ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 —

TofuTown.com v Meica and OHIM

(Case C-599/11 P)

Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the word sign ‘TOFUKING’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark Curry King — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Degree of similarity

1. Appeals — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Rejection (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 119) (see paras 17-36)

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-31)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-99/10 Meica v OHIM — TofuTown.com ( TOFUKING ), in which the General Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2010 (Case R 63/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and TofuTown.com GmbH — Likelihood of confusion.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. TofuTown.com GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG.
Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which does not allow the court responsible for the enforcement, in mortgage enforcement proceedings, either to assess of its own motion or at the consumer’s request, the unfairness of a term contained in the contract which gives rise to the debt claimed and which constitutes the basis of the right to enforcement, or to grant interim relief capable of staying or terminating the mortgage enforcement proceedings, where such relief is necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of the final decision of the court hearing the declaratory proceedings before which the consumer argues that that term is unfair.

Without that possibility, where enforcement in respect of the mortgaged immovable property took place before the judgment of the court in the declaratory proceedings declaring unfair the contractual term on which the mortgage is based and annulling the enforcement proceedings, that judgment would enable that consumer to obtain only subsequent protection of a purely compensatory nature, which would be incomplete and insufficient and would not constitute either an adequate or effective means of preventing the continued use of that term, contrary to Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13. That applies all the more strongly where the mortgaged property is the family home of the consumer whose rights have been infringed, since that means of consumer protection is limited to payment of damages and interest and does not make it possible to prevent the definitive and irreversible loss of that dwelling. Such a procedure is capable of undermining the effectiveness of the protection intended by Directive 93/13.

In those circumstances, the national legislation at issue appears not to comply with the principal of effectiveness because it makes it impossible or excessively difficult, in proceedings initiated by suppliers and sellers in which consumers are defendants, the application of the protection which that directive seeks to confer on those consumers.

(see paras 54-57, 59, 60, operative part 1)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor

(Case C‑369/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Validity of national legislation imposing salary reductions on a number of categories of civil servants — Failure to implement EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation which does not implement EU law or which does not possess any connecting factors to EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 14, 16, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel, Braşov — Interpretation of Articles 17(1), 20, 21(1) and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Admissibility of national legislation imposing salary reductions on a number of categories of civil servants — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of the right of property.

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction with regard to the reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel, Braşov (Romania), made by decision of 27 June 2012.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor

(Case C‑369/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Validity of national legislation imposing salary reductions on a number of categories of civil servants — Failure to implement EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation which does not implement EU law or which does not possess any connecting factors to EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 14, 16, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel, Braşov — Interpretation of Articles 17(1), 20, 21(1) and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Admissibility of national legislation imposing salary reductions on a number of categories of civil servants — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of the right of property.

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction with regard to the reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel, Braşov (Romania), made by decision of 27 June 2012.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2012 — Hermes Hitel és Faktor

(Case C-16/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — General principles of European Union law — Forestry Act — Lack of connection to European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the general principles of European Union law — Request made in the context of a dispute regarding the application of national legislation which does not fall within the scope of European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 13-16, 19, 20)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gyulai Törvényszék — Interpretation of the general principles of European Union law — Mortgage loan contract concluded between a financial establishment and a public body — Legislative amendment declaring non-transferable certain forested areas which were previously traded — Amendment preventing public auction of the property mortgaged following legal proceedings brought by a creditor for non-performance of the contract by the debtor.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Gyulai Törvényszék (Hungary), by decision of 4 January 2012.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2012 — Hermes Hitel és Faktor

(Case C-16/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — General principles of European Union law — Forestry Act — Lack of connection to European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the general principles of European Union law — Request made in the context of a dispute regarding the application of national legislation which does not fall within the scope of European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 13-16, 19, 20)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gyulai Törvényszék — Interpretation of the general principles of European Union law — Mortgage loan contract concluded between a financial establishment and a public body — Legislative amendment declaring non-transferable certain forested areas which were previously traded — Amendment preventing public auction of the property mortgaged following legal proceedings brought by a creditor for non-performance of the contract by the debtor.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Gyulai Törvényszék (Hungary), by decision of 4 January 2012.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 — Rivas Montes

(Case C-178/12)

‛Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Principle of equal treatment — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Determination of length of service — Difference in treatment between civil servants and contractual staff — Taking into account previous periods of employment completed in the administration — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question raised in the context of a dispute concerning national law and not EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 50-54)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo social — Interpretation of Article 45(4) TFEU — National legislation governing the method of calculation of length-of-service increments in the civil service — Application by a public authority of different rules according to whether the employment relationship is of a public service or of a contractual kind — Failure to take into account certain periods of service completed by contractual staff.

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba (Spain) by decision of 27 February 2012.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 — Rivas Montes

(Case C-178/12)

‛Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Principle of equal treatment — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Determination of length of service — Difference in treatment between civil servants and contractual staff — Taking into account previous periods of employment completed in the administration — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question raised in the context of a dispute concerning national law and not EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 50-54)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo social — Interpretation of Article 45(4) TFEU — National legislation governing the method of calculation of length-of-service increments in the civil service — Application by a public authority of different rules according to whether the employment relationship is of a public service or of a contractual kind — Failure to take into account certain periods of service completed by contractual staff.

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba (Spain) by decision of 27 February 2012.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissible (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 para. 24)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Review by the Court of the legal classification of the facts — Lawfulness (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 31, 32)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Case T-227/09 Feng Shen Technology v OHIM — Majtczak (FS) , by which the General Court annulled Decision R 529/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 1 April 2009 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Cancellation Division which had rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity brought by the applicant against the figurative mark ‘FS’ for goods in Class 26.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Jarosław Majtczak is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case C‑534/12 P)

‛Appeal — Action for review — Order of the General Court of the European Union declaring the action inadmissible — Assignment — Reassignment from the delegation in Luanda (Angola) to Brussels (Belgium) — Decision to pack and remove the applicant’s personal effects in his absence — Consequences of a later judgment of the General Court’

1. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any legal basis — Order delivered without a judge having been designated to perform the function of Advocate General — Lawfulness (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 2(2), 18, 19 and 127(2)) (see para. 13)

2. Judicial proceedings — Measures of organisation of procedure — Measures of inquiry — Discretion of the Courts of the Union — Scope (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 64 and 65) (see para. 14)

3. Judicial proceedings — Revision of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility thereof — New fact — Definition (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44, first para.) (see paras 17-19)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2012 in Case T‑241/03 REV Marcuccio v Commission by which that court dismissed an application for review of the order of the General Court of 17 May 2006 in Case T‑241/03 Marcuccio v Commission — Breach of the first subparagraph of Article 64(4) and Article 127(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Breach of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Breach of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

—

Grounds

—

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, Arts 168(1)(d), 169 and 181) (see paras 12-15

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 September 2012 in Case T-314/12 Micsunescu v Commission by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, first, an action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to initiate infringement proceedings against Romania for alleged infringements of the applicant’s rights to property and, second, an action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the actions of the Romanian authorities.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Mr Emil Micsunescu is ordered to bear his own costs.
Judicial proceedings—Costs—Taxation—Recoverable costs—Elements to be taken into consideration—Discretion of the Court—Costs incurred in the context of an appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 144(b) and 184(1))

(see paras 16, 20)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2012 —

Hermes Hitel és Faktor



(Case C-16/12)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — General principles of European Union law — Forestry Act — Lack of connection to European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the general principles of European Union law –Request made in the context of a dispute regarding the application of national legislation which does not fall within the scope of European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 13-16, 19, 20)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gyulai Törvényszék — Interpretation of the general principles of European Union law — Mortgage loan contract concluded between a financial establishment and a public body — Legislative amendment declaring non-transferable certain forested areas which were previously traded — Amendment preventing public auction of the property mortgaged following legal proceedings brought by a creditor for non-performance of the contract by the debtor.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Gyulai Törvényszék (Hungary), by decision of 4 January 2012.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)

17 January 2014 ( )

(Rectification order)

In Case C‑617/12 REC,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 11 December 2012, received at the Court on 18 December 2012, in the proceedings

Astrazeneca AB

v

Comptroller General of Patents,

THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of C.G. Fernlund, President of the Eighth Chamber, acting as President of the Chamber, C. Toader (Rapporteur) and E. Jarašiūnas, Judges,

Advocate General: N. Jääskinen,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 14 November 2013, the Court (Eighth Chamber) made the order in Case C‑617/12 Astrazeneca (not yet published in the ECR).

2 Paragraph 42 of the grounds of the English version of the order contains an error, which must be rectified by the Court of its own motion in accordance with Article 154(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders:

1. In the first sentence of paragraph 42 of the English version of the order of 14 November 2013 in Case C‑617/12 Astrazeneca, the words ‘recital 8’ must be replaced by the words ‘recital 9’.

2. The original of the present order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified order. A note of the rectification order shall be made in the margin of the original rectified order.

[Signatures]
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Getty Images (US) v OHIM

(Case C‑70/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Descriptive character — Word mark PHOTOS.COM — Partial refusal of registration — Equal treatment — Obligation for OHIM to take into account its prior decision-making practice — Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded’

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) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 20)

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), first para. TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 169(2)) (see para. 21)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark composed of several elements — Account taken of the global perception of the combination by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of OHIM — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see paras 41‑45)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of 21 November 2012 in Case T‑338/11 Getty Images v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of Decision R 1831/2010‑2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 6 April 2011, rejecting the appeal brought against the examiner’s decision to partially refuse registration of the word mark ‘PHOTOS.COM’, for goods in classes 9, 42 and 45 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.