ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE COURT

25 September 2013 ( )

(Removal from the register)

In Case C‑41/12 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 26 January 2012 (fax of 23 January 2012),

Monster Cable Products, Inc., established in Brisbane (United States), represented by O. Günzel and A. Wenninger-Lenz, Rechtsanwältinnen,

applicant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by R. Pethke, acting as Agent,

defendant at first instance,

Live Nation (Music) UK Limited, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by S. Britton, solicitor,

intervener at first instance,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE COURT,

after hearing the Advocate General, M. Wathelet,

makes the following

Order

1 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 3 September 2013, Monster Cable Products, Inc. informed the Court that it was discontinuing its appeal, in accordance with Article 148 of the Rules of Procedure.

2 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2013, OHIM informed the Court that it had no comment to make regarding the discontinuance, but none the less requested that Monster Cable Products, Inc. be ordered to pay the costs.

3 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 16 September 2013 (fax of 13 September 2013), Live Nation (Music) UK Limited informed the Court that it had no comment to make regarding the discontinuance.

4 Under Article 141(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure, a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the other party’s observations on the discontinuance.

5 In view of the facts of the present case, Monster Cable Products, Inc. must therefore be ordered to bear its own costs and those of OHIM. Live Nation (Music) UK Limited shall bear its own costs.

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

1. Case C‑41/12 P is removed from the Register of the Court.

2. Monster Cable Products, Inc. is to bear its own costs and those of OHIM.

3. Live Nation (Music) UK Limited is to bear its own costs.

Luxembourg, 25 September 2013.

A. Calot Escobar M. Ilešič
4

Article 21 of the 2012 Finance Law, entitled ‘Suspension of payment of holiday and Christmas or similar allowances’, provides: ‘1 — During the period of application of the Economic and Financial Assistance Programme (PAEF), payment of holiday and Christmas allowances or of any sums corresponding to the thirteenth and/or fourteenth months to the persons referred to in Article 19(9) of [the 2011 Finance Law], as amended by Law No 48/2011 of 26 August 2011 and Law No 60-A/2011 of 30 November 2011, whose basic monthly salary is greater than EUR 1 100 shall be suspended as an exceptional measure to secure budgetary stability. 2 — In the case of the persons mentioned in Article 19(9) of [the 2011 Finance Law], as amended by Law No 48/2011 of 26 August 2011 and Law No 60-A/2011 of 30 November 2011, whose basic monthly salary is equal to or greater than EUR 600, but less than EUR 1 100, the allowances or disbursements referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be reduced, the amount due to them being calculated as follows: allowances/disbursements = 1 320 - 1.2 x basic monthly salary. 3 — The provisions of the preceding paragraphs shall apply to all disbursements, irrespective of their formal designation, which amount, directly or indirectly, to payment of the allowances referred to in those paragraphs, in particular those paid in addition to the basic monthly salary. 4 — The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall also apply to contracts for the provision of services entered into with natural or legal persons, in so far as those services are provided on an ongoing basis by members of the liberal professions whose remuneration takes the form of year-round monthly payments supplemented by one or two disbursements of equal value. 5 — The provisions of this article shall take effect on completion of the salary reductions provided for in Article 19 of [the 2011 Finance Law], as amended by Law No 48/2011 of 26 August 2011 and Law No 60-A/2011 of 30 November 2011, and Article 23 of that Law. 6 — The provisions of this article shall apply to the holiday allowances to which the persons concerned would be entitled, whether in respect of holidays accrued at the beginning of 2012 or in respect of holidays accrued thereafter, including pro rata payments in connection with the cessation or suspension of the legal employment relationship. 7 — The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to Christmas allowances. 8 — The provisions of this article shall also apply to standby or similar staff, whether or not they are actually working. 9 — The rules laid down in this article are mandatory and exceptional, take precedence over any other provisions to the contrary, whether special or exceptional, as well as over collective instruments for the regulation of employment and contracts of employment, and may not be derogated from or amended by these.’
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Devillers

(Case C‑167/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Conseil régional d'expression française de l'ordre des médecins vétérinaires — Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Concept of court or tribunal of a Member State within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) — Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 13, 15, 17-21)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil regional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1) — Question referred for a preliminary ruling by a professional association — Concept of court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Insufficient as to facts and law — Admissibility of the question.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Conseil regional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) in its decision of 23 March 2013.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Devillers

(Case C‑167/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Conseil régional d'expression française de l'ordre des médecins vétérinaires — Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Concept of court or tribunal of a Member State within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) — Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 13, 15, 17-21)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil regional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1) — Question referred for a preliminary ruling by a professional association — Concept of court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Insufficient as to facts and law — Admissibility of the question.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Conseil regional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) in its decision of 23 March 2013.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 September 2013 — H-Holding v Parliament

(Case C‑64/13 P)

‛Appeal — Actions for failure to act — Article 265 TFEU — Actions for damages — Failure of the Parliament to initiate infringement proceedings — Failure of the Parliament to request OLAF to open an investigation — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see para. 13)

2. Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Conditions of admissibility (Art. 265, third para. TFEU) (see paras 15-18)

3. 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. 168(1)(d)) (see para. 20)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2011 in Case T‑672/11 H-Holding v Parliament, by which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s action seeking, first, a declaration that the Parliament unlawfully abstained from initiating infringement proceedings against the Czech Republic and that OLAF be requested to open an investigation concerning a Czech political party following its petition of 24 August 2011 and, second, damages for the harm suffered as a result of that alleged failure on the part of the Parliament.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. H-Holding AG is ordered to bear its own costs.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 September 2013 — H-Holding v Parliament

(Case C‑64/13 P)

‛Appeal — Actions for failure to act — Article 265 TFEU — Actions for damages — Failure of the Parliament to initiate infringement proceedings — Failure of the Parliament to request OLAF to open an investigation — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see para. 13)

2. Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Conditions of admissibility (Art. 265, third para. TFEU) (see paras 15-18)

3. 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. 168(1)(d)) (see para. 20)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2011 in Case T‑672/11 H-Holding v Parliament, by which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s action seeking, first, a declaration that the Parliament unlawfully abstained from initiating infringement proceedings against the Czech Republic and that OLAF be requested to open an investigation concerning a Czech political party following its petition of 24 August 2011 and, second, damages for the harm suffered as a result of that alleged failure on the part of the Parliament.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — 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, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see para. 17)

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 paras 21, 22)

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Zoo Sport Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.
By referring to the ability of any person to benefit from the right to receive a fair trial, point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC authorises Member States to provide for an exception to the obligation to disclose environmental information in order, specifically, to allow them, if the circumstances so require, to respect the right to a fair trial laid down in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Furthermore, even if a Member State does not provide for such an exception in its legislation intended to transpose that directive, although, in order to respect the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, circumstances require it, it must be borne in mind that Member States are, in any event, required to use the margin of appreciation conferred on them by point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of that directive in a manner which is consistent with the requirements flowing from that article of the Charter.

Since all authorities of the Member States, including the administrative and judicial bodies, must ensure the observance of the rules of EU law within their respective spheres of competence, they are required, if the conditions are fulfilled for application of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, to ensure compliance with the fundamental right guaranteed by that article.

In those circumstances, an interpretation to the effect that Directive 2003/4 authorises Member States to adopt measures that are incompatible with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter or with Article 6 TEU cannot be accepted. That directive is therefore, on the same basis, not invalid in the light of those two provisions.

(see paras 33-36, operative part)
Case C‑488/13

‘Parva Investitsionna Banka’ AD and Others

v

‘Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost’ AD

and

Sindik na ‘Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost’ AD

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Tagrovishte)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — Definition of ‘uncontested pecuniary claims’ — Insolvency proceedings — Extra-judicial enforcement order relating to a contested claim — Claim for payment out of the insolvency estate, on the basis of such an enforcement order — Situation falling outside the scope of Regulation No 1896/2006 — Court clearly lacking jurisdiction’

Summary — Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 9 September 2014

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation No 1896/2006 — Scope — Enforcement of an extra-judicial order in insolvency proceedings — Excluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1896/2006) Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Purely internal situation — No reference to EU law in the legislation applicable — Manifest lack of jurisdiction (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 53(2) and 94(a) and (c))
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

EU law

—

Direct effect

—

National taxes which are incompatible with EU law

—

Repayment

—

Procedures

—

Application of national law

—

Limits

—

Respect for the principles of equivalence and effectiveness

—

Verification a matter for the national court (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 183) (see paras 29-39, operative part

)

Operative part

Operative part

EU law, and in particular Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding legislation and a practice of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which prevent the payment of default interest on amounts of value added tax which were not recoverable within a reasonable period and on account of a national provision held to be contrary to EU law. In the absence of EU legislation on the subject, it is for the national law to establish, in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, the procedure for the payment of such interest, which must not be less favourable than that applicable to actions based on infringement of domestic law with a similar purpose and cause of action to those based on the infringement of the EU law or be arranged such as to render the exercise of the rights conferred by the European Union legal order impossible in practice or excessively difficult, which it is for the referring court to ascertain in the case before it. The national courts are required, if necessary, to disapply any provision of national law contrary to EU law.
1.

A contract, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the creation of a surface right, in favour of a supplier of petroleum products, allowing that supplier to build a service station and let the service station to the owner of the land, and which contains a long-term exclusive purchasing obligation, does not have the effect of restricting competition appreciably and is therefore not caught by the prohibition set out in Article 81(1) EC given that, first, that supplier’s market share is less than 3%, compared to the cumulative market share of about 70% held by three other suppliers, and, second, the duration of that contract is not manifestly excessive compared to the average duration of contracts generally concluded on the relevant market, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — Peek & Cloppenburg v Peek & Cloppenburg

(Joined Cases C‑325/13 P-DEP and C‑326/13 P-DEP)

(Taxation of costs))

Judicial proceedings—Costs—Taxation—Recoverable costs—Elements to be taken into consideration—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 20-22, 31)

Operative part:

The total amount of costs which Peek & Cloppenburg KG, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), must reimburse to Peek & Cloppenburg KG, established in Hamburg (Germany), in Joined Cases C‑325/13 P and C‑326/13 P is fixed at EUR 16000, which will accrue default interest from the date of service of the present order until the date of payment of the total amount due, calculated at a rate equal to that applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations in force on the first day of the month of the deadline for payment, increased by 3 and a half percentage points.
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 107)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Expedited preliminary ruling procedure — Conditions — Examination by the Court of its own motion

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 105(1))
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 —

Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald v OHIM

(Case C‑150/14 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word element ‘goldstück’ — Opposition of the proprietor of the Community word mark GOLDSTEIG — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition — Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded’

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 paras 23, 24)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 —

Agrocaramulo

(Case C‑70/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Poultry meat — ‘Cull hens’ — Agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds — Classification’

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Poultry meat — Export refunds — Classification in the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds — Poultry carcase within the meaning of product headings 0207 12 10 9900 and 0207 12 90 9190 — Cull hens put down at the end of their laying period, when their skeleton is completely ossified — Not included (Commission Regulation No 3846/87, Annex I) (see para. 22, operative part)

Operative part

Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds, as most recently amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2091/2005 of 15 December 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that laying hens put down at the end of their laying period, when their skeleton is completely ossified, known as ‘cull hens’, do not fall within the description ‘others’ under product headings 0207 12 10 9900 and 0207 12 90 9190 set out in that annex.

( 1 ) OJ C 135, 5.05.2014

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 —

Agrocaramulo

(Case C‑70/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Poultry meat — ‘Cull hens’ — Agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds — Classification’

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Poultry meat — Export refunds — Classification in the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds — Poultry carcase within the meaning of product headings 0207 12 10 9900 and 0207 12 90 9190 — Cull hens put down at the end of their laying period, when their skeleton is completely ossified — Not included (Commission Regulation No 3846/87, Annex I) (see para. 22, operative part)

Operative part

Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds, as most recently amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2091/2005 of 15 December 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that laying hens put down at the end of their laying period, when their skeleton is completely ossified, known as ‘cull hens’, do not fall within the description ‘others’ under product headings 0207 12 10 9900 and 0207 12 90 9190 set out in that annex.

( 1 ) OJ C 135, 5.05.2014