ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 — Hunland-Trade

(Case C‑356/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficiently detailed information as regards the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2) and 94) (see paras 13-15, 23, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest környéki közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság (Hungary), made by decision of 16 June 2014, in Case C‑356/14, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 — Hunland-Trade

(Case C‑356/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficiently detailed information as regards the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2) and 94) (see paras 13-15, 23, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest környéki közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság (Hungary), made by decision of 16 June 2014, in Case C‑356/14, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.
Case C‑491/14

Rosa dels Vents Assessoria SL

v

U Hostels Albergues Juveniles SL

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Madrid)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5(1) — Concept of ‘third party’ — Proprietor of a later trade mark’

Summary — Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 10 March 2015

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Rights conferred by a trade mark — Right to prohibit use of the mark — Any third party — Meaning — Proprietor of a later trade mark — Included — Action for infringement — No need to wait until the later mark has been declared invalid (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95, Art. 5(1))

See the text of the decision. (see paras 18, 19) Article 9(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right of the proprietor of a Community trade mark to prohibit any third party from using, in the course of trade, signs identical, or similar, to its trade mark extends to a third-party proprietor of a later registered Community trade mark, and there is no need to wait until the later mark has been declared invalid. (see para. 31, operative part)

Case C‑491/14

Rosa dels Vents Assessoria SL

v

U Hostels Albergues Juveniles SL

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Madrid)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5(1) — Concept of ‘third party’ — Proprietor of a later trade mark’

Summary — Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 10 March 2015

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Rights conferred by a trade mark — Right to prohibit use of the mark — Any third party — Meaning — Proprietor of a later trade mark — Included — Action for infringement — No need to wait until the later mark has been declared invalid (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95, Art. 5(1))
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 —

Meister v Commission

(Case C‑327/14 P)

‛Appeal — Order of inadmissibility delivered by the General Court of the European Union — Action for annulment brought by an individual — Failure on the part of the European Commission to act on the complaint’

1. 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, 169 and 181) (see paras 9-23)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see para. 26)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mrs Galina Meister is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 —

Meister v Commission

(Case C‑327/14 P)

‛Appeal — Order of inadmissibility delivered by the General Court of the European Union — Action for annulment brought by an individual — Failure on the part of the European Commission to act on the complaint’

1. 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, 169 and 181) (see paras 9-23)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see para. 26)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — Basic v OHIM

(Case C‑400/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Application for registration of a Community figurative mark — Word element ‘basic’ — Earlier Community figurative mark — Word element ‘BASIC’ — Opposition by the proprietor of that mark — Partial refusal of registration — Concepts of ‘distribution services’ and of ‘retail and wholesale services’ — Scope’

Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — No effect (Council Regulation No 40/94) (see para. 52)

Operative part

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — Basic v OHIM

(Case C‑400/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Application for registration of a Community figurative mark — Word element ‘basic’ — Earlier Community figurative mark — Word element ‘BASIC’ — Opposition by the proprietor of that mark — Partial refusal of registration — Concepts of ‘distribution services’ and of ‘retail and wholesale services’ — Scope’

Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — No effect (Council Regulation No 40/94) (see para. 52)

Operative part

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 —

Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case C‑575/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Arbitration clause — Contract relating to European Union financial support for a project in the context of the ‘eContent’ programme — Termination of the contract by the European Commission — Payment of amounts not paid and compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — Distortion of evidence in the file — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded as to the remainder — Application to amend the decision of the General Court of the European Union on costs — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Appeal — Grounds — No distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Clearly unfounded ground of appeal (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 14-19)

2. Appeal — Grounds — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law — Rejection (Art. 256(1) TFEU) (see para. 20)

3. Appeal — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 21, 22)

Operative part

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 —

Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case C‑575/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Arbitration clause — Contract relating to European Union financial support for a project in the context of the ‘eContent’ programme — Termination of the contract by the European Commission — Payment of amounts not paid and compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — Distortion of evidence in the file — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded as to the remainder — Application to amend the decision of the General Court of the European Union on costs — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Appeal — Grounds — No distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Clearly unfounded ground of appeal (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 14-19)

2. Appeal — Grounds — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law — Rejection (Art. 256(1) TFEU) (see para. 20)

3. Appeal — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 21, 22)

Operative part

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
3.

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Involvement of more than one lawyer — No effect — Assessment having regard primarily to the total number of hours’ work objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 22-24)
Article 14 of Directive 98/71 on the legal protection of designs and Article 110 of Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs must be interpreted as not allowing, by way of derogation from the provisions of Directive 2008/95 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, a manufacturer of replacement parts and accessories for motor vehicles, such as wheel covers, to affix to its products a sign identical to a trade mark registered for such products inter alia by a producer of motor vehicles, without obtaining the latter’s consent, on the ground that the use thus made of that trade mark is the only way of repairing the vehicle concerned, restoring to that complex product its original appearance.

First, it is clear from the wording of Article 14 of Directive 98/71 and of Article 110 of Regulation No 6/2002 that those provisions impose certain limitations only on protection as designs, without any reference to protection as trade marks.

Second, Article 2 of Directive 98/71 provides that that directive applies only to design rights registered with certain national and international design offices and applications for registration of design rights. Furthermore, it is clear from Article 1 of Regulation No 6/2002, read in the light of recital 5 of that regulation, that the purpose of the latter is merely to create a Community design which is directly applicable in each Member State.

Third and lastly, it is clear from recital 7 and Article 16 of Directive 98/71, and also from recital 31 and Article 96(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, that those measures of EU law apply without prejudice to any provisions of that law or of the law of the Member State concerned relating, inter alia, to trade marks.

It follows that Article 14 of Directive 98/71 and Article 110 of Regulation No 6/2002 do not contain any derogation from the provisions of Directive 2008/95 and Regulation No 207/2009.

(see paras 39-42, 45, operative part)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2016 —

Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO

(Case C‑224/14 P) ( *1 )

‛Appeal — EU trade mark — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded’

Appeal — 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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see para. 27)

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

( *1 ) OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
3.

Appeal — 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.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 27, 31, 50)
5

Accordingly, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘Is Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83 … to be interpreted as meaning that substances or combinations of substances, within the meaning of that provision, which merely modify — that is, do not restore or correct — human physiological functions are to be regarded as medicinal products only if they are of therapeutic benefit or at any rate bring about a modification of bodily functions along positive lines? Consequently, do substances or combinations of substances which are consumed solely for their — intoxication-inducing — psychoactive effects, and in the process also have an effect which at least poses a risk to health, fall under the definition of “medicinal product” contained in the directive?’
15

In those circumstances, the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Commercial Court No 3, Barcelona) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does Article 43 of the [Code of Civil Procedure], which precludes the court proposing to the parties a possible stay of civil proceedings when another court or tribunal has referred a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, not constitute a clear limitation of Article 7 of Directive 93/13 with regard to the Member States’ duty to ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers? (2) Does Article 721(2) of the [Code of Civil Procedure], which precludes the court adopting or proposing of its own motion the adoption of interim measures in individual actions in which it is claimed that a general condition is void because unfair, not constitute a clear limitation of Article 7 of Directive 93/13 with regard to the Member States’ duty to ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers? (3) Ought not any interim measures that might be adopted, either of the court’s own motion or at the request of one or other of the parties, in proceedings in which an individual action is brought, to have effect until final judgment shall have been given either in the individual action or in a collective action that could interfere with the bringing of individual actions, in order to ensure the adequate and effective means provided for in Article 7 of Directive 93/13? The court requests the Court of Justice to consider this reference for a preliminary ruling under the expedited procedure laid down in Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure.’
Those reductions clearly form part of an operator’s commercial strategy and relate directly to the promotion and sale of those products.

Price reductions intended to induce consumers to buy products on an e-commerce website constitute commercial practices within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, and, consequently, come within its material scope.

Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding national provisions which provide for a general prohibition, without a case-by-case assessment of whether they are unfair, of announcements of price reductions which do not show the reference price when the price is marked or displayed, in so far as those provisions pursue objectives relating to consumer protection, which is for the national court to determine.

In that regard, 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 sets out, in its Annex I, an exhaustive list of 31 commercial practices which, in accordance with its Article 5(5), are regarded as unfair in all circumstances. Consequently, as recital 17 in the preamble to the directive expressly states, only those commercial practices can be deemed to be unfair without a case-by-case assessment under Articles 5 to 9 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

Practices which consist of announcing to consumers price reductions which do not show the reference price when the price is marked or displayed do not appear in Annex I to the directive. Therefore, they may not be prohibited in all circumstances, but only after a specific assessment has determined whether the practices are unfair.

(see paras 34, 38, 39, 41, operative part)
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 —

Andre (Case C‑23/15)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the factual and legal background of the case in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(a)) (see paras 4-9)

Operative part:

The request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium), by decision of 24 November 2008 in Case C‑23/15 is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 —

Andre (Case C‑23/15)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the factual and legal background of the case in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(a)) (see paras 4-9)

Operative part:

The request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium), by decision of 24 November 2008 in Case C‑23/15 is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2015 —

Brás Messias v Portugal

(Case C‑422/15 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Essential procedural requirements — Representation by a lawyer — Manifest inadmissibility’

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer — Applicant with the status of lawyer authorised to practise before a national court — No effect — Manifest inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third para., and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 57(1) and 119(1) and (3)) (see paras 14, 16)

Operative part:

1. The appeal of brought by Mr Fernando Brás Messias is inadmissible.
5.

State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Discretion of the Commission — Adoption by the Commission of guidelines governing the compatibility of aid with the internal market — Consequences — Self-limitation of its discretion — Obligation to respect the principles of equal treatment and of the protection of legitimate expectations (Art. 107(3)(b) TFEU; Commission Communication 2008/C 270/02) (see paras 60-62)
Regulation No 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Regulations No 3821/85 and No 2135/98 and repealing Regulation No 3820/85 and, in particular, Article 8(8) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which lays down the conditions under which the driver of a vehicle may claim reimbursement of accommodation costs incurred in the course of his employment.

Regulation No 561/2006, which harmonises, inter alia, the rules relating to driving time, breaks and rest periods which must be observed by drivers transporting goods and passengers by road, while allowing the national legislature the possibility to adopt provisions more favourable to drivers, does not contain any provision relating to allowances that such drivers may be entitled to in the course of their employment.

(see paras20, 21, operative part)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 January 2016 —

TVR Italia v TVR Automotive and OHIM

(Case C‑500/15 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Language of procedure — Manifest inadmissibility’

Judicial proceedings — Rules on languages — Choice of language of procedure — Obligation to respect that choice in the case of an appeal — No application made to use a different language of procedure — Manifest inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 37(1)(b) and (c)), (2)(a) and 168(4)) (see paras 6-14)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
1.

Appeal — 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 5, 6)