ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 24 September 2019 — Hesse v EUIPO

(Case C‑426/19 P)

(Appeal — EU trade mark — Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

Appeal — Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Request failing to demonstrate the significance of an issue — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see paras 11-14)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
2.

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 — Ground alleging distortion of the facts — Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 4)
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 paras 10, 11)
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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 7)
Appeal — Grounds — Challenge to the contested decision before the General Court and not the judgment it delivered — Inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(b))

(see para. 4)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 March 2020 — Boé Aquitaine

(Case C‑838/19)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Insufficient information regarding the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Extent of the obligation in the sphere of competition — Insufficient information regarding that context — Lack of indications on the applicability to an internal situation of a provision of EU law rendered applicable by national law — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 13-27)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the tribunal de commerce de Bordeaux (France), by decision of 22 March 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.
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 — Subject matter of the national dispute not having any connection with EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 6(1)TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 17(1), 49(1) and (3) and 51(1) and (2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

(see paras 21-25, operative part)
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. 9)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2020 –

CPAS d’Anderlecht

(Case C‑394/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Citizenship of the European Union – Right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of a Member State – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 3 – Beneficiaries – Incorrect transposition – Liability of a Member State in the event of infringement of EU law – Grant of social assistance as compensation for the damage suffered – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Provisions of EU law made directly and unconditionally applicable by national legislation to situations falling outside of their scope of application – Included – Condition – Need for the national court to indicate that such a reference exists – No such indication – Inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38)

(see paras 27-30)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Labour Court (French-speaking), Belgium) by decision of 14 May 2019 is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Judicial proceedings – Time limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure – Concept composed of objective and subjective elements – Limits

(Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para., (d))

(see paras 33-35)
21

In the third and last place, as regards the arguments set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the present order that the appeal raises novel issues of law with respect to the case-law of the Court, it must be noted that the present request that the appeal be allowed to proceed is vitiated by lack of precision as regards both the provision of EU law and case-law alleged to have been infringed by the General Court when it held that motor vehicles in general can be used as the basis for substantiating the individual character according to the product indication of the design. Further, it must be stated that the fact that an issue of law has not been examined by the Court does not thereby mean that that issue is necessarily one of significance with respect to the development of EU law, and the appellant remains bound to demonstrate that significance by providing detailed information not only on the novelty of that issue, but also on the reasons why that issue is significant in relation to the development of EU law (order of 30 September 2019, All Star v EUIPO, C‑461/19 P, not published, EU:C:2019:797, paragraph 16). In the present case, the appellant merely claims that the issues of law relied on in connection with those arguments are relevant with respect to the development of EU law and refers to the absence of any case-law of the Court in that regard, without, however, providing any other information.
48

However, according to the factual findings of that court, the product at issue in the main proceedings appears to have the objective characteristics of base metal curtain rods which may fall within CN subheading 83024190. The referral decision indicates that the tubes concerned are individually wrapped in a protective film and closed at their ends by plastic stoppers which may serve as decorative end pieces, which is indicative of an intended use for which the external appearance of the product, or even its ornamental function, is an important criterion, as opposed to what could be found, for example, in the case of use of the product as a pipe. Furthermore, it appears that, even if they are not drilled or milled or provided with grooves for sliders, as the Main Customs Office claimed before the referring court, the surfaces of the tubes concerned are nevertheless galvanised or painted, giving them a copper or coloured appearance, so that they are not tubes merely cut to length, within the meaning of the exception provided for in the second paragraph, point (D)(5), in fine, of the HS Explanatory Note to heading 8302.
15

Article 34 of the decreto legislativo n. 259 — Codice delle comunicazioni elettroniche (Legislative Decree No 259 establishing the Electronic Communications Code) of 1 August 2003 (Ordinary Supplement to GURI No 214 of 15 September 2003), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Electronic Communications Code’), provides as follows: ‘1. In addition to the contributions referred to in Article 35, administrative charges may be imposed on undertakings providing networks or services by virtue of the general authorisation or to which a right of use has been granted covering only the administrative costs incurred in the management, control and enforcement of the general authorisation scheme and of rights of use and of specific obligations as referred to in Article 28(2), which may include costs of international cooperation, harmonisation and standardisation, market analysis, monitoring compliance and other market controls, as well as regulatory work involving preparation and enforcement of secondary legislation and administrative decisions, such as decisions on access and interconnection. The administrative charges shall be imposed upon the individual undertakings in an objective, transparent and proportionate manner which minimises additional administrative costs and attendant charges. 2. In order to cover the administrative costs incurred in the activities within the jurisdiction of the Ministry, the amount of the administrative charges referred to in paragraph 1 is set out in Annex 10. 2a. In order to cover the total administrative costs incurred in carrying out the regulatory, supervisory, dispute-resolution and penalty-imposing tasks assigned by law to [the supervisory authority] in the fields referred to in paragraph 1, the amount of the administrative charges referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined in accordance with Article 1(65) and (66) of Law No 266 of 23 December 2005, and shall be in proportion to the income earned by undertakings from the activities covered by the general authorisation or in respect of which rights of use have been granted. 2b. The Ministry, together with the Ministry of the Economy and Finances, and [the supervisory authority] shall publish annually the administrative costs incurred in connection with the activities referred to in paragraph 1 and the total amount of the charges levied in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 2a. Where there is a difference between the total amount of charges and the administrative costs, appropriate adjustments shall be made.’
1.

In the introductory part of the judgment of 14 January 2021, The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Others (C‑322/19 and C‑385/19, EU:C:2021:11), the indications relating to the observations submitted shall be rectified as follows: – ‘K.S., by M. Conlon, Senior Counsel, E. Dornan and P. O’Shea, Barristers-at-Law, and by B. Burns, Solicitor, – M.H.K., by M. Conlon, Senior Counsel, E. Dornan and P. O’Shea, Barristers-at-Law, and by B. Burns, Solicitor, – R.A.T., by M. Conlon, Senior Counsel, E. Dornan, Barrister-at-Law, and by B. Burns, Solicitor, – D.S. by M. Conlon, Senior Counsel, E. Bourached, Barrister-at-Law, and by S. Bartels, Solicitor, – the Minister for Justice and Equality and Ireland, by M. Browne, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by R. Barron, Senior Counsel, and S.-J. Hillery, Barrister-at-Law, – the European Commission, by A. Azéma, C. Ladenburger and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents’.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 28 May 2020– Hästens Sängar v EUIPO

(Case C‑74/20 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Whether appeals may be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Request failing to demonstrate a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Appeal not allowed to proceed)

1. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union – Burden of proof (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 15)

2. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paras 16-18, 20)

3. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to show the significance of the issue – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a and 170b) (see paras 21, 22, 25-28, 30, 31)

4. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Not included (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a and 170b) (see paras 23, 24)

5. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law –Question that has not been examined by the Court – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to show the significance of the issue – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a and 170b) (see para. 29)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 8)
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 10)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 December 2020 –

Fedasil

(Joined Cases C‑67/20 to C‑69/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – No need to adjudicate)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Case pending before the national court rendered devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate – Possibility for the applicant in the main proceedings of bringing an action for damages – Analogous cases pending before the same court – Irrelevant

(Art. 267 TFEU)

(see paras 20, 23-25)

Operative part

There is no need to adjudicate on the requests for a preliminary ruling made by the cour du travail de Liège (Liège Labour Court, Belgium), by decisions of 10 February 2020.

( 1 ) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context – Extent of the obligation in the sphere of competition – Insufficient information regarding that context – 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)

(see paras 20-31, operative part)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2021 –

Tolnatext

(Case C‑636/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Union Customs Code – Article 22(6) – Article 29 – Right to be heard – Procedures initiated ex officio – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Insufficient information as to the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings – Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Request not explaining why reference to the Court is necessary – 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(c))

(see paras 18-20, 23, 24, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Pécs Court, Hungary), made by decision of 30 October 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a)

(see paras 16, 18-20, 24, 28-30)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 March 2022 – AZ

(Case C‑454/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Transport – Directive 1999/37/EC – Registration documents for vehicles – Directive 2014/45/EU – Periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles – Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties – Driving a motor vehicle which is not duly registered – Penalties – No implementation of EU law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court )

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – National legislation not constituting a measure implementing EU law – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

(see paras 21-24, 27, 29, 31-32, operative part)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Rayonen sad Lukovit (District Court, Lukovit, Bulgaria) by decision of 23 September 2020.

( 1 ) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt – 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 of the Court of Justice

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99)

(see paras 22, 23)
16

Under those circumstances, the Markkinaoikeus (Market Court) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is the first subparagraph of Article 21 of Directive [2011/83] to be interpreted as precluding a trader from providing, in addition to a telephone number charged at no more than the basic rate, a telephone number which the consumer may use for matters relating to a contract previously concluded and for the use of which a price exceeding the basic rate is charged, and, furthermore, in the event that the provision of a telephone number that charges a rate exceeding the basic rate is deemed to be compatible with Article 21 in certain circumstances, are the factors of, for example, whether it is easy to find the telephone number subject to the basic rate, whether the intended purpose of the telephone numbers is specified with sufficient clarity and whether there are significant differences in the availability or level of customer service relevant to the assessment? (2) Must the concept of “basic rate” under Article 21 of Directive 2011/83 be interpreted as meaning that a trader may provide, as a customer service number for matters relating to a contract concluded previously, only a standard geographic landline or mobile telephone line or a number that is free of charge for consumers, and, furthermore, in the event that the trader is permitted to provide another telephone number, what is the maximum amount that a consumer can be charged for the use of that telephone number if he or she has concluded a telephone contract as a package deal?’
7

When the loan agreement at issue was concluded, the Bank provided the applicants in the main proceedings with an information leaflet on the general risks linked to financing denominated in a foreign currency. That information leaflet stated the following, with regard to the foreign exchange risk: ‘We draw your attention to the fact that, in choosing a loan denominated in a foreign currency, you can benefit from the advantages of the market for the chosen currency, but that you also bear the risks. By concluding the loan agreement, you take formal notice of the fact that the amount of the loan is held by the Bank in the foreign currency chosen, and you undertake to repay it in the currency that you have chosen. Since the exchange rate between forint and the foreign currency chosen by you in the loan agreement – the exchange rate – is likely to vary depending on daily market fluctuations, we draw your attention to the fact that a potential variation or adverse increase in the exchange rate is likely to lead to an additional cost for you, of which neither the actual occurrence or the amount can be foreseen. The advantage of this type of financing is that, as soon as the exchange rate of the foreign currency in which the financing is denominated decreases in relation to the forint, the “countervalue” in forints of the financing diminishes; in other words, less forints are required in order to buy the currency covering the monthly instalments used to repay the capital and interest, and that purchase will then cost you less – in that case, the burden is lower, and this may even have the consequence that you must repay less than that expected on the basis of the countervalue in forints calculated at the time the loan/credit agreement was concluded. In the opposite case, where the exchange rate of the foreign currency in which the financing is denominated increases relative to the forint, the “countervalue” of the financing increases; in that case, a more significant amount in forints is required in order to pay the monthly (repayment) instalments of the capital and interest, converted into the relevant foreign currency; in that case, more forints are therefore required in order to repay the credit in the currency that was entered into. You show by your signature that you have been clearly informed of the risks presented by this financing, that you know the components of the risk and that you wish to take out the loan with full knowledge of the facts.’
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b)

(see paragraph 12)
Application 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 all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3))

(see paras 14-16)
Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – That condition cannot be set aside by invoking the right to effective judicial protection

(Art. 6(1), para. 3 TEU; Art. 263(4) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 52(7))

(see para. 28)