ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, where there are several supposed perpetrators of damage allegedly caused to rights of copyright protected in the Member State of the court seised, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the causal event of the damage, of a court within whose jurisdiction the supposed perpetrator who is being sued did not act, but does allow the jurisdiction of that court to be established on the basis of the place where the alleged damage occurs, provided that the damage may occur within the jurisdiction of the court seised. If that is the case, the court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs.

The expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 is intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the causal event giving rise to the damage, so that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the applicant, in the courts for either of those two places.

In circumstances in which one only of several supposed perpetrators of alleged damage is sued in a court within whose jurisdiction he has not acted, it cannot be considered that the causal event occurred within the jurisdiction of that court for the purposes of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001.

By contrast, jurisdiction to hear an action in tort, delict or quasi-delict may be established, on the basis of the occurrence of the damage, in favour of the court seised of a claim for a finding of a breach of copyright, where the Member State in which that court is situated protects the rights of copyright relied on by the applicant and the alleged damage may occur within the jurisdiction of the court seised.

However, in so far as the protection afforded by the Member State of the court seised applies only in that Member State, the court seised on the basis of the place where the damage occurs has jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused in the territory of that State.

(see paras 27, 31, 35, 38, 40, operative part)
The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in relation to the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks at issue, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, account being taken, in particular, of their distinctive and dominant components. The perception of the marks by the average consumer of the goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the global assessment of that likelihood of confusion. In this regard, the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details.

The assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole. The overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark may, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components. However, it is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element.

In this connection, the purpose of examining whether any of the components of a composite sign has an independent distinctive role is to determine which of those components will be perceived by the target public. Indeed, it is necessary to ascertain, in each individual case, the overall impression made on the target public by the sign for which registration is sought, by means of, inter alia, an analysis of the components of a sign and of their relative weight in the perception of the target public, and then, in the light of that overall impression and all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, to assess the likelihood of confusion.

(see paras 21-23, 33, 34)
3.

Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Determination of the normal value — Imports from non-market economy countries — Grant of market economy treatment — Conditions — Decisions of undertakings concerning prices and costs on a market not distorted by State intervention — Taking account of subsidies granted to the industrial sector upstream of the sector being investigated — Lawfulness — Obligation to initiate and carry out anti-subsidy proceedings — No such obligation (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(7)(a), (b) and (c)) (see paras 51-55)
10

Under paragraph 3 of Regulation No 474 of 12 May 2011 on residence in Denmark for non-Danish citizens covered by the European Union rules (EU residence law) (Bekendtgørelse nr. 474 af 12. maj 2011 om ophold i Danmark for udlændinge, der er omfattet af Den Europæiske Unions regler (EU-opholdsbekendtgørelsen)): ‘1. An EU citizen who is a worker or self-employed person, including service provider, in Denmark, shall have a right of residence for more than the three months provided for in § 2(1) of the Aliens Act (udlændingeloven); 2. An EU citizen who was previously covered by subparagraph (1) but is no longer in active employment retains his or her status as worker or self-employed person, (1) if the EU citizen is temporarily unemployed due to illness or accident; (2) if the EU citizen is involuntarily unemployed after having been in paid employment or a self-employed person for over one year, duly recorded, and has registered at an employment office as a job-seeker; (3) if the EU citizen is involuntarily unemployed after the expiry of a fixed-term employment contract of less than one year’s duration, duly recorded, and has registered at an employment office as a job-seeker; (4) if the EU citizen, in the course of the first 12 months has lost his or her employment involuntarily or is no longer a self-employed person, duly recorded, and has registered at an employment office as a job-seeker; or (5) if the EU citizen either commences a course of vocational training connected to that person’s previous employment or is involuntarily unemployed and commences any type of vocational training. 3. An EU citizen covered by subparagraph 2(3) or (4) shall retain his or her status as worker or self-employed person for six months. 4. An EU citizen who has entered the country to seek employment shall have a right of residence as a job-seeker for up to six months from the time of entering the country. After that time the person shall have a right of residence as a job-seeker in so far as it can be documented that that person is still seeking employment and has actual employment prospects. …’
11

Under the heading ‘Possible prosecution for other offences’, Article 27 of the Framework Decision states: ‘1. Each Member State may notify the General Secretariat of the Council that, in its relations with other Member States that have given the same notification, consent is presumed to have been given for the prosecution, sentencing or detention with a view to the carrying out of a custodial sentence or detention order for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender, other than that for which he or she was surrendered, unless in a particular case the executing judicial authority states otherwise in its decision on surrender. 2. Except in the cases referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3, a person surrendered may not be prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise deprived of his or her liberty for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender other than that for which he or she was surrendered. 3. Paragraph 2 does not apply in the following cases: (a) when the person having had an opportunity to leave the territory of the Member State to which he or she has been surrendered has not done so within 45 days of his or her final discharge, or has returned to that territory after leaving it; (b) the offence is not punishable by a custodial sentence or detention order; (c) the criminal proceedings do not give rise to the application of a measure restricting personal liberty; (d) when the person could be liable to a penalty or a measure not involving the deprivation of liberty, in particular a financial penalty or a measure in lieu thereof, even if the penalty or measure may give rise to a restriction of his or her personal liberty; (e) when the person consented to be surrendered, where appropriate at the same time as he or she renounced the specialty rule, in accordance with Article 13; (f) when the person, after his/her surrender, has expressly renounced entitlement to the specialty rule with regard to specific offences preceding his/her surrender. Renunciation shall be given before the competent judicial authorities of the issuing Member State and shall be recorded in accordance with that State’s domestic law. The renunciation shall be drawn up in such a way as to make clear that the person has given it voluntarily and in full awareness of the consequences. To that end, the person shall have the right to legal counsel; (g) where the executing judicial authority which surrendered the person gives its consent in accordance with paragraph 4. 4. A request for consent shall be submitted to the executing judicial authority, accompanied by the information mentioned in Article 8(1) and a translation as referred to in Article 8(2). Consent shall be given when the offence for which it is requested is itself subject to surrender in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision. Consent shall be refused on the grounds referred to in Article 3 and otherwise may be refused only on the grounds referred to in Article 4. The decision shall be taken no later than 30 days after receipt of the request. For the situations mentioned in Article 5, the issuing Member State must give the guarantees provided for therein.’
23

As regards the monitoring of compliance with that discretion and the consequences if it is exceeded, the referring court points out that, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, where that discretion is exceeded by the legislative or administrative authorities of a Member State, individuals may rely on Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Directive 85/337 before the courts of a Member State against the national authorities and thus obtain an order that the national rules or measures which are incompatible with those provisions be set aside. In such a case, it follows from the judgments in Kraaijeveld and Others (paragraphs 59 to 61) and WWF and Others (paragraph 5 of the operative part) that it is for the authorities of a Member State to adopt, according to their respective powers, to take all the general or particular measures necessary to ensure that projects are examined in order to determine whether they are likely to have significant effects on the environment and, if so, to ensure that they are subject to an impact assessment.
19

In those circumstances, the Corte d’appello di Roma decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must Article 35 of [Regulation No 1291/2000] be interpreted as meaning that the essential aim underlying the penalty laid down therein – consisting in total forfeiture of the security required from Community economic operators which have obtained an import or export licence for a product governed by the common organisation of the market for cereals – is to deter those operators from failing to comply with a primary obligation (such as the actual importation or exportation of the cereals covered by the relevant licence) which they are required to fulfil with regard to the operation in respect of which they have been granted the licence and lodged the relevant security? (2) Must Article 35(4) of [Regulation No 1291/2000], in so far as it lays down the time-limits and procedure for the release of the security lodged at the time when an import licence is issued, be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a failure to comply with a secondary obligation – consisting, in particular, in the late production of proof that the product has been correctly imported (and, consequently, the late submission of the related application for release of the security lodged) – the amount of the penalty to be imposed must be determined independently of the amount of the specific security the forfeiture in full of which must be ordered for non-compliance with a primary obligation in relation to those same imports, and must the amount of the penalty be determined, in particular, by reference to the normal amount of security applicable to most imports of products of the same type carried out during the reference period? (3) Must Article 35(4)(c) of [Regulation No 1291/2000], in so far as it provides that “.... where, for a given product, there are licences or certificates with different levels of security, the [lowest] rate applicable to imports [or exports] shall be used to calculate the amount to be forfeited ...”, be interpreted as meaning that, where cereals have been correctly imported by a Community economic operator, non-compliance with the time-limit laid down for producing proof that the product has actually been imported into the European Community must be subject to a penalty calculated by reference to the lowest amount of security in force during the same period in which that product was imported, irrespective of the specific duty applicable (as argued by Martini) or only where the same duty applies (as argued by the Italian State)?’
7

Article 28 of Regulation No 1408/71, entitled ‘Pensions payable under the legislation of one or more States, in cases where there is no right to benefits in the country of residence’, states: ‘1. A pensioner who is entitled to a pension under the legislation of one Member State or to pensions under the legislation of two or more Member States and who is not entitled to benefits under the legislation of the Member State in whose territory he resides shall nevertheless receive such benefits for himself and for members of his family, in so far as he would, taking account, where appropriate, of the provisions of Article 18 and Annex VI, be entitled thereto under the legislation of the Member State or of at least one of the Member States competent in respect of pensions if he were resident in the territory of such State. The benefits shall be provided under the following conditions: (a) benefits in kind shall be provided on behalf of the institution referred to in paragraph 2 by the institution of the place of residence as though the person concerned were a pensioner under the legislation of the State in whose territory he resides and were entitled to such benefits; … 2. In the cases covered by paragraph 1, the cost of benefits in kind shall be borne by the institution as determined according to the following rules: … (b) where the pensioner is entitled to the said benefits under the legislations of two or more Member States the cost thereof shall be borne by the competent institution of the Member State to whose legislation the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time; should the application of this rule result in several institutions being responsible for the cost of benefits the cost shall be borne by the institution administering the legislation to which the pensioner was last subject.’
5

Article 40 of Regulation No 1782/2003, entitled ‘Hardship cases’ provided: ‘1. By way of derogation from Article 37, a farmer whose production was adversely affected during the reference period by a case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances occurring before or during that reference period shall be entitled to request that the reference amount be calculated on the basis of the calendar year or years in the reference period not affected by the case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances. 2. If the whole reference period was affected by the case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, the Member State shall calculate the reference amount on the basis of the 1997 to 1999 period. … 3. A case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, with relevant evidence to the satisfaction of the competent authority, shall be notified by the farmer concerned in writing to the authority within a deadline to be fixed by each Member State. 4. Force majeure or exceptional circumstances shall be recognised by the competent authority in cases such as, for example: (a) the death of the farmer; (b) a long-term professional incapacity of the farmer; (c) a severe natural disaster gravely affecting the holding’s agricultural land; (d) the accidental destruction of livestock buildings on the holding; (e) an epizootic affecting part or all of the farmer’s livestock. 5. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to farmers who, during the reference period, were under agri-environmental commitments according to Regulations (EEC) No 2078/92 [of the Council of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 85)] and (EC) No 1257/1999 [of the Council of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/2004 of 22 December 2004 (OJ 2004 L 379, p. 1, ‘Regulation No 1257/1999’)] to hop farmers who, during the same period, were under a grubbing-up commitment in accordance with [Council] Regulation (EC) No 1098/98 [of 25 May 1998 introducing special temporary measures for hops (OJ 1998 L 157, p.7)], as well as to tobacco farmers who have participated in the quota buy-back programme in accordance with [Council] Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 [of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco (OJ 1992 L 215, p.70)]. In the case where the measures referred to in the first subparagraph covered both the reference period and the period referred to in paragraph 2, Member States shall establish, according to objective criteria and in such a way as to ensure equal treatment between farmers and to avoid market and competition distortions, a reference amount in accordance with the detailed rules to be laid down by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 144(2).’
10

Article 32 of Protocol No 1, entitled ‘Verification of proofs of origin’, provides: ‘1. Subsequent verifications of proofs of origin shall be carried out at random or whenever the customs authorities of the importing country have reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of such documents, the originating status of the products concerned or the fulfilment of the other requirements of this Protocol. 2. For the purposes of implementing the provisions of paragraph 1, the customs authorities of the importing country shall return the [EUR.1 certificate] and the invoice, if it has been submitted, the invoice declaration, or a copy of these documents, to the customs authorities of the exporting country giving, where appropriate, the reasons for the enquiry. Any documents and information obtained suggesting that the information given on the proof of origin is incorrect shall be forwarded in support of the request for verification. 3. The verification shall be carried out by the customs authorities of the exporting country. For that purpose, they shall have the right to call for any evidence and to carry out any inspection of the exporter’s accounts or any other check considered appropriate. 4. If the customs authorities of the importing country decide to suspend the granting of preferential treatment to the products concerned while awaiting the results of the verification, release of the products shall be offered to the importer subject to any precautionary measures judged necessary. 5. The customs authorities requesting the verification shall be informed of the results of this verification as soon as possible. These results must indicate clearly whether the documents are authentic and whether the products concerned can be considered as products originating in the ACP States … and fulfil the other requirements of this Protocol. 6. If in cases of reasonable doubt there is no reply within 10 months of the date of the verification request or if the reply does not contain sufficient information to determine the authenticity of the document in question or the real origin of the products, the requesting customs authorities shall, except in exceptional circumstances, refuse entitlement to the preferences. 7. Where the verification procedure or any other available information appears to indicate that the provisions of this Protocol are being contravened, the ACP State on its own initiative or at the request of the [European Union] shall carry out appropriate enquiries or arrange for such enquiries to be carried out with due urgency to identify and prevent such contraventions and for this purpose the ACP State concerned may invite the participation of the [European Union] in these enquiries.’
15

In the third place, the General Court, in paragraphs 55 to 63 of the judgment under appeal rejected Mr Jurašinović’s third plea, according to which the Council had previously disclosed the reports to the ICTY in the context of the case of Gotovina et al. on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001 and not by virtue of the principle of international cooperation, which in his view did not exist. The General Court stated in that regard that all the records of the ECMM had been passed to the ICTY in the 1990s to enable the ICTY Prosecutor to institute proceedings against persons suspected of serious violations of international humanitarian law in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. For the same reason, the Council had, in that case, passed to the Prosecutor, pursuant to Rule 70 (B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICTY, 48 of the reports referred to in Mr Jurašinović’s application for access. In any event, the General Court stated that Mr Jurašinović’s action for annulment did not concern the legality of the Council’s decision authorising the disclosure of those 48 reports. Moreover, nothing in the file gave grounds for assuming that the Council provided the 48 reports to Mr Gotovina following an application for access submitted on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001.