) (see para. 19)

2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Permission to lodge a reply – General Court’s discretion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(2)) (see para. 24)

3. 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. 30)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 in Case T-484/08 Longevity Health Products v OHIM – Merck (Kids Vits) , by which that court dismissed the action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008, refusing the registration of the word sign ‘Kids Vits’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 5, by upholding the opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘VITS4KIDS’ – Breach of the right to a judicial hearing – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion between two marks.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Longevity Health Products, Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Admissibility

–

Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 18-23

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Articles 5, 38 to 41 and 43, second indent of Article 177 and Articles 202(1) and (3) and 221(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and of Article 199(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties – Communication to the debtor – Creation of a customs debt following the unlawful introduction of goods.

Operative part

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen, made by decision of 31 May 2007, is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Internal taxation

–

Pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory

–

Tax applicable to imported second-hand vehicles and without any equivalent for vehicles of the same age and the same condition present on the national market

–

Not permissible (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 20-21, 23, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Apel Craiova – Registration of second-hand cars previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax levied on motor vehicles at the time of their first registration in a given Member State – Compatibility of the national legislation with Art. 110 TFEU – Temporary exemption for vehicles with certain characteristics.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State if that tax is arranged in such a way as to discourage the putting into circulation in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the domestic market.
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 28-29, 45)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 32, 36, 38)

3. Procedure – Measures of inquiry – Hearing of witnesses – Discretion of the Court of First Instance (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 66(1)) (see paras 49-51)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2010 in Case T‑401/09 Marcuccio v Commission , in which that court dismissed, first, the action for annulment of the purported decisions of the Court of Justice dismissing the claim for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of an alleged unlawful act committed when the appeal was served on Mr Luigi Marcuccio in Case T‑20/09 P and, second, a claim for damages.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Pleas in law – Necessity of a specific challenge to a point in the General Court’s reasoning (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 para. 60)

2. Procedure – Statement of reasons for judgments – Scope (see para. 87)

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mistaken 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. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 107)

4. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Measure not notified to the applicant – Duty to request the whole text of the decision within a reasonable time once aware of its existence (Art. 230, fifth para, EC) (see paras 127, 131)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 October 2010 in Case T‑439/08 Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA , by which that court dismissed the action brought by the applicant seeking annulment, first, of the decision of EACEA of 1 August 2008 relating to an application for access to documents concerning the allocation of a Jean Monnet centre of excellence to the University of Cyprus and, second, of Commission Decision C(2007) 3749 of 8 August 2007 relating to an individual decision to allocate subsidies in the context of the lifelong learning programme, a Jean Monnet sub-programme – Infringement of the right of access to documents and of the principle of transparency – Errors of law.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Ms Agapiou Joséphidès is 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 a preliminary procedure reviewing constitutionality – Not permissible – Condition (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 21)

2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National decision not indicating any connection with the law of the Union – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 17, 47 and 51(1)) (see paras 22-25)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal de première instance de Liège – Interpretation of Articles 6 TEU, 267 TFEU and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Obligatory preliminary referral to the constitutional court by national courts in cases of presumed infringement of fundamental rights by national legislation – Compatibility with Union law of the provision of national law requiring that preliminary referral – Possibility for national courts of reviewing the compatibility of 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

Operative part

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

Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — Gambling — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of criminal penalties, the collecting of bets without a licence or authorisation — Licence or authorisation refused in breach of Union law (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 7, operative part 1)

2. Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — Gambling — National legislation prohibiting the collecting of bets without a licence or police authorisation — Operator excluded from the call for tenders for the award of such licences, in breach of Union law (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (See para. 8, operative part 2)

3. Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Gambling — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of criminal penalties, the collecting of bets without a licence or authorisation — Conditions for the withdrawal of licences granted at the end of a tendering procedure (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (See para. 9, operative part 3)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 September 2010 – Pérez Guerra v BNP Paribas and Spain

(Case C‑142/10 P)

Appeal – Action brought by a natural or legal person against another natural or legal person and against a Member State – General Court clearly lacking jurisdiction – Appeal manifestly unfounded

Procedure – Action brought by a natural or legal person seeking to have Union law observed by a Member State – Union judicature lacking jurisdiction – Inadmissibility (see paras 3-4)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 February 2010 in Case T-3/10 Pérez Guerra v BNP Paribas and Spain by which that court dismissed, for manifest inadmissibility, an application for recognition of ownership of a pension fund and a claim for receipt of the sums supposedly due on that basis.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.