ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2012 — Šujetová

(Case C-252/11)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Case pending before the national court rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 13-15)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Provision of national law under which exclusive jurisdiction in relation to an application for annulment of an arbitral award is attributed to the court in whose area of jurisdiction the arbitration proceedings took place — Provision of national law under which that court is under an obligation, upon annulling an arbitral award, to continue the main proceedings without re-examining its territorial jurisdiction — Unfair arbitration agreement or arbitration clause.

Operative part

It is not necessary to give a ruling on the reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia), by decision of 7 April 2011 in Case C-252/11.

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2012 — Šujetová

(Case C-252/11)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Case pending before the national court rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 13-15)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Provision of national law under which exclusive jurisdiction in relation to an application for annulment of an arbitral award is attributed to the court in whose area of jurisdiction the arbitration proceedings took place — Provision of national law under which that court is under an obligation, upon annulling an arbitral award, to continue the main proceedings without re-examining its territorial jurisdiction — Unfair arbitration agreement or arbitration clause.

Operative part

It is not necessary to give a ruling on the reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia), by decision of 7 April 2011 in Case C-252/11.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 – Connoisseur Belgium v Belgische Staat

(Case C‑69/11)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Sixth VAT Directive – Article 11(A)(1)(a) – Taxable amount – Costs not charged by the taxable person

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable amount – Provision of services – Consideration actually received by the provider – Costs that were not charged but that could have been under the contract – Excluded (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 11(A)(1)(a)) (see para. 22, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge – Interpretation of Article 11(A)(1)(a) 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) and of Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – Hiring-out of pleasure craft – Agreement on the allocation of costs between the undertaking providing the craft for hire and the undertaking hiring them – Possible to charge certain costs to the hiring undertaking – No charge made – National provision requiring VAT to be paid on those uncharged costs.

Operative part

On a proper construction of Article 11(A)(1)(a) 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, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, value added tax is not due on costs or amounts that could contractually have been charged, but were not, by the taxable person to the other contracting party.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2012 — Novartis v Actavis Deutschland and Actavis

(Case C‑574/11)

The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Articles 4 and 5 — Sole active ingredient for which such a certificate is granted — Scope of protection — Medicinal product containing more than one active ingredient, including the active ingredient which is the subject of a certificate

Approximation of laws — Uniform legislation — Industrial and commercial property — Patent right — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Protection conferred by the certificate — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 469/2009, Arts 4 and 5) (see paras 18-21, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Scope of the certificate — Protection solely of medicinal products consisting only of the protected active ingredient or protection extended to medicinal products consisting of the protected active ingredient in combination with another active ingredient.

Operative part

Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, where a ‘product’ consisting of an active ingredient was protected by a basic patent and the holder of that patent was able to rely on the protection conferred by that patent for that ‘product’ in order to oppose the marketing of a medicinal product containing that active ingredient in combination with one or more other active ingredients, a supplementary protection certificate granted for that ‘product’ enables its holder, after the basic patent has expired, to oppose the marketing by a third party of a medicinal product containing that product for a use of the ‘product’, as a medicinal product, which was authorised before that certificate expired.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 May 2012 —

World Wide Tobacco España v Commission



(Case C-240/11 P)

Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — The Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Mitigating circumstances — Maximum limit of 10% of turnover — Cooperation

1. Appeals — Grounds — Necessity of some specific criticism of a point in the General Court’s reasoning (Art. 256(1), second para., 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. 41)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36, 53, first para., and 58) (see para. 65)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2011 in Case T‑37/05 World Wide Tobacco España v Commission by which that court rejected in part an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final, of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C. 38. 238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain).

Operative part

1. The main appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed.

2. World Wide Tobacco España, SA is ordered to pay the costs of the main appeal.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 March 2012 —

Emram v OHIM



(Case C‑354/11 P)

Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for registration of the figurative mark G — Trade marks

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

2. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 48)

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

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 May 2011 in Case T‑187/10 Emram v OHIM dismissing the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2010 (Case R 1281/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Guccio Gucci SpA and Mr Emram — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Application for Community figurative mark G — Likelihood of confusion — Distortion of the evidence — Incorrect assessment of the distinctive character — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 —

Tate & Lyle Investments



(Case C-384/11)

The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Article 63 TFEU — Tax legislation — Payment of dividends — Withholding tax — Prevention or mitigation of a series of charges to tax — Different treatment of resident recipient companies and non-resident recipient companies

Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — National legislation subjecting dividends paid, following a corporate division, by a resident company to a non-resident company to heavier taxation than that imposed on dividends paid in all cases to companies which are resident in the Member State concerned — Not permissible — Limits — Neutralisation of the effects of the restriction by imposing withholding tax on the tax due in the other Member State in accordance with a double-taxation convention — Determination by the national court (Art. 63 TFEU) (see paras 18-46, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 63 TFEU — Restrictions on the free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Tax on dividends — National rules providing for a 10% withholding tax on dividends distributed by resident companies and on assimilated income — Imputation to corporation tax of the amount withheld possible only for resident companies.

Operative part

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which applies withholding tax to dividends distributed by a resident company to resident and non-resident recipient companies which have a holding of less than 10% in the capital of the distributing company but with a purchase value of at least EUR 1.2 million, while at the same time providing a mechanism for the mitigation of a series of charges to tax only for resident recipient companies. Where a Member State relies on a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded with another Member State, it is for the national court to establish whether account should be taken, in the main proceedings, of that convention, and, if so, to determine whether it enables the effects of the restriction on the free movement of capital to be neutralised.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2012 —

Cooperativa Vitivinicola Arousana v OHIM



(Case C-649/11 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Likelihood of confusion – Word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO – Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ROSALIA

1. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice 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. 39)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea directed against a superfluous ground – Invalid plea in law – Rejection (see para. 55)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 in Case T-421/10 Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana v OHIM – Sotelo Ares , by which the General Court rejected the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2010 (Case R 1804/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between María Constantina Sotelo Ares and Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a contract relating to the storage of goods constitutes a contract for the provision of services within the meaning of that provision.

In that regard, the predominant element of a storage contract is the fact that the warehousekeeper undertakes to store the goods concerned on behalf of the other party to the contract. Accordingly, that commitment entails a specific activity, consisting, at the least, of the reception of goods, their storage in a safe place and their return to the other party to the contract in an appropriate state.

(see paras 27, 30, operative part)
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Abdel

(Case C-75/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the main proceedings — Manifestly inadmissible’

Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Manifest inadmissibility (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 5-7)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a foreign national who has entered national territory illegally or has stayed there illegally — Whether it is permissible to regard illegal stay as a criminal offence — Whether it is possible to substitute for the fine an order for immediate expulsion for a period of at least five years or a measure restricting freedom (‘permanenza domiciliare’) — Member States’ obligations during the period for transposition of a directive.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Abdel

(Case C-75/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the main proceedings — Manifestly inadmissible’

Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Manifest inadmissibility (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 5-7)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a foreign national who has entered national territory illegally or has stayed there illegally — Whether it is permissible to regard illegal stay as a criminal offence — Whether it is possible to substitute for the fine an order for immediate expulsion for a period of at least five years or a measure restricting freedom (‘permanenza domiciliare’) — Member States’ obligations during the period for transposition of a directive.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — Loreti and Others

(Case C-555/12)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — None — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Subject-matter of the national dispute bearing no link to EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 15-19)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — General or hypothetical questions — Determination by the Court of its own jurisdiction (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 20)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — National legislation providing for a division of jurisdiction as between civil and administrative courts based on the distinction between individual rights and legitimate interests — Those concepts not clearly distinguished.

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — Loreti and Others

(Case C-555/12)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — None — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Subject-matter of the national dispute bearing no link to EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 15-19)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — General or hypothetical questions — Determination by the Court of its own jurisdiction (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 20)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — National legislation providing for a division of jurisdiction as between civil and administrative courts based on the distinction between individual rights and legitimate interests — Those concepts not clearly distinguished.

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Union own ressources

—

Customs-approved treatments or uses

—

Release for free circulation

—

Administration of tariff quotas

—

Tariff quota opened on a Sunday, the day on which the customs offices in a Member State are closed, and exhausted on the same day

—

Exclusion from the exhausted tariff quota of an operator established in that Member State

—

Lawfulness

—

Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination

—

No such infringement (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 1427/97, Art. 308a to 308c) (see paras 36, 37, 41, 42, 49

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10005 final of 16 December 2009, holding that refunding import duties on canned tuna fish originating in Thailand to the appellant is not justified — Closure of customs offices on Sundays in certain Member States — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment — Erroneous interpretation.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Saupiquet SAS is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings

—

Application initiating proceedings

—

Formal requirements

—

Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer

—

Applicant with the status of lawyer authorised to practise before a national court

—

No effect

—

Manifest inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third and fourth paras, and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 57(1) and 119) (see paras 9, 10, 19, 20, 26, 31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 September 2012 in Case T-294/12 Faet Oltra v Ombudsman , by which that court rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant following the Commission’s refusal to initiate proceedings against the Kingdom of Spain for a failure to fulfil obligations following an alleged infringement of certain provisions and principles of social law.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Rafael Faet Oltra is ordered to pay his own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

—

Grounds

—

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, Arts 168(1)(d), 169 and 181) (see paras 12-15

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 September 2012 in Case T-320/12 Concal v Commission by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, first, an action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to initiate infringement proceedings against Romania for alleged infringements of the applicant’s rights to property and, second, an action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the actions of the Romanian authorities.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Mr Alexandru Octavian Concal is ordered to bear his own costs.
Court proceedings—Costs—Taxation—Recoverable costs—Factors to be taken into account—Discretion of the Court—Costs incurred in the context of an appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 144(b) and 184(1)

(see paras 13-15)