ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture

–

Common organisation of the markets

–

Sugar

–

Production levies (Council Regulation No 1260/2001, Art. 15(1)(b), (c) and (d); Commission Regulations No 314/2002, as amended by Commission Regulation No 38/2004, Art. 6(4) and (5), and No 1686/2005) (see paras 20-24, 26-29, operative part 1-2

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre – Validity, having regard to Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1), and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 40) – Validity, having regard to Regulations (EC) No 1260/2001 and 314/2002, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 12) – Production levies including quantities of sugar contained in processed products, exported without benefit of export refunds.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Examination of Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2004 of 9 January 2004, in so far as that provision does not, with regard to calculation of the production levy, provide for exclusion from the exportable surplus of the quantities of sugar contained in exported processed products for which no export refund has been granted has not shown that there are factors liable to affect its validity.

2. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year is invalid.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run –Publication or notification (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 21-23)

2. Procedure – Application by a natural or legal person for a declaration relating to the scope ratione personae of a Commission decision – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Art. 230 et seq. EC) (see paras 32‑33)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order made by the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) on 17 September 2007 in Case T‑175/07 Territorio Energia Ambiente SpA v Commission by which that Court dismissed an application for a ruling that Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21), did not apply to the appellant and, in the alternative, that the appellant did not benefit from any unlawful aid, and for the consequential annulment, in so far as necessary, of that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Territorio Energia Ambiente SpA (TEA) to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 October 2007 – É.R. and Others v Council and Commission

(Case C‑100/07 P)

Appeal – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Bovine spongiform encephalopathy – Lack of adequate measures taken by the Council and the European Commission to prevent the spread of the disease – Appeal manifestly unfounded

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see para. 27)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part – Invalid plea in law (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 40)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 December 2006 in Case T-138/03 É.R. and Others v Council and Commission , by which the Court dismissed as partially inadmissible and, for the remainder, as unfounded, the action brought by the applicants seeking compensation under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for the damage allegedly suffered as a consequence of the infection and subsequent death of members of their families who suffered from a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which was linked to the outbreak and spread in Europe of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, for which the Council and the Commission were allegedly responsible – Conditions giving rise to non contractual liability of the Communities.

Operative part:

The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Damage – Evaluation – Criteria – Making good of various expenses borne by an undertaking as a result of the annulment of a decision declaring a merger operation incompatible with the common market and of a decision ordering the separation of the entities merged (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 41-50)

2. Procedure – Costs – Rules applicable (see paras 51-53)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T‑351/03 Schneider Electric v Commission , by which that Court ordered the European Commission to make good, first, the expenses incurred by Schneider Electric SA in respect of its participation in the resumed merger control procedure which followed delivery of the judgments of the Court of First Instance on 22 October 2002 in Cases T‑310/01 and T‑77/02 Schneider Electric v Commission and, second, two thirds of the loss sustained by Schneider Electric as a result of the reduction in the transfer price of Legrand SA which Schneider Electric had to concede to the transferee in exchange for the postponement of the effective date of sale of Legrand until 10 December 2002 – Conditions governing the establishment of non-contractual liability on the part of the Community – Concepts of wrongful act, damage and direct causal link between the wrongful act and the damage suffered – ‘Sufficiently serious’ breach of Community law vitiating the procedure for examination of the compatibility of a concentration with the common market.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. Fixes the amount of the loss to be made good in point 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 16 July 2009 in Case C-440/07 P Commission v Schneider Electric [2009] ECR I-6413 at EUR 50 000.

2. Dismisses Schneider Electric SA’s claim relating to costs.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 February 2008 – Tokai Europe v Commission

(Case C‑262/07 P)

Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 – Classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature – Person not individually concerned – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. Procedure – Obligation of the Court of First Instance to open the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility – None (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 111 to 114) (see paras 24-28)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court 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.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119) (see paras 30-32)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2007 in Case T-183/04 Tokai Europe v Commission , by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21) – Requirement to be individually concerned by the contested regulation – Right to a fair hearing.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 – Weber v Commission

(Case C‑107/07 P)

Appeal – Refusal of access to documents – Manifest inadmissibility

1. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 112(1)(c), and 119) (see paras 22-24)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 25-28)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2006 in Case T-290/05 Weber v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an action brought against the decision of the Secretary-General of the Commission of 27 May 2005 rejecting the applicant’s request for access to a letter sent by the Directorate-General for Competition to the German Federal Government concerning State aid proceedings in relation to the financing of public-law broadcasting bodies in Germany.

Operative part

The appeal is dismissed;
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2008 – Gerlach & Co. v Belgische Staat

(Case C‑477/07)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Community Customs Code – Concepts of ‘entry in the accounts’ and ‘communication’ of the amount of duty to the debtor – Prior entry in the accounts of the amount of the customs debt – Recovery of the customs debt

1. Own resources of the European Communities – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties (Council Regulations No 2913/92, Arts 217(1) and 221(1), and No 1552/89, Art. 6) (see paras 18, 22-23, operative part 1)

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 221(1) and (3)) (see paras 25-30, operative part 2)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Hof van beroep te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Articles 217 and 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) (now Council Regulation 1150/2000 (EC, Euratom) of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2000/597/EC (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1)) – Concepts of ‘entry in the accounts’ and ‘communication’ of the amount of duty to the debtor – Prior entry in the accounts of the amount of the customs debt – Recovery of the debt.

Operative part:

1. Article 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘entry in the accounts’ of the amount of the duty to be recovered referred to therein is the ‘entry in the accounts’ of that amount as defined in Article 217(1) of that regulation and that that entry in the accounts is to be distinguished from the recording of that duty in the accounts of the own resources referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2011 – Baumann

(Case C-309/07 INT)

Procedure – Application for interpretation – Inadmissibility

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)

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

1. The application for interpretation is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2008 – SAFBA and Others v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects et Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers

(Joined Cases C‑175/07 to C-184/07)

Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Sugar – Production levies – Detailed rules for the application of the quota system – Taking into account of the quantities of sugar contained in processed products – Determination of the exportable surplus – Determination of the average loss

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Production levies (Council Regulation No 1260/2001, Art. 15(1)(b), (c) and (d); Commission Regulations No 314/2002, as amended by Commission Regulation No 38/2004, Art. 6(4) and (5), and No 1686/2005) (see paras 20-24, 26-29, operative part 1-2)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre – Validity, having regard to Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1), and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 40) – Validity, having regard to Regulations (EC) No 1260/2001 and 314/2002, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 12) – Production levies including quantities of sugar contained in processed products, exported without benefit of export refunds.

Operative part

1. Examination of Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2004 of 9 January 2004, in so far as that provision does not, with regard to calculation of the production levy, provide for exclusion from the exportable surplus of the quantities of sugar contained in exported processed products for which no export refund has been granted has not shown that there are factors liable to affect its validity.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Gargani to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:

1. The Republic of Malta shall refrain from adopting any measures applying the derogation in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds – as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting Directives 73/239/EEC, 74/557/EEC and 2002/83/EC in the field of environment, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania – for the hunting of quails ( Coturnix coturnix ) and turtle doves ( Streptopelia turtur ) on the 2008 spring migration.

2. The application for interim measures is dismissed as to the remainder.

3. Costs are reserved.
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(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 March 2008 in Case T‑332/04 Sebirán v OHIM and El Coto de Rioja , by which that Court dismissed the action brought by Sebirán for the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 June 2004 (Case R 550/2003-2).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Sebirán SL to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73, 1st sentence) (see paras 28-29)

2. 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) (see paras 52-54)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2007 in Case T‑71/06 Enercon v OHIM , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2005 rejecting the application for annulment of the examiner’s decision refusing to register a three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the outer casing of the nacelle of a wind turbine for goods in Class 7 – Distinctive character of a three-dimensional mark made up of the shape of the product.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Official control of foodstuffs – Directive 89/397

(Council Directive 89/397, Art. 7(1), second para.)

Summary

The second paragraph of Article 7(1) of Directive 89/397 on the official control of foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking which imported and then marketed a foodstuff and whose manager may, on the basis of analysis of samples of that product taken in a retail outlet, be subject to proceedings for the imposition of criminal or administrative penalties as a result of the condition and labelling of the product is a person subject to inspection within the meaning of the provision.

(see para. 34, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

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

2. Mr Ayyanarsamy is ordered to bear his own costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o. shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Time-limits

–

Point from which time starts to run

–

Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant

–

Subsidiary matter (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 21-22, 27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-224/08 Fornaci Laterizi Danesi v Commission by which that court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/25/EC of 13 November 2007 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a first updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region (OJ 2008 L 12, p. 383), in so far as a plot of land belonging to the applicant, under reference IT20A0018, was included in that list.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Weighing up of all the interests involved (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 11-12)

2. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States – Derogations from the general system of protection – Conditions for granting (Council Directive 79/409, Art. 9(1) and (2)) (see paras 15-16, 23-24)

3. Application for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof placed on the applicant (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 17-18, 25-26)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Arts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 18 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) – Incorrect transposition – Derogations – Requirements.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders the Italian Republic to suspend the application of Article 4(1) of the Law of the Regione di Lombardia No 24 of 30 July 2008 regulating the derogation system provided for by Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, pursuant to Law No 221 of 3 October 2002 (Disciplina del regime di deroga previsto dall’articolo 9 della direttiva 79/409/CEE del Consiglio, del 2 aprile 1979, concernente la conservazione degli uccelli selvatici, in attuazione della legge 3 ottobre 2002, n. 221), as amended for the hunting season 2009/2010 by Law No 21 of the Regione di Lombardia of 16 September 2009;

2. Reserves the costs.