ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 46)

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 trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 55-56)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2005 in Case T‑29/04 Castellblanch v OHIM in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action brought by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘CRISTAL CASTELLBLANCH’ for goods in Class 33 for annulment of Decision R 0037/2002-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 17 November 2003 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing to register that mark in the context of the opposition brought by the proprietor of national and international word marks containing the word ‘CRISTAL’ for goods in Class 33.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Castellblanch SA is ordered to pay the costs.
APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 23 November 2005 in Case T-396/04

Soffass

v

OHIM

, in which the Court dismissed as unfounded an action by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘NICKY’ for goods in Class 15 against Decision R 699/2003-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 16 July 2004, annulling the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national figurative marks ‘NOKY’ and ‘noky’ for goods in Class 16.
Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2007 – Vischim v Commission

(Case C-459/06 P(R))

Appeal – Interim measures – Application for suspension of operation – Directive 91/414/EEC – Fresh application for interim measures – New facts – Urgency – None

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – ‘Prima facie case’ – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of the interests involved (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 109) (see para. 23)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 31-32)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2006 in Case T-420/05 R II Vischim v Commission dismissing a second application for suspension of enforcement in connection with an application for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2005/53/EC of 16 September 2005 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include chlorothalonil, chlorotoluron, cypermethrin, daminozide and thiophanate-methyl as active substances (OJ 2005 L 241, p. 51) – New facts not capable of calling into question the assessments on which the dismissal of the first application was founded.

Operative part

The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 – Criminal proceedings against Gallo and Damonte

(Case C‑191/06)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC – Games of chance – Collection of bets on sporting events – Licensing requirement – Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form – Requirement of police authorisation – Criminal penalties

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 7, operative part 1-4)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale di Lecce – Interpretation of Articles 31, 43, 49 and 81 to 86 EC – National law making the activity of collecting bets subject to prior authorisation

Operative part:

National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes – and, moreover, continues to exclude – from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 February 2008 – Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia – Generalidad Valenciana

(Case C‑363/06 P)

Appeal – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure – Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice – Representation by a lawyer – Compliance with the essential procedural requirements of the Rules of Procedure – Principle of non-discrimination – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third and fourth paras, and 21, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(6)) (see paras 24-26, 34)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where a clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1), EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 42)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2006 in Case T-357/05 Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia – Generalidad Valenciana v Commission , by which the Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the appellant’s application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 1867 final of 27 June 2005 concerning the reduction of the financial assistance initially granted from the Cohesion Fund to Project Group No 97/11/61/028, concerning the collection and treatment of waste waters on the Mediterranean coast of the Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia (Spain) – Representation by a lawyer – Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2007 – Torres v OHIM

(Case C‑405/06 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Application for the figurative mark ‘Torre Muga’ – Opposition proceedings – Earlier international and national word mark ‘TORRES’ – Likelihood of confusion – Opposition rejected

1. 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 32)

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 (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1) (see para. 34)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2006 in Case T-247/03 Torres v OHIM and Bodegas Muga , by which the Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 April 2003 (Case R 998/2001-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres SA and Bodegas Muga SA.

Operative part:

The appeal is dismissed;
I-B-2  - 21ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)
19 October 2007
Case C-238/07  P
Derya Beyatli
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Appeals — Civil service — Open competition for citizens of the  
Republic of Cyprus — Notice of competition — Time-limits — Complaint — 
Letter sent to the Head of the Commission Delegation to Cyprus)
Full text in English   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . II-B-2 - 189
Appeal:  against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 
5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04 Beyatli and Candan v Commission 
[2007] E
CR-SC I-A-2-71 and  II-A-2-511 by which the Court  
of F
irst Instance dismissed as inadmissible the application by the 
applicants seeking the annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/A/1/03 for the establishment of a reserve list of assistant administrators of Cypriot nationality not to admit them to the oral tests in that competition
.
Held:  The appeal is dismissed . Mrs Beyatli is ordered to pay the costs .
I-B-2  - 22SUMMARY — CASE C-238/07 P
Summary
Appeals  — Grounds  — Plea alleging failure to produce documents  — Documents not 
relevant for ruling on the admissibility of the action — Appeal dismissed
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Intervention – Preliminary rulings procedure

(Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 23 and 40)

Summary

An application by the European Data Protection Supervisor for leave to intervene in a case brought under Article 234 EC is inadmissible. The right to intervene before the Court is governed by Article 40 of its Statute, which recognises the right of natural or legal persons to intervene if they can establish an interest in the result of a case which has been submitted to the Court. Article 40 also provides that submissions made in an application to intervene must be limited to supporting the form of order sought by one of the parties. It therefore applies to contentious proceedings before the Court designed to resolve a dispute. By contrast, Article 234 EC does not envisage contentious proceedings designed to resolve a dispute, but prescribes a procedure whose aim is to ensure a uniform interpretation of Community law by cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts and which enables the latter to seek the interpretation of the Community provisions which they will apply to the actions brought before them. It follows that intervention in preliminary ruling proceedings is not possible.

Moreover, since the Supervisor is not expressly mentioned in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and, in the main proceedings, is not a ‘party’ for the purposes of that article, which governs participation in the proceedings in the cases covered by Article 234 EC, he is not entitled to submit observations to the Court on the questions referred by the national court for a preliminary ruling.

(see paras 8-13)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Right of action reserved to the Commission and the Member States

–

Action brought by a natural or legal person

–

Inadmissible (Arts 226 EC and 227 EC) (see paras 6-7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Infringement, in a particular case, of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the present case.

2. Mr Raulin is ordered to bear his own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Jurisdiction of the Court

–

Limits (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 10-11

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Conseil de Prud’Hommes de Beauvais – Interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Arts 30 and 33), the European Social Charter (Arts 24 and 27), and of Convention No 158 of the International Labour Organisation, as regards termination of employment – Dismissal of an employee without valid reason – Whether national legislation is valid in the light of the abovementioned provisions.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions posed by the Conseil de prud’hommes de Beauvais by decision of 9 July 2007.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2008 — Combescot v Commission

(Case C-525/07 P)

‛Appeal — Officials — Career development report — Duty to provide assistance — Mental harassment — Compensation for damage — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Admissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 34)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC, Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 49)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance — Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)( c)) (see paras 50, 51)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate or contradictory grounds (Art. 225 EC, Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 62)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-249/04 Combescot v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for, first, recognition that the conduct of the appellant’s hierarchical superiors was unlawful, recognition that the appellant had the right to assistance, and annulment of the appellant’s career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002; and, second, payment of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl and Magan Italia Srl shall pay the costs.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Deoleo v Aceites del Sur-Coosur (Case C-498/07 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — National scale of lawyers’ fees — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 19, 20, 30, 31)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Involvement of more than one lawyer — No effect — Assessment primarily in relation to the total number of hours which were objectively indispensable for the purposes of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 27-29)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Definition — Value-added tax — Excluded in the case of a taxable person (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 32)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 in Case C-498/07 P Aceites del Sur-Coosur v Koipe.

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed by Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA to Deoleo SA are fixed at EUR 21 588.51.

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Deoleo v Aceites del Sur-Coosur (Case C-498/07 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — National scale of lawyers’ fees — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 19, 20, 30, 31)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Involvement of more than one lawyer — No effect — Assessment primarily in relation to the total number of hours which were objectively indispensable for the purposes of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 27-29)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Definition — Value-added tax — Excluded in the case of a taxable person (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 32)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 in Case C-498/07 P Aceites del Sur-Coosur v Koipe.

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed by Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA to Deoleo SA are fixed at EUR 21 588.51.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

19 October 2007

Case C-238/07 P

Derya Beyatli

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeals – Civil service – Open competition for citizens of the Republic of Cyprus – Notice of competition – Time-limits – Complaint – Letter sent to the Head of the Commission Delegation to Cyprus)

Appeal: against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04 Beyatli and Candan v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000 by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the application by the applicants seeking the annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/A/1/03 for the establishment of a reserve list of assistant administrators of Cypriot nationality not to admit them to the oral tests in that competition.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mrs Beyatli is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Appeals – Grounds – Plea alleging failure to produce documents – Documents not relevant for ruling on the admissibility of the action – Appeal dismissed
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 April 2008 – RAI v PTV Programmazioni Televisive

(Case C‑305/07)

Preliminary references – Manifest inadmissibility

Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Questions referred without sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context (Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 14-18)

Re:

Preliminary ruling – Tribunale civile di Genova – Interpretation of Article 86(2) EC – Concept of aid – Fee imposed on all owners of televisual appliances for the purpose of financing the public television broadcasting service – Validity of Commission Decision C(2005) 1164 final of 20 April 2005 declaring that fee to be compatible with the common market.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling brought by the Tribunale ordinario di Genova by decision of 16 June 2007 is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2008 – Raulin v France

(Case C‑454/07)

Action brought by a natural person against a Member State and seeking a declaration that the Member State concerned has infringed Community law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of action reserved to the Commission and the Member States – Action brought by a natural or legal person – Inadmissible (Arts 226 EC and 227 EC) (see paras 6-7)

Re:

Infringement, in a particular case, of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77).

Operative part

1. The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the present case.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 – AMS v OHIM

(Case C‑565/07 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Figurative trade mark AMS Advanced Medical Services – Partial refusal of registration – Opposition proceedings – Appeal which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – No need to adjudicate (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 13-16)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2007 in Case T-425/03 AMS v OHIM – American Medical Systems (AMS Advanced Medical Services) , by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘AMS Advanced Medical Services’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 10 and 42 against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2003 annulling the decision of the Opposition Division and allowing in part the opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘AMS’ – Opposition proceedings – Admissibility of a request to prove the genuine use of the earlier mark made by the applicant for the first time before the Board of Appeal.

Operative part:

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for damages – Subject-matter – Action for damages alleging that a decision taken by a national body on implementing Community legislation was unlawful – Jurisdiction of the Court – Conditions – Whether the alleged unlawful conduct can be attributed to a Community institution (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 17-19)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Fact that the Commission did not initiate infringement proceedings – Not unlawful (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 20-22)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 January 2008 in Case T-375/07 R Rosario Maria Pellegrini v Commission rejecting the application for interim measures requesting that the Commission be ordered to pay compensation, on a provisional basis, for the financial damage allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the Commission’s failure to ensure full application and correct interpretation of the provisions of Community law governing the activities of financial intermediaries.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Rosario Maria Pellegrini to pay his own costs relating to the present procedure.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2009 — Michail v Commission

(Case C-268/08 P)

‛Appeal — Staff case — Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Duty to provide assistance — Distortion of facts — Errors in the legal assessment of the facts’

Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para., (c)) (see paras 19, 20)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04 Michail v Commission by which that court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of the Commission’s implied rejection of of the appellant’s application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Infringement of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Distortion of the facts — Errors in the legal classification of the facts.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.