ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

–

Jurisdiction of the Court

–

Limits

–

Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

–

National legislation not amounting to a measure giving effect to Union law

–

Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 13, 15-17, operative part

)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 May 2012 — Timehouse v OHIM

(Case C-453/11 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark representing a watch — Refusal of registration — Lack of distinctiveness’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Trade mark made up of several elements — Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 40)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 Timehouse v OHIM (Shape of a watch with scalloped edges), by which that court dismissed an action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2010 (Case R 0942/2009-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a watch — Lack of distinctiveness.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Timehouse GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 May 2012 — Timehouse v OHIM

(Case C-453/11 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark representing a watch — Refusal of registration — Lack of distinctiveness’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Trade mark made up of several elements — Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 40)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 Timehouse v OHIM (Shape of a watch with scalloped edges), by which that court dismissed an action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2010 (Case R 0942/2009-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a watch — Lack of distinctiveness.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition — European Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras. 37, 38)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate or contradictory grounds — Scope of the obligation to state reasons — Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning — Admissibility — Conditions (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53) (see paras 42-44, 48)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07 and T-146/07 General Technic-Otis and Others v Commission , by which the General Court dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators), concerning a cartel in the market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, concerning bid-rigging, market-sharing, price-fixing, the awarding of projects and contracts related thereto and exchange of information, and, in the alternative, for the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant — Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. United Technologies Corporation is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2012 — Cooperativa Vitivinicola Arousana v OHIM

(Case C-649/11 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ROSALIA’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of Justice 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. 39)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law — Rejection (see para. 55)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 in Case T-421/10 Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana v OHIM – Sotelo Ares, by which the General Court rejected the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2010 (Case R 1804/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between María Constantina Sotelo Ares and Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2012 — Cooperativa Vitivinicola Arousana v OHIM

(Case C-649/11 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ROSALIA’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of Justice 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. 39)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law — Rejection (see para. 55)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 in Case T-421/10 Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana v OHIM – Sotelo Ares, by which the General Court rejected the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2010 (Case R 1804/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between María Constantina Sotelo Ares and Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 – Campailla v Commission

(Case C-265/11 P)

Appeal – Formal requirements – Representation by a lawyer – Manifest inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer – Putting in order by means of a later application – Not permissible – No breach of the right to an effective remedy, of the right to access to an impartial tribunal or of the right to have the case fairly heard (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third para., and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 37(1), first para., and 38(3)) (see paras 7-9)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 March 2011 in Case T-429/09 Campailla v Commission by which that court dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages seeking to have made good the damage supposedly sustained in consequence of the Commission’s refusal to take action in a dispute between the applicant and the Cameroonian State – Admissibility – Essential procedural requirements – Compulsory representation of natural or legal persons by a lawyer authorised to practise before the courts or tribunals of a Member State.

Operative part

1. Mr Campailla’s appeal is inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 March 2012 —

Thomson Sales Europe



(Case C‑348/11)

Articles 92(1) and 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of validity — Common commercial policy — Dumping — Importation of televisions manufactured in Thailand — Validity of the investigation carried out by the European Anti‑Fraud Office (OLAF) — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 710/95 and 2584/98

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court — Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute — Necessity of a question referred and relevance of the questions raised — Assessment by the national court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 41, 43)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Questions submitted in a context that precludes a useful answer — Lack of any information about the reasons that might warrant the necessity of a reply to the questions referred — Questions based on statements made by the applicant and not established — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 48, 49, 51, 53, 57, 58)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d’instance de Paris — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 710/95 of 27 March 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 1995 L 73, p. 3) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998, amending Regulation (EC) No 710/95 (OJ 1998 L 324, p. 1) — Regulations applying a method consistent with zeroing to determine the weighted average dumping margin — Validity of the investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the origin of the televisions.

Operative part

Examination of Questions 4 and 5 does not disclose any factor capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 710/95 of 27 March 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in [Malaysia], the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed, or Council Regulation No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998, amending Regulation No 710/95.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case C‑404/11 P)

Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Competition — Cartel — Sodium chlorate market — Concept of an ‘undertaking’ — Presumption of decisive influence — Scope of that presumption — Factors not capable of rebutting the presumption — Personal fine — Unlimited jurisdiction

1. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 15, 29, 64, 76, 78, 82)

2. Competition — Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption that a parent company wields decisive influence over its wholly-owned subsidiaries (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 23, 26, 28, 31, 36, 45-47, 57)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(2)) (see paras 33, 64, 72)

4. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Deterrent effect of the fine — Necessary to fix an amount greater than the profit made from the infringement and to take into consideration the undertaking’s power (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23; Commission communication 2006/C 210/02, para. 30) (see para. 86)

5. Appeals — Jurisdiction of the Court — Challenge on grounds of fairness to the General Court’s assessment concerning the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking — Excluded (Art. 101 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see para. 90)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 May 2011 in Case T–299/08 Elf Aquitaine v Commission , by which that court dismissed the action brought by the applicant for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium chlorate) — Competition — Cartel — Infringement of the principle that the institutions must act within the limits of their powers and of the principle of proportionality — Manifestly erroneous interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of equity and of equality of arms — Duty to state reasons — Illegality of the personal fine.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 March 2012 —

Italy v Commission



(Case C‑200/11 P)

Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — State aid — Incompatibility with the common market — Commission decision — Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(c) — Alteration of existing aid — Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 — Article 4(1) — Temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding

1. State aid — Commission decision finding a national measure compatible with Article 87(1) EC — Determining the scope of the decision — Account taken not only of the wording of the decision, but also of the content notified (Art. 87(1) EC) (see para. 27)

2. State aid — Existing aid and new aid — Measure amending an existing aid scheme — Treated as new aid (Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1(c)); Commission Regulation No 794/2004, Art. 4(1)) (see paras 30, 31)

3. State aid — Planned aid — Examination by the Commission — Application of the rules of substantive law in force when the Commission took its decision (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 1177/2002, Art. 5) (see paras 37-39, 43)

4. State aid — Planned aid — Notifying the Commission — Scope of the obligation — Necessary for notification to include estimates of the total amounts of the aid planned on account of their impact on that aid (Art. 88(3), EC; Council Regulation No 1177/2002) (see paras 47-49)

5. Appeals — Setting out in the application of the pleas in law and legal arguments — Plea in law not clear enough — Whether 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 paras 52-54)

6. State aid — Commission decision finding a national measure compatible with Article 87(1) EC — No legitimate expectations in the case of alteration to the aid scheme going beyond the bounds of the authorisation decision (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 65-68)

7. Union law — Principles — Equal treatment — Meaning — Unequal treatment as a result of the temporal limitation of authorisation to grant State aid in a given sector of the market — Whether objectively justified (Council Regulation No 1177/2002, Art. 5) (see paras 74-76)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 in Case T‑3/09 Italy v Commission , by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/38/EC of 21 October 2008 on State aid C 20/08 (ex N 62/08) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/04 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding (OJ 2010 L 17, p. 50).

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
11

The Tribunale ordinario di Brescia accordingly decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. On the basis of the international obligations resting upon the [Bundesrepublik Deutschland] (Articles 2 and 5(2) of the … Agreement [on German External Debts, concluded in London on 27 February 1953]), are the alleged civil immunity from the Italian courts in relation to the facts of the present case, which, from 11 March 2004 onwards (the judgment of the Corte suprema di cassazione in Ferrini), the [Bundesrepublik Deutschland] may no longer claim, and the agreement [reached with the Italian Government on 18 November 2008 in Trieste] to initiate proceedings before the International Court [of Justice] ([Case] No 143/2008 General list), [together] with the related Italian Law No 89/2010, which renders unenforceable Italian judgments based on serious crimes against humanity, inconsistent with Article 6 [TEU] and Articles 17, 47 and 52 of the Charter …? 2. Is the application of Article 7 of the [Law of 22 May 1910 on the Liability of the German Reich for its civil servants] the [Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice)], judgment of 26 June 2003, … III ZR 245/98… and … Bundesverfassungsgericht [German Federal Constitutional Court], judgment of 15 February 2006, … 2 Bvr 1476/03) relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity, which prevents European [Union] citizens from obtaining compensation from the [Bundesrepublik Deutschland], inconsistent with Article 2 of the … Agreement on German External Debts; did it undermine the applicants’ rights under Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter … until 11 March 2004 (the judgment of the Corte suprema di cassazione in Ferrini), and is reliance on a time bar therefore inconsistent with European Union obligations and, in particular, Article 3 [TEU] and the last subparagraph of Article 4(3) [TEU] and with the principle non conceditur… venire [contra] factum [proprium]? 3. Is the objection of immunity from suit raised by the [Bundesrepublik Deutschland] inconsistent with the last subparagraph of Article 4(3) [TEU] and Article 21 [TEU] in that it precludes civil liability based on common European [Union law] principles (Article 340 [TFEU]) on the part of that defendant in relation to the breach of international law (the prohibition of slavery and forced labour) which it committed against the citizens of another Member State?’
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 October 2012 —

Greece v Commission



(Case C-497/11 P)

Appeal – ERDF – Reduction in financing – Objective 1 operational programme (1994-1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ in Greece – Delegation of auxiliary tasks by the Commission to third parties – Professional secrecy – Rate of financial correction – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial review

1. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 35, 36)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 46)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Ground submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 68)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2001 in Case T-81/09 Greece v Commission , by which the General Court annulled in part an action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2008) 8573 of 15 December 2008 reducing the financial assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) initially granted in respect of the Objective 1 operational programme (1994-1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ in Greece.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2012 — Brighton Collectibles v OHIM

(Case C-624/11 P)

Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) — Community word mark BRIGHTON — Opposition proceedings — Interpretation of the provisions of national law on relative grounds for refusal of registration

1. Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments raised before the General Court — Failure to identify the error of law relied on –Not addmissible (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 paras 34, 35)

2. Appeal — Grounds — Review by the Court of the assessment made 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 43-45)

3. Appeal — Grounds — Ground raised for the first time on appeal — Not admissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(2)) (see para. 53)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2011 in Case T-403/10 Brighton Collectibles v OHIM — Felmar , by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 408/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Brighton Collectibles, Inc. and Felmar — Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Community word mark BRIGHTON — Opposition proceedings based on earlier national word and figurative marks — Failure to give sufficient reasons with regard to the national laws relied upon

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords



Keywords

References for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union — National legislation not amounting to a measure giving effect to Union law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 12, 13, operative part)

2. References for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court to give a ruling on the interpretation of provisions of international law binding the Member States outside the ambit of Union law (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 14, operative part)