ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

3 October 2013 ( )

(Rectification of a judgment)

In Case C‑444/11 P-REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 26 August 2011,

Team Relocations NV, established in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by H. Gilliams, J. Bocken and L. Gyselen, advocaten,

Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom),

Trans Euro Ltd, established in London,

Team Relocations Ltd, established in London,

represented by L. Gyselen, advocaat,

appellants,

the other party to the proceedings being:

European Commission, represented by A. Bouquet and N. von Lingen and by A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant at first instance,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of M. Ilešič, President of Chamber, E. Jarašiūnas (Rapporteur), A. Ó Caoimh, C. Toader and C.G. Fernlund, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Kokott,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 11 July 2013, the Court (Third Chamber) gave judgment in Case C‑444/11 P Team Relocations and Others v Commission.

2 The English-language version of that judgment contains errors which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify of its own motion in accordance with Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, which applies to the procedure on appeal under Article 190(1) of those Rules.

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby orders that the English‑language version of the judgment in Case C‑444/11 P Team Relocations and Others v Commission, cited above, be rectified as follows:

1) In paragraph 81, second sentence, the grounds of the English-language version of the judgment of 11 July 2013 in Case C‑444/11 P Team Relocations and Others v Commission, are to be read as ‘even assuming that the other language versions of point 6 would not make it possible to justify clearly that literal interpretation’, replacing the wording ‘although the other language versions of point 6 do not make it possible to justify clearly that literal interpretation’.

2) In paragraph 82, second sentence, the grounds of the above judgment are to be read as ‘even on the assumption that the General Court erred in holding’, replacing the wording ‘although the General Court erroneously held’.

3) In paragraph 116, first sentence, the grounds of the above judgment are to be read as ‘even on the assumption that the General Court erred in holding’, replacing the wording ‘even though the General Court wrongly held’ and as ‘that would have no bearing on the analysis’, replacing the wording ‘that has no bearing on the analysis’.

4) The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified judgment. A note of this order shall be made in the margin of the original of that judgment.

[Signatures]
Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for a general prohibition of offering for sale or selling at a loss in so far as that provision pursues objectives relating to consumer protection.

Since Directive 2005/29 fully harmonises the rules relating to unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, Member States may not adopt stricter rules than those provided for in the directive, as expressly provided for in Article 4 thereof, even in order to achieve a higher level of consumer protection.

That directive establishes, in its Annex I, an exhaustive list of 31 commercial practices which, in accordance with Article 5(5) thereof, are regarded as unfair ‘in all circumstances’. Consequently, as recital 17 in the preamble to that directive expressly states, only those commercial practices can be deemed to be unfair without a case-by-case assessment against the provisions of Articles 5 to 9 of that directive.

The practices of offering for sale or selling goods at a loss do not appear in Annex I to Directive 2005/29. Therefore, they cannot be prohibited in all circumstances, but can be prohibited only following a specific assessment allowing the unfairness of those practices to be established.

(see paras 24, 28, 29, 31, operative part)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — Enviro Tech Europe v Commission

(Case C-118/12 P)

‛Appeal — Directives 67/548/EEC and 2004/73/EC — Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances — Classification of n-propyl-bromide’

1. Appeals — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Rejection at any point by reasoned order without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see para. 22)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Challenge to the General Court’s interpretation of a judgment of the Court of Justice — Clearly unfounded ground of appeal (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see paras 34-39)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-291/04 Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International, Inc. v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an action for (i) annulment in part of Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2004 L 152, p. 1), in so far as it classifies n-propyl-bromide as a ‘highly flammable’ substance, and for (ii) damages for the loss which the applicants claim they sustained — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Lack of individual concern

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Enviro Tech Europe Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — Enviro Tech Europe v Commission

(Case C-118/12 P)

‛Appeal — Directives 67/548/EEC and 2004/73/EC — Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances — Classification of n-propyl-bromide’

1. Appeals — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Rejection at any point by reasoned order without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see para. 22)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Challenge to the General Court’s interpretation of a judgment of the Court of Justice — Clearly unfounded ground of appeal (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see paras 34-39)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-291/04 Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International, Inc. v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an action for (i) annulment in part of Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2004 L 152, p. 1), in so far as it classifies n-propyl-bromide as a ‘highly flammable’ substance, and for (ii) damages for the loss which the applicants claim they sustained — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Lack of individual concern

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Ettaghi

(Case C-73/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

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 General Court, 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 of Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a third-country national who has entered or stayed in the country illegally — Admissibility of the criminal offence of illegal stay — Possibility of substituting the fine with an order for expulsion with immediate effect for a period of at least five years or with a home detention (‘permanenza domiciliare’) sentence — Obligations of the Member States during the period prescribed for the 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 clearly inadmissible.

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

(Case C-73/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

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 General Court, 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 of Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a third-country national who has entered or stayed in the country illegally — Admissibility of the criminal offence of illegal stay — Possibility of substituting the fine with an order for expulsion with immediate effect for a period of at least five years or with a home detention (‘permanenza domiciliare’) sentence — Obligations of the Member States during the period prescribed for the 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 clearly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — EBS Le Relais Nord-Pas-de-Calais

(Case C-240/12)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 10-13, 23)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands — Interpretation of Articles 15 and 26(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1) and of Article 2(32) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1) — Concept of transit — Shipment of waste by vessel from one Member State towards a State which does not fall within the scope of application of the OECD Decision — Passage, during the journey, in a port of another Member State.

Operative part:

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands), made by decision of 4 May 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — EBS Le Relais Nord-Pas-de-Calais

(Case C-240/12)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 10-13, 23)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands — Interpretation of Articles 15 and 26(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1) and of Article 2(32) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1) — Concept of transit — Shipment of waste by vessel from one Member State towards a State which does not fall within the scope of application of the OECD Decision — Passage, during the journey, in a port of another Member State.

Operative part:

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands), made by decision of 4 May 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Jurisdiction of the national courts — National legislation granting priority to an interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality — Not permissible — Condition (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 18)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the dispute which bears no link to European Union law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 21, 22)

3. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Immigration policy — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109 — Grant of a residence permit as a long-term resident — Conditions (Council Directive 2003/109) (see para. 25)

Subject of the case

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Labour Court, Huy — Interpretation of Articles 20, 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 234 EC — Fundamental rights — Principle of non-discrimination — Serbian national with a disability — Admissibility of national legislation excluding certain persons from entitlement to disability benefits on grounds of nationality — National of a third country which is an official candidate for accession to the European Union — Power of a national court to refer a matter to the Court of Justice — Admissibility of national legislation requiring the national court to bring a matter to the Constitutional Court at the outset.

Operative part

Operative part

It is clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Labour Court, Huy (Belgium).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals — Grounds — Requirement that criticism of the General Court’s reasoning be specific (Art. 256(1) 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. 46)

2. 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(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1), first para., (c)) (see para. 60)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 73)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 in Case T-133/09 I Marchi Italiani and Basile v OHIM — Osra (B. Antonio Basile 1952) by which that court dismissed an action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2009 (Case R 502/2008-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Osra SA and I Marchi Italiani Srl — Misapplication of Article 135 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Infringement of the principle of good faith — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Prerequisites for the limitation period to run — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks at issue.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. I Marchi Italiani Srl is ordered to pay the costs.
2.

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, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 14-23)
38

The Court has already held in that regard that, for the purposes of the application of the EEA Agreement, Article 13 of Regulation No 469/2009 is to be construed as providing that an SPC is to take effect at the end of the lawful term of the basic patent for a period equal to the period which elapsed between the date on which the application for a basic patent was lodged and the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the territory of one of the States covered by the EEA Agreement, reduced by a period of five years (see, to that effect, Novartis and Others, paragraph 26). That first authorisation to place the product on the market in the EEA is not intended to take the place of the MA provided for in Article 3(b) of Regulation No 469/2009, that is to say, the authorisation granted by the Member State in which the application is submitted; instead, it constitutes a further condition applying in the event that the latter authorisation is not the first authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product in the EEA. The first MA in the European Union therefore serves a purely temporal purpose (see, to that effect, Case C-110/95 Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical [1997] ECR I-3251, paragraph 24).
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and Others v Commission

(Case C‑199/13 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH regulation) — Restrictions on the placing on the market and use of acrylamide — Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 amending Annex XVII of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006’

1. Approximation of laws — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — Regulation No 366/2011 amending the REACH Regulation — Imposition of restrictions on acrylamide — Discretion of the EU institutions — Scope — Judicial review — Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Annex XVII; Commission Regulation No 366/2011, Art. 1) (see para. 26)

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 34, 35, 52)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgement of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 February 2013 in Case T‑368/11 Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and Others v Commission wherein the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 of 14 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2011 L 101, p. 12) insofar as it imposes restrictions on the marketing of acrylamide for grouting applications.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS and Travetanche Injection SPRL are ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Weigl

(Case C‑332/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — No implementation of EU law — Court manifestly lacking jurisdiction’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an 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. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 12-15)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and of Articles 30 and 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without any reason given — Official of a body of the public authorities having been dismissed on the basis of a provision of the national legislation laying down the civil service code.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Kúria (Hungary), by decision of 5 June 2013, as supplemented by an additional decision of 18 July 2013.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Weigl

(Case C‑332/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — No implementation of EU law — Court manifestly lacking jurisdiction’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an 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. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 12-15)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and of Articles 30 and 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without any reason given — Official of a body of the public authorities having been dismissed on the basis of a provision of the national legislation laying down the civil service code.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Kúria (Hungary), by decision of 5 June 2013, as supplemented by an additional decision of 18 July 2013.
2.

Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Review by the Court of the findings of fact — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 38)
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference not explaining why reference to the Court necessary — Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94(c)) (see paras 23, 24)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the national case having no link to EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20, 21 and 51(1) and (2) (see paras 25, 26)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Determination of the questions to refer — Exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 34, 35)

Operative part

Operative part

1. The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria), by decision of 5 September 2013.

2. The first and second questions referred are manifestly inadmissible in so far as they relate to the interpretation of Article 2 TEU.