ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2009 – Japan Tobacco v OHIM

(Case C‑136/08 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(5) – Detriment done to the distinctive character of the earlier mark – Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark – Likelihood – Application for registration of the figurative sign ‘CAMELO’ as a Community trade mark – Opposition by the proprietor of the national word and figurative marks CAMEL

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)

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:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2009 – Ayyanarsamy v Commission and Germany

(Case C‑251/08 P)

Appeal manifestly inadmissible and unfounded – Alleged infringement of the appellant’s fundamental rights by the national authorities – Action for annulment of the Commission’s letter stating that it had no power to intervene before the national courts – Concept of ‘challengeable act’ for the purposes of Article 230 EC

1. Appeals – Grounds – Plea not precisely stated – Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)) (see paras 10-12)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 14-19)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 1 April 2008 in Case T-412/07 Ayyanarsamy v Commission and Germany , by which that Court dismissed, partly on the ground of manifest inadmissibility and partly on the ground of manifest lack of jurisdiction, the action seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s letter of 18 September 2007 informing the appellant that it could not intervene in his favour before the German courts and, secondly, payment of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant by reason of the conduct of the German authorities – Infringement of the rights of individuals arising from Articles 230 EC and 232 EC – Concept of challengeable act for the purposes of Article 230 EC.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Admissibility

–

Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 92(1) and 103(1) (see paras 9-20

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Interpretation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) – Scope – Civil service of the Regional Government of Andalusia – Principle of non‑discrimination.

Operative part

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 3 de Almería, by decision of 22 September 2009, is manifestly inadmissible.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Hasbro Inc. shall bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Claims unsupported by any specific plea in law – Inadmissibility (Art. 225(1)(2) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 33-36)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken 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 – Legal classification of the facts – Admissibility (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see paras 40-44)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Admissibility – Scope of the obligation to state reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para 51)

4. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (see para 72)

5. Community law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Application to all proceedings brought against a person that may lead to an act adversely affecting that person – Principle that must be guaranteed even when there are no rules governing the proceedings in question – Scope (see paras 75-79)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2009 in Case T–444/07 CPEM v Commission dismissing the appellant’s application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007 cancelling the assistance granted by the European Social Fund (ESF) by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999 – Microprojects promoting employment and social cohesion – Infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of equal treatment – Failure to take into account the concept of ‘co-responsibility’ – Failure to observe the principle of legal certainty as a result of the existence of several different versions of the ‘Promoter’s Guide’ – Doubts as to the applicability of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1) on which OLAF’s decision was based.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the Court of First Instance – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 25)

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 –Definition (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 37)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2008 in Case T-335/07 Mergel and Others v OHIM , by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2007, dismissing the action against the decision of the examiner to refuse the registration of the Community word mark ‘Patentconsult’ for the goods and services within Classes 35, 41 and 42 – Distinctive character of a mark which consists exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the characteristics of the goods or services concerned.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mergel, Kampfenkel, Bill and Herden are ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – Jurisdiction of the national courts – National legislation confirming the priority nature of national preliminary proceedings for reviewing constitutionality – Not permissible – Condition

(Art. 234 EC)

2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Subject-matter of national dispute not having any connection with EU law – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 234 EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1))

Summary

1. Article 234 EC precludes Member State legislation which establishes an interlocutory procedure for the review of the constitutionality of national laws, in so far as the priority nature of that procedure prevents, both before the submission of a question on constitutionality to the national court responsible for reviewing the constitutionality of laws and, as the case may be, after the decision of that court on that question, all other national courts or tribunals from exercising their right or fulfilling their obligation to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

(see para. 20)

2. When proceedings are brought before it under Article 234 EC, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of the EC Treaty and the validity and interpretation of the acts of the institutions of the European Union. In that context, the jurisdiction of the Court is confined to considering provisions of EU law only.

Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that its provisions are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing European Union law. Furthermore, that limitation has not been amended by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, since when, under Article 6(1) TEU, the Charter has the same legal value as the Treaties. That article states that the provisions of the Charter are not to extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties.

It follows that the jurisdiction of the Court to answer a request for interpretation of Article 6(1) TEU, as it stood before the Treaty of Lisbon, has not been established when the order for reference does not contain any specific information that might allow the subject-matter of the dispute to be considered connected with EU law.

(see paras 21, 23-26)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Capital duty charged on capital companies

(Council Directive 69/335, Arts 11(a), and 12(1)(a))

Summary

Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, and, more particularly, Articles 11(a) and 12(1)(a) thereof, does not preclude legislation of a Member State that, in order to prevent tax avoidance in the context of the transfer of immovable assets by companies, subjects transfers of securities to tax on capital transfers when those transfers of shares represent shares in the share capital of companies the assets of which are at least 50% comprised of immovable property and when the purchaser has, following such a transfer, a position that allows it to exercise control over the entity at issue, even in cases in which, firstly, there was no intention to evade tax and in which, secondly, those companies are fully operational and the immovable properties cannot be dissociated from the economic activity carried out by those companies.

(see para. 21, operative part)
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya and Others

(Cases C‑474/09 P-DEP to C‑476/09 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Appeal proceedings before the Court — Unavoidable costs for the purposes of those proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 22)

Operative part

The total amount of costs which Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava and Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa are ordered to reimburse, in equal shares, to Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja is fixed at EUR 1 186.21.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya and Others

(Cases C‑474/09 P-DEP to C‑476/09 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Appeal proceedings before the Court — Unavoidable costs for the purposes of those proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 22)

Operative part

The total amount of costs which Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava and Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa are ordered to reimburse, in equal shares, to Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja is fixed at EUR 1 186.21.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2010 – Ricci and Pisaneschi v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

(Joined Cases C‑286/09 and C-287/09)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Officials – Retirement pension – Cumulation of periods of insurance – Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations – Taking account of periods of activity within the European Communities – Article 10 EC

Member States – Obligations – Duty to cooperate in good faith with the institutions of the European Union – Periods of activity in the service of an institution or body of the Union not taken into account for the grant of an early or normal retirement pension under the national scheme – Not permissible (Art. 10 EC; Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Art. 11(2)) (see para. 32-34, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Corte d’appello di Roma – Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community – Interpretation of Articles 17, 39 and 42 EC – Old-age pension – Aggregation of insurance periods – Failure to take into account the period of affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities.

Operative part:

Article 10 EC, together with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that does not permit account to be taken of years worked by a European Union citizen in a European Union institution, such as the Commission of the European Communities, or in a European Union body, such as the Economic and Social Committee, for the purpose of establishing a right to a retirement pension under the national scheme, regardless of whether the person involved takes early retirement or retires at the usual age.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2010 – Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etaireia v Council and Commission

(Case C‑451/09 P)

Appeal – Non-contractual liability – Proof of Community origin of products fished by a vessel owned by a company registered under Greek law – Failure to adopt provisions permitting the customs authorities of the Member States to accept documents issued by a non-Member State, other than form T2M

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

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

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

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

Re:

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

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2010 – Agricola Esposito v Agenzia delle Entrate – Ufficio di Taranto 2

(Case C-492/09)

Articles 92(1), 103(1) and 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Electronic networks and communication services – Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC – Government authorisation tax –Inadmissible in part – Questions the answer to which leaves room for no reasonable doubt

1. Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 21-26, operative part 1)

2. Approximation of laws – Electronic communications networks and services – Authorisation and legislative background – Directives 2002/20 and 2002/21 (European Parliament and Council Directives 2002/20 and 2002/21) (see paras 35-36, 38, 40-44, operative part 2)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commissione tributaria provinciale di Taranto – Interpretation of Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) – Imposition of a government authorisation tax in the case of a telephone subscription contract – Tax not applied in the case of a prepaid telephone card – Whether permissible.

Operative part

1. The part of the fourth question that relates to Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services and the sixth question are inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 32)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (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. 36)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2009 in Case T-150/08 REWE-Zentral v OHIM , by which that court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2008 refusing the registration of the word sign ‘Clina’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 3 and 21 by upholding the opposition brought by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘CLINAIR’ – Likelihood of confusion of two marks – Failure to carry out a global assessment of the relevant factors in examining the likelihood of confusion – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. REWE-Zentral AG is ordered to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Enercon GmbH shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

Grounds

–

Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance

–

Error of law relied on not identified

–

Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 112(1)(c) and 119) (see paras 14-17

)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Umbach is ordered to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH shall pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Mauerhofer shall pay the costs.