ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
51

That concept requires the unequal treatment at issue to be justified by the existence of precise and concrete factors, characterising the employment condition to which it relates, in the specific context in which it occurs and on the basis of objective and transparent criteria in order to ensure that that unequal treatment in fact responds to a genuine need, is appropriate for achieving the objective pursued and is necessary for that purpose. Those factors may result, in particular, from the specific nature of the tasks for the performance of which fixed-term contracts have been concluded and from the inherent characteristics of those tasks or, as the case may be, from pursuit of a legitimate social-policy objective of a Member State (judgments of 13 September 2007, Del Cerro Alonso, C‑307/05, EU:C:2007:509, paragraphs 53 and 58; 22 December 2010, Gavieiro Gavieiro and Iglesias Torres, C‑444/09 and C‑456/09, EU:C:2010:819, paragraph 55; order of 18 March 2011, Montoya Medina, C‑273/10, not published, EU:C:2011:167, paragraph 41; judgment of 8 September 2011, Rosado Santana, C‑177/10, EU:C:2011:557, paragraph 73, and order of 9 February 2012, Lorenzo Martínez, C‑556/11, not published, EU:C:2012:67, paragraph 48).
Judicial proceedings—Action brought by a natural or legal person against a Member State and seeking (i) that it be declared that the latter has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law, (ii) that that Member State be ordered to amend its internal rules, or (iii) that a decision of one of its courts be suspended—Clear lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature—Inadmissibility

(Art. 13(2) TEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

(see paras 3-6)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 —

Marinkov

(Case C‑27/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Directives 2000/78/EC and 2006/54/EC — Scope — Manifest inadmissibility — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — None — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Limits—Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 37, 38)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Jurisdiction of the Court—Limits—Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union—National legislation which does not constitute an implementation of, or contain any links to, EU law—Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1); European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/54; Council Directive 2000/78) (see paras 49, 50, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court, Sofia, Bulgaria), by decision of 28 December 2015, is manifestly inadmissible in so far as it concerns Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and Directive 2006/54/ЕC 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.

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred in so far as they concern Article 30, 47 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

( 1 ) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of EU law in a dispute relating to facts predating the accession of a Member State to the European Union — Not included

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National decision not constituting a measure implementing EU law or not having any connection with EU 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) and (2))
Judicial proceedings—Measures of organisation of procedure—Written questions put to the parties—No automatic effect on the outcome of the dispute—Freedom of the General Court in its absolute discretion to assess the facts and evidence

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 64, 65 and 88)

(see para. 15)
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—Plea alleging distortion of the facts—Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

(Art. 256 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. 5)
2.

Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Prima facie examination of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action—Action against a decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) granting access to reports on clinical trials to a third party—Pleas concerning the confidentiality of information covered by business secrecy and the existence of a general presumption that an exception to the right of public access under Regulation No 1049/2001 applies—Pleas revealing the existence of complex legal questions—Pleas not prima face unfounded (Art. 278 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 141/2000, Art. 4(7) and (8), No 1049/2001, Art. 4(7), and No 726/2004, Arts 11, 13(3), 14(11), 57, 73 and 76; Commission Regulation No 507/2006, Art. 8; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83) (see paras 60, 61, 68, 69, 74-78, 80, 81, 83, 85)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 October 2016 —

Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO

(Case C‑285/16 P)

‛Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 181 — EU trade mark — Application for registration of the word mark BIMBO — Rejection of application — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(c)’

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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2)) (see para. 5)

Operative

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 — Palais Kaiserkron

(Case C‑549/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 401 — Concept of ‘turnover tax’ — Leasing of immovable property used for the purposes of trade — Liability to pay registration duty and VAT)

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation—Common system of value added tax—Prohibition on the levying of other domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes—Concept of ‘turnover tax’—Scope—Proportional registration duty affecting commercial leases—Precluded

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 401)

(see para. 25, operative part)

Operative part

Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the charging of a proportional registration duty affecting commercial leases, such as that laid down by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, even when those leases are also subject to value added tax.

( 1 ) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Common foreign and security policy—Restrictive measures against Iran—Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation—Support for the Iranian Government—Definition—Need for a causal link between the conduct constituting support for the Iranian government and the pursuit of nuclear proliferation activities—No such need

(Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP, Art. 20(1) and 2012/35/CFSP, Recital 13e; Council Regulation No 267/2012, Art. 23(2)(a) and (d))

(see paras 56, 61)
Appeal—Grounds—Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal—Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 43, 44)
4

Thus, by documents lodged at the Court Registry on 18 August and 21 August 2017, Generics argued, first of all, that the United Kingdom’s application to intervene must be dismissed on the ground that it does not satisfy the requirements laid down by Article 130(2) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the appeal proceedings under Article 190(1) of those rules, inasmuch as it contains neither a description of the case nor the form of order sought, in support of which the intervener is applying for leave to intervene, which is particularly prejudicial to Generics because that application was submitted out of time. Next, Generics indicates that, having regard to the application to intervene submitted by the United Kingdom on 10 March 2017 in the related Case C‑591/16 P Lundbeck v Commission, it takes the view that the application to intervene in the present case serves no purpose, particularly if the Court were to decide not to hold a hearing. Generics also submits that, were a hearing to be held, its rights of defence would be impaired by the United Kingdom’s intervention. Lastly, Generics argues that the present application to intervene is intended to enable that Member State to access data contained in, inter alia, the Commission’s administrative file for the purposes of enabling the National Health Service and the UK Secretary of State for Health to bring claims for compensation against Generics before the courts of the United Kingdom.
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. 4)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 July 2017 —

CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C‑87/17 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for damages — Alleged non-compliance with EU law of the Austrian legislation in respect of gambling contributions — Failure, by the national courts or tribunals, to refer the matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Reference to the Court—Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred—Assessment by the national court—Failure to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling—Not imputable to the Court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 16, 17)

2. EU law—Rights conferred on individuals—Infringement by a Member State—Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals (see para. 18)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Reference to the Court—Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred—Assessment by the national court—Decision not to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling—Obligation to inform the Court of such a decision—No such obligation—Subjective right to be notified of such a decision—No such right (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 21, 22)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH shall bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Appeal—Grounds—Review by the Court of the findings of fact—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. 13)
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—Plea 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 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. 4)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—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

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99)

(see paras 13, 14, 39)
Appeal—Grounds—Mistaken assessment of the facts—Inadmissibility—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—Plea 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.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

(see para. 3)
Since the request for a preliminary ruling is the basis for the proceedings before the Court, it is essential that, in that application, the national court should, in particular, set out the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings.

That obligation must particularly be observed in certain areas characterised by complex factual and legal situations (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 January 1993, Telemarsicabruzzo and Others, C‑320/90 to C‑322/90, EU:C:1993:26, paragraph 7; order of 19 March 1993, Banchero, C‑157/92, EU:C:1993:107, paragraph 5; and judgment of 12 December 2013, Ragn-Sells, C‑292/12, EU:C:2013:820, paragraph 39), but also when the body making the reference has been entrusted by law with functions of a different nature.

In the latter case, the admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling may depend on whether a national body can be classified as ‘a court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU when it is performing judicial functions, but not when exercising other functions, inter alia functions of an administrative nature (see order of 26 November 1999, ANAS, C 192/98, EU:C:1999:589, paragraph 22).

(see paras 28-30)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — 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

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

(see paras 41, 42)
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 5 September 2018 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Romania and Commission

(Case C‑717/17 P(I))

(Appeal — Intervention — Article 40, second paragraph, second sentence, of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Dispute between a Member State and an Institution of the European Union — European citizens’ initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ — Application for leave to intervene made by the organisers of that European citizens’ initiative — Rejection)

1. Judicial proceedings — Intervention — Persons having an interest — Application for leave to intervene made by natural or legal persons in cases between a Member State and an institution of the Union — Inadmissibility (Art. 13(1) TEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.) (see paras 23, 24, 33, 37)

2. Citizenship of the Union — Rights of the citizen — Presentation of a citizens’ initiative — Regulation No 211/2011 — Proposal for a citizens’ initiative which cannot be assimilated to proposals seeking the adoption of legal acts by the institutions of the Union (Art. 24, first para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 211/2011) (see paras 30, 31)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Comitetul cetăţenilor ai iniţiativei cetăţeneşti europene Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe to bear is own costs and those incurred by Romania.
19

In those circumstances the Corte suprema di cassazione (Court of Cassation decided to stay the proceedings in both cases and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘Is the national legislation referred to in Article 3(7) of [Decree-Law No 64/2010], according to which “for workers in the performing arts belonging to the category of dancers, the retirement age is fixed for men and women at the forty-fifth year of chronological age, with the use, for workers to whom the contributory or mixed system applies in full, of the transformation coefficient referred to in Article 1(6) of the Law of 8 August 1995, No 335, relative to the higher age. For the two years following the date of entry into force of this provision, the workers referred to in this paragraph employed on contracts of indefinite duration, who have reached or passed the retirement age, are afforded the option, renewable annually, of remaining in service. This option must be exercised through a formal application to be presented to the ente nazionale di previdenza e assistenza per i lavoratori dello spettacolo (ENPALS) (National Welfare and Assistance Office for Workers in the Entertainment Business) within two months of the date of entry into force of this provision, or at least three months before the qualifying age for a retirement pension is reached, without prejudice to the maximum retirement age of 47 years for women and 52 for men”, contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sex, as laid down in Directive 2006/54 and in the Charter (Article 21)?’
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—Weighing-up of the interests—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

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

(see paras 23, 24)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Patrício Teixeira

(Case C‑184/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Direct taxation — Article 18 TFEU — Principle of non-discrimination — Articles 63, 64 and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital –Heavier tax burden on capital gains made by non-residents — Restrictions on movements of capital to and from non-Member States)

Free movement of capital—Restrictions—Tax legislation—Income tax —Heavier tax burden on capital gains made by non-residents—Unlawful—No justification

(Arts 63 TFEU, 64(1) TFEU and 65(1) TFEU)

(see para. 43, operative part)

Operative part

Legislation of a Member State, such as that in dispute in the main proceedings, which subjects capital gains resulting from the transfer, by a resident of a third country, of immovable property situated in that Member State to a tax burden greater than that which would be applicable for the same type of transaction to capital gains made by a resident of that Member State constitutes a restriction on the freedom of movement of capital which, subject to verification of the relevant facts by the referring court, does not fall within the exception provided for in Article 64(1) TFEU and cannot be justified by the reasons provided for in Article 65(1) TFEU.

( 1 ) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 — Holunga

(Case C‑370/18)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rule of Procedure — Article 267 TFEU — Concept of a ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ — Compulsory nature of its jurisdiction — Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Definition — Tribunalul de Arbitraj Instituţionalizat Galaţi (Institutional Arbitration Tribunal, Galați, Romania) — Not included

(Art. 267 TFEU)

(see paras 11, 13, 14, 15, operative part.)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunalul de Arbitraj Instituţionalizat Galaţi (Institutional Arbitration Tribunal, Galați, Romania), by decision of 7 May 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.
Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Review by the Court of the findings of fact—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. 1)

(see para. 45)
Officials — Disciplinary measures — Procedure — Decision to resume proceedings, for the same conduct, after annulment of a first decision on the basis of a procedural irregularity — Ne bis in idem principle — No infringement

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 50; Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex IX, Art. 9(3))

(see paras 34-39, 41)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 February 2019 — Pereira v Commission

(Case C‑571/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Civil service — Officials — Non-promotion — Promotion round 2015)

Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see paras 4, 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 June 2019 — Linak v EUIPO

(Case C‑821/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 6 — Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Representation of an electrically operated lifting column)

Appeal — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the General Court’s assessment of the facts and the 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.)

(voir point 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Signature by a lawyer — Essential rule of strict application — No signature — Inadmissibility — Not possible to regularise

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third and fourth para., and 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 57(1) and 119)

(see paras 15, 20)
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 — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — 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) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 4)