ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 May 2011 – Semerdzhiev v Del-Pi-Krasimira Mancheva

(Case C-32/10)

Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 90/314/EEC – Package travel, package holidays and package tours – Facts preceding the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union – Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court to answer the questions referred

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Interpretation of a Community directive in proceedings antedating the accession of a Member State to the European Union – Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 25-27)

Re

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Varhoven kasatsionen sad – Interpretation of Articles 2(1)(c), 4(1)(b)(iv) and 5(2)(3) and (4) of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59) – Concept of ‘other tourist services’ not ancillary to transport or accommodation to be borne by the organiser – Obligation of the organiser to conclude an individual insurance contract for each consumer and to provide the consumer with the original before travel – Obligation of the organiser to conclude an individual insurance contract covering costs of repatriation in case of accident – Concept of ‘damage’ resulting for the consumer from the failure to perform or the improper performance of the contract – Non-material damages included.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to rule on the questions referred by the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria).
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2012 — Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe v Torresan

(Case C-5/10 P-DEP)

Taxation of costs

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 12-13, 20, 27)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Intervention of several lawyers — Inclusion — Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 24)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 in Case C-5/10 P Torresan v OHIM .

Operative part

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Mr Torresan to Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG is fixed at EUR 4 500.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA

(Case C‑462/10 P)

Appeal — Public service contracts — Invitation to tender — Supply of computing advice services — Rejection of the tender — Decision to award the contract to another tenderer — Selection and award criteria — Confusion of the criteria — Weighting of the criteria — Full copy of the evaluation report — Inadequate statement of reasons

1. Appeals — Pleas in law — 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(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 30, 31, 47)

2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Review by the Court of Justice of the General Court’s refusal to order measures of inquiry — Ambit (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 66(1)) (see paras 21-23)

3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Challenging of the decision contested before the General Court and not of the judgment given by the latter — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 36, 37)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Extent — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, in response to a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the successful tenderer — Contracting authority not obliged to produce a detailed analysis comparing the offer accepted and the offer of the unsuccessful tenderer — Plea manifestly unfounded (Art. 256 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 39, 40, 44)

5. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para 47)

6. Appeals — Pleas in law — 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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para 57)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 in Case T‑331/06 Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA by which that court dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the European Environment Agency of 14 September 2006 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure EEA/IDS/06/002 relating to the provision of information technology consultancy services (OJ 2006/118-125101) and the decision to award the public contract to another tenderer — Award criteria — Error of assessment.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Case pending before the national court rendered devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate – Intention of the applicant in the main proceedings to bring an action for damages – No effect

(Art. 267 TFEU)

Summary

It is not necessary to give a ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling when the decision against which the appeal in the main proceedings is directed has become inoperative and, therefore, the main proceedings no longer have a purpose, despite the expressed intention of the referring court to maintain its request for a preliminary ruling, insofar as the applicant intends to bring an action for damages before it.

The reason for a reference for a preliminary ruling is not that it enables advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions to be delivered but rather that it is necessary for the effective resolution of a dispute. However, the initiation of an action for damages is, in such circumstances, merely possible and hypothetical.

(see paras 16-22, operative part)
Keywords



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

–

Jurisdiction of the Court

–

Limits

–

Request for interpretation of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights

–

National legislation not amounting to a measure giving effect to Union law

–

Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 12, 14-16, operative part

)
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Lück GmbH & Co KG, Sandler AG and Gesamtverband der Deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie eV shall bear their own costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Approximation of laws

—

Uniform legislation

—

Industrial and commercial property

—

Patent right

—

Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products

—

Protection conferred by the certificate

—

Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 469/2009, Arts 4 and 5) (see paras 18-21, operative part

)
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included — Position originally adopted in the procedure for access for the public to Commission documents — Preparatory act (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 29-30)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadmissibility of the action before the General Court — Ground involving a question of public policy — Considered of the Court’s own motion (see para. 34)

3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Union law — Operative part sound on other legal grounds — Rejection (see para. 35)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings

—

Intervention

—

Conditions of admissibility

—

Interest in the result of the case

—

Meaning

—

Need for a direct and existing interest

—

Dispute concerning the lawfulness of a Commission decision finding there to be a cartel and imposing a fine

—

Lack of direct interest of the customers of undertakings participating in the cartel

—

Ability of a customer to seek compensation for harm caused by the cartel

—

Customer who has made an application for access to the documents of the administrative procedure concerning the cartel

—

Lack of relevance (Art. 101 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 10, 12-16, 23-25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2011 in Case T-62/11 Air France-KLM v Commission , by which the General Court rejected the application for leave to intervene made by Schenker AG — Interest in the result of the case — Dispute relating to an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Schenker AG is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 – Dover v Parliament

(Case C-278/11 P)

‛Appeal — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Review of the use of allowances — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Justification of expenditure — Recovery of undue payments’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 23-28, 48, 56)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Plea alleging absence or inadequacy of the statement of reasons — Plea alleging incorrectness of the statement of reasons — Distinction (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 36)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-149/09 Dover v European Parliament by which the General Court annulled in part the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 to recover certain sums unduly paid to the appellant by way of expenses and parliamentary allowances

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Densmore Ronald Dover is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 – Dover v Parliament

(Case C-278/11 P)

‛Appeal — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Review of the use of allowances — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Justification of expenditure — Recovery of undue payments’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 23-28, 48, 56)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Plea alleging absence or inadequacy of the statement of reasons — Plea alleging incorrectness of the statement of reasons — Distinction (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 36)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-149/09 Dover v European Parliament by which the General Court annulled in part the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 to recover certain sums unduly paid to the appellant by way of expenses and parliamentary allowances

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 April 2011 – Sfichi and Ilaş v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Suceava and Others

(Joined Cases C-29/11 and C-30/11)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Internal taxation – Article 110 TFEU – Pollution tax levied upon first registration of motor vehicles

Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Pollution tax imposed on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 23-26, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunalul Suceava – Registration of second-hand motor vehicles previously registered in other Member States – National legislation making the first registration of such motor vehicles conditional upon payment of an environmental tax, whereas second-hand motor vehicles already present on the national market are exempt from payment of that tax on the occasion of re-registration – Whether the national legislation is compatible with the first and second paragraphs of Article 110 TFEU – Obstacle to the free movement of goods.

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 – Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor v Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor (MAI) and Others

(Case C‑434/11)

Request for a preliminary ruling – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Admissibility of national legislation providing for salary reductions in relation to various categories of public officials – Failure to implement European Union law – Court clearly lacking jurisdiction

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits –Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National legislation not amounting to a measure giving effect to Union law – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 13, 15-17, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunalul Alba – Interpretation of Articles 17(1), 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Whether national legislation providing for salary reductions in relation to various categories of public officials is permissible – Infringement of the right to property and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Tribunalul Alba (Romania) by decision of 28 July 2011.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2012 — Yorma’s v OHIM

(Case C‑191/11 P)

Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark with the word element ‘yorma’s’ — Earlier Community word mark NORMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion

1. 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), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 36)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 43)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 February 2011 in Case T‑213/09 Yorma’s v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMA’S) dismissing the application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 refusing registration of the figurative sign with the word element ‘yorma’s’ as a Community trade mark for certain services in Classes 35 and 42 and upholding the opposition brought by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘NORMA’ — Likelihood of confusion of two marks — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks and services concerned — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2012 — Lorenzo Martínez v Junta de Castilla y León

(Case C‑556/11)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Non-university teaching — Right to six-yearly continuing professional education increments — Exclusion of teachers employed as temporary officials — Principle of non-discrimination

1. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Conditions of employment — Meaning — Continuing education increment — Included — Duty to apply the principle of non-discrimination (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4(1)) (see paras 38-40)

2. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Workers doing the same work — ‘Same work’ — Definition — Workers in a comparable situation — Criteria for assessment — Nature of the work, training requirements and working conditions — Discretion of the national court (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 3(2)) (see paras 42-46)

3. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Objective reasons justifying different treatment — Meaning — Only justification for different treatment being the provision of national law providing for it — Not permissible (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4(1)) (see paras 40, 47-50, 54, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Valladolid — Interpretation of clause 4 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Principle of non-discrimination — Grant to teaching staff of a six-yearly continuing professional education increment — Increment granted exclusively to established (career) civil servants.

Operative part

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 and annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts, when there are no objective reasons to justify this, the right to receive a six-yearly continuing education increment solely to teachers employed as established (career) civil servants, to the exclusion of those working as temporary officials, when, in respect of the receipt of that increment, those two categories of workers are in comparable situations.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 May 2012 —

LAN Airlines v OHIM



(Case C‑198/11 P)

Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Community word mark LÍNEAS AÉREAS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO LAM — Application for registration — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word and figurative marks LAN — Rejection of the opposition — No likelihood of confusion — Appeal manifestly inadmissible

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. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 33)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 February 2011 in Case T‑194/09 Lan Airlines v OHIM — Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo , by which that court dismissed an appeal brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2009 (Case R 107/2008/4), relating to opposition proceedings between Lan Airlines, SA and Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, SA.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the President of the Court of 20 April 2012 —

Fapricela v Commission



(Case C‑507/11 P(R))

Application for interim measures — Competition — Decision of the Commission imposing a fine — Bank guarantee — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Financial damage — Lack of exceptional circumstances — Lack of urgency

1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Suspension of operation of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine imposed — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Impossible to obtain a bank guarantee — Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 33-36, 41, 53-56)

2. Applications for interim measures — Procedure — Whether appropriate to hear the parties — Whether appropriate to admit additional observations and documents after the ending of the written or oral procedure — Discretion of the judge hearing the application for interim relief (Art. 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 39, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 105) (see paras 49-51)

3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Suspension of operation of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine imposed — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Taking account of the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs and of its shareholders — Necessity of providing, at the time of making the application, information concerning the financial capacity of the undertaking’s shareholders (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 67-69)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Plea raised against a ground of the judgment not necessary in order for the operative part to be founded — Plea ineffective (see para. 72)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2011 in Case T‑398/10 R Fapricela v Commission, by which that court dismissed an application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel), inter alia, in so far as it imposes the obligation to set up a bank guarantee in order to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.