ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

3 September 2021 ( *1 )

(Rectification of judgment)

In Case C‑611/16 P‑REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 25 November 2016,

Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, established in Copenhagen (Denmark),

Alpharma LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC, established in Parsippany, New Jersey (United States),

represented by D.W. Hull, Solicitor,

appellants,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Commission, represented by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and B. Rayment, Barrister,

defendant at first instance,

supported by:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented initially by D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and J. Holmes QC, and subsequently by D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and J. Holmes QC,

intervener in the appeal,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of M. Vilaras, President of the Chamber, D. Šváby (Rapporteur), S. Rodin, K. Jürimäe and P.G. Xuereb, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Kokott,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 25 March 2021, the Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered the judgment in Xellia Pharmaceuticals and Alpharma v Commission (C‑611/16 P, EU:C:2021:245).

2 That judgment contains, in its introductory part, errors which it is appropriate to rectify at the request of the European Commission, pursuant to Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to appeal proceedings in accordance with Article 190(1) of those rules.

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

1. In the introductory part of the judgment of 25 March 2021, Xellia Pharmaceuticals and Alpharma v Commission (C‑611/16 P, EU:C:2021:245), the reference to the representatives of the European Commission shall be rectified as follows: ‘European Commission, represented by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and B. Rayment, Barrister,’

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

Luxembourg, 3 September 2021. A. Calot Escobar Registrar M. Vilaras President of the Fourth Chamber

( *1 ) Language of the case: English.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 June 2017 — Redpur v EUIPO

(Case C‑86/17 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word mark Redpur — Rejection of the application for registration)

Appeal—Grounds—Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted—Assessments relating to the similarity of the marks at issue

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

(see paras 4, 5)

Operative part

1) The appeal is dismissed.

2) Redpur GmbH is to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) JO C 213 du 3.7.2017.
Concerning the urgency requirement, the purpose of the procedure for interim relief is to guarantee the full effectiveness of the future final decision, in order to ensure that there is no lacuna in the legal protection provided by the Court. For the purpose of attaining that objective, urgency must be assessed in the light of the need for an interlocutory order in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party seeking the interim relief.

It is for the party claiming such damage to establish its existence. While it is not necessary for it to be absolutely certain that the damage will occur, a sufficient degree of probability being enough, the applicant is nonetheless required to prove the facts which are considered to found the prospect of such damage.

With regard to the application for interim measures submitted by the Commission in the context of its action for failure to fulfil obligations against Poland, the urgency requirement is satisfied given that the active forest management operations in the Białowieża forest, a Site of Community Importance and a Special Protection Area for Birds, are likely to cause irreparable and serious damage to the environment. Indeed, once it has occurred, the damage caused by the felling and removal of trees would be impossible to rectify subsequently, should the Commission’s allegations concerning Poland’s failure to fulfil obligations be established. In addition, the seriousness of the damage alleged by the Commission is demonstrated by the fact that those operations, in view also of their scale and intensity, risk causing, if they are pursued, the irreversible transformation of a significant area of a natural forest into a harvested forest, risking the loss of the habitats of rare species.

(see paras 43-45, 59, 61)
Appeal—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) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

(see para. 28)
Joined Cases C‑142/17 and C‑143/17

Manuela Maturi and Others v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma,

Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma v Manuela Maturi and Others

and

Catia Passeri contre Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

(Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione)

(References for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Directive 2006/54/EC — National rules providing for the temporary possibility for performing artists having reached retirement age to continue to perform until the age previously laid down for entitlement to a pension, fixed at 47 years old for women and 52 years old for men)

Summary — Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 7 February 2018

Social policy — Male and female workers — Access to employment and working conditions — Equal treatment — Directive 2006/54 — National legislation providing for the temporary possibility for performing artists having reached retirement age to continue to perform until the age previously laid down for entitlement to a pension — Establishment of different levels, according to sex, of the age for entitlement to that pension — Direct discrimination on grounds of sex — Unlawful

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/54, Arts 2(1)(b) and 14(1)(c))

Article 14(1)(c) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that national rules, such as those laid down in Article 3(7) of Decree-Law No 64 of 30 April 2010, converted into Law No 100, of 29 June 2010, in the version in force at the material time, pursuant to which workers employed as dancers having reached the retirement age laid down by those rules of 45 years old for both women and men, have the option for a transitional period of two years to continue to work until the working age limit laid down by the previous rules, set at 47 years old for women and 52 years old for men, establishes direct discrimination based on sex which is prohibited by that directive.

In that connection, it must be recalled that Directive 2006/54 draws a distinction between discrimination directly on grounds of sex and ‘indirect’ discrimination inasmuch as the former cannot be justified by a legitimate aim. By contrast, pursuant to Article 2(1)(b) of that directive, provisions, criteria or practices liable to constitute indirect discrimination can avoid being classified as discriminatory if they are ‘objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary’ (judgment of 18 November 2010, Kleist, C‑356/09, EU:C:2010:703, paragraph 41).

Therefore, a difference of treatment, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, cannot be justified by the wish to avoid exposing the workers concerned to a sudden change, in a restrictive sense, from the preceding rules on continuation of employment.

(see paras 38-40, operative part)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context—Statement of the reasons for requiring an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

(see paras 15-17)
Appeal—Grounds—Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded—Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see para. 2)
Appeal—Grounds—Mistaken assessment of the facts—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.)

(see para. 5)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 — GS

(Case C‑440/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 2011/96/EU — Article 1(2) — Parent company — Holding company — Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company — Exemption — Tax evasion, avoidance or abuse — Presumption)

1. Approximation of laws—Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States—Directive 2011/96—Exhaustive harmonisation—No such harmonisation—Possibility of assessing the compatibility of national legislation in the same field on the basis of primary law (Council Directive 2011/96, as amended by Directive 2013/13, Art. 1(2)) (see para. 31)

2. Approximation of laws—Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States—Directive 2011/96—Exemption, in the Member State of the subsidiary, from withholding tax on profits distributed to the parent company—Dividends distributed by a resident subsidiary to a non-resident parent company—Exemption from withholding tax being the general rule—Derogation from that rule in the case of abuse or fraud—Shares in the parent company held by persons who are not entitled to such an exemption—National legislation which, as a general rule, prevents those persons from benefiting from the exemption—Irrefutable presumption of fraud or abuse—Not permissible (Art. 49 TFEU; Council Directive 2011/96, as amended by Directive 2013/13, Art. 1(2)) (see paras 43-45, 48, 63, 64, 66, 77-81, operative part)

Operative part

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2013/13/EU of 13 May 2013, and Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a withholding tax on dividends awarded by a resident subsidiary to its non-resident parent company, but which excludes the right of the latter to obtain reimbursement of or exemption from such withholding tax where, first, the shares in that parent company are held by persons who would not be entitled to such a reimbursement or such an exemption if they had received the dividends from such a subsidiary directly and that parent company has not earned its gross income for the trading year concerned from its own economic activity and, second, one of the two conditions laid down by that legislation is satisfied, namely either there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of that parent company, or that company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, without taking account of the organisational, economic or other significant features of the undertakings which are connected with the parent company in question.

( 1 ) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 — Arrigoni v EUIPO

(Case C‑642/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Arrigoni Valtaleggio’ — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity)

Appeal—Grounds—Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169)

(see para. 4)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
Judicial proceedings – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs —Definition – Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties – Elements to be taken into consideration – Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings – Included

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b))

(see paras 16, 17)
Appeal — Grounds — Error of law — Erroneous application of the principle that grant agreements are to be implemented in good faith — Clearly unfounded ground of appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paras 21-27, 32)
5

Legge No 208 — Disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (Law No 208 laying down provisions for drawing up the annual and multiannual State budget) of 28 December 2015 (ordinary supplement to GURI No 302 of 30 December 2015) amended Law No 89/2001. In particular, it inserted into that law a new Article 5sexies, which reads as follows: ‘1. In order to receive payment of liquidated sums in accordance with this law, the creditor shall issue the debtor public authority with a declaration … attesting to the fact that he has not received the sums due, that legal proceedings have been conducted in respect of the debt, the amount that the public authority is still obliged to pay and the method of payment chosen in accordance with paragraph 9 of the present article, and shall send the required documentation in accordance with the decrees referred to in paragraph 3. 2. The declaration referred to in paragraph 1 shall remain valid for a period of six months and shall be re-issued at the request of the public authority. 3. The Ministry of Economic and Financial Affairs and the Ministry of Justice shall, by 30 October 2016, issue decrees approving the form of the declaration referred to in paragraph 1 and listing the documentation to be sent to the debtor public authority in accordance with paragraph 1. Public authorities shall publish the form and printed documents referred to in the preceding paragraph on their official websites. 4. In the event that the declaration or the documentation referred to in the preceding paragraphs is not sent or is incomplete or is incorrectly sent, no order for payment shall be issued. 5. The public authority shall make the payment within six months of the date on which the requirements set out in the preceding paragraphs are satisfied in full. That period shall not start to run if the declaration or the documentation referred to in the preceding paragraphs is not sent, or is incomplete or is incorrectly sent. … 7. Before the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 5, the creditor shall not be entitled to proceed to enforced execution or to serve an enforcement order or to bring an action seeking compliance with the judgment. …’
16

Article 6(1), (3) and (4) of that directive provides: ‘1. For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites. … 3. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. 4. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.’
Appeal—Grounds—Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded—Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see para. 4)
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 19 September 2018 — Parliament v Strabag Belgium

(Case C‑229/18 P(R))

(Appeal — Order for interim measures — Public works contracts of the European Communities — Tender procedure — Decision rejecting the tender of a tenderer and awarding the contract to other tenderers — Suspension of operation of that decision — Interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

Appeal—Interest in bringing proceedings—Condition—Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it—Repeal of the contested act in the course of the proceedings—Application devoid of purpose—No need to adjudicate—Application to appeals directed against an order for interim measures

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 149 and 190(1))

(see paras 21-24)

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.
2.

Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of plant varieties — Technical examination — Power of the Community Plant Variety Office to entrust the responsibility for the technical examination to national bodies — Designation of a single examination office for varieties belonging to the same plant variety mutation group — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 2100/94, Arts 54, 55 and 76) (see para. 5)
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 para. 46)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 January 2019 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs v Commission

(Case C‑415/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Actions for damages — Failure by the European Commission to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU against the Republic of Austria — Refraining of national courts to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Action manifestly inadmissible)

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Discretion of the institution when adopting the measure (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 19-22)

2. EU law — Rights conferred on individuals — Infringement by a Member State — Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals (see para. 27)

3. Appeal — Grounds — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law — Rejection (see para. 29)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.
Appeal — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 170(1))

(see para. 29)
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.)

(see paras 5, 6)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of provisions of EU law manifestly inapplicable in the dispute in the main proceedings — Dispute relating to a purely internal situation — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Arts 18 and 267 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 805/2004 and No 1215/2012)

(see paras 18-25, 30, operative part.)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 June 2019 — Fred Olsen v Naviera Armas

(Case C‑319/18 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — State aid — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Exclusive right of use of the port infrastructure at Puerto de Las Nieves (Spain) granted to a shipping company — Decision finding no State aid at the end of the preliminary investigation procedure — Advantage granted by means of State resources — Test of a private investor acting in a market economy)

State aid — Concept — Assessment according to the private investor test — Grant of exclusive access to port infrastructure managed by a public authority — Criteria for assessment

(Art. 107(1) TFEU)

(see paras 39-44)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

2. Fred Olsen SA is ordered to bear its own costs incurred in the appeal proceedings and to pay those incurred by Naviera Armas SA.

3. The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 12, 13.1.1997.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO

(Case C‑118/18 P-REV)

(Application for revision — Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Conditions — Appeal — Failure to raise a new fact — Inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings — Revision of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility of the application — New fact — Meaning

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 159(1))

(see paras 25-29)

Operative part

1. The application for revision brought by Hochmann Marketing GmbH is dismissed.