ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2007 — Strack v Commission

(Case C-237/06 P)

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2007 — Strack v Commission

(Case C-237/06 P)

‛Appeals — Staff cases — Decision to close an OLAF investigation — Allegations of fraud made by an official — Locus standi of the official’

Officials — Actions — Acts adversely affecting an official — Concept — Decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to close the investigation (Staff Regulations, Arts 22a, 22b, 90 and 91; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999) (see paras 62-68, 77-91, 96-102, 106-109, 114-119, 125-133)

Re:

Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 March 2006 in Case T-4/05 Strack v Commission by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible an action seeking, first, annulment of OLAF's decision to close an investigation initiated after allegations of fraud made by the appellant, and of the final report of the investigation, and, second, re-initiation of that investigation and the drawing up of a new final report — Meaning of ‘act adversely affecting an official’ in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities — Obligation to refer the case to the Civil Service Staff Tribunal

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Strack is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2007 — Strack v Commission

(Case C-237/06 P)

‛Appeals — Staff cases — Decision to close an OLAF investigation — Allegations of fraud made by an official — Locus standi of the official’

Officials — Actions — Acts adversely affecting an official — Concept — Decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to close the investigation (Staff Regulations, Arts 22a, 22b, 90 and 91; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999) (see paras 62-68, 77-91, 96-102, 106-109, 114-119, 125-133)

Re:

Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 March 2006 in Case T-4/05 Strack v Commission by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible an action seeking, first, annulment of OLAF's decision to close an investigation initiated after allegations of fraud made by the appellant, and of the final report of the investigation, and, second, re-initiation of that investigation and the drawing up of a new final report — Meaning of ‘act adversely affecting an official’ in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities — Obligation to refer the case to the Civil Service Staff Tribunal

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1), EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 33, 48)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 47)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 April 2006 in Case T-344/03 Saiwa v OHIM , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action, brought by the applicant for the national and international word mark ‘ORO’ and the national word mark ‘ORO SAIWA’ for goods in Class 30, for annulment of Decision R 480/2002-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 18 July 2003 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected the opposition filed against the application to register a figurative mark including the word elements ‘SELEZIONE ORO’ and ‘Barilla’ for goods in Class 30 – Similarity of marks – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Saiwa SpA is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

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

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia – Generalidad Valenciana to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2007 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑503/06 R)

Applications for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation – Application for a ruling without hearing the other party – Protection of birds – Derogations

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Provisional measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable damage – Balancing of the interests involved – Interest in the sound administration of justice (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 84(2); Council Directive 79/409) (see paras 14-20)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations – Adoption and application by the Region of Liguria of legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds failing to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

Orders the Italian Republic to suspend application of Regional Law No 36/2006 of the Region of Liguria, of 31 October 2006, implementing the derogation provided for in Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC concerning the conservation of wild birds, for the hunting season of 2006/07, until delivery of the order terminating the present interim proceedings;
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2012 — Commission v Kallianos

(Case C-323/06 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Definition — Fees paid to its lawyer by an institution — Included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 9, 10)

2. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 13, 15)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 March 2007 in Case C-323/06 P Kallianos v Commission.

Operative part

The total amount of the costs that Mr Kallianos must pay to the Commission is fixed at the sum of EUR 3500.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2012 — Commission v Kallianos

(Case C-323/06 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Definition — Fees paid to its lawyer by an institution — Included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 9, 10)

2. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 13, 15)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 March 2007 in Case C-323/06 P Kallianos v Commission.

Operative part

The total amount of the costs that Mr Kallianos must pay to the Commission is fixed at the sum of EUR 3500.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 July 2007 – AEPI v Commission

(Case C‑461/06 P)

Appeal – Action for annulment – Refusal by the Commission to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Commission’s refusal to bring proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations – Inadmissibility (Arts 226 EC and 230 EC) (see paras 23-26)

2. Procedure – Statement of reasons for judgments – Scope (see para. 35)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2006 in Case T-242/05 AEPI v Commission – Inadmissibility of an application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision not to bring proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations against the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part:

The appeal is dismissed.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

8 March 2007

Case C-237/06 P

Guido Strack

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Staff cases – Decision to close an OLAF investigation – Allegations of fraud made by an official – Locus standi of the official)

Appeal: against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 March 2006 in Case T-4/05 Strack v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-83 and II-361 by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible an action seeking, first, annulment of OLAF’s decision to close an investigation initiated after allegations of fraud made by the appellant, and of the final report of the investigation, and, second, re-initiation of that investigation and the drawing-up of a new final report.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Strack is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Acts adversely affecting an official – Concept – Decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to close the investigation

(Staff Regulations, Arts 22a, 22b, 90 and 91; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2012 — Commission v Kallianos

(Case C‑323/06 P-DEP)

Taxation of costs

1. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Definition — Fees paid to its lawyer by an institution — Included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 9, 10)

2. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 13, 15)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 March 2007 in Case C‑323/06 P Kallianos v Commission .

Operative part

The total amount of the costs that Mr Kallianos must pay to the Commission is fixed at the sum of EUR 3 500.
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 December 2007 – Commission v Translation Centre

(Case C‑269/06)

Actions for annulment – Referral to the Court of First Instance

Procedure – Allocation of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance (Arts 225(1), first indent, EC and 230 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 51 and 54, second indent) (see paras 2-7)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CDT) not to pay the CDT employer’s contribution into the Community pension scheme.

Operative part

Case C-269/06 is referred to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 112(1)(c), and 119) (see paras 22-24)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 25-28)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2006 in Case T-290/05 Weber v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an action brought against the decision of the Secretary-General of the Commission of 27 May 2005 rejecting the applicant’s request for access to a letter sent by the Directorate-General for Competition to the German Federal Government concerning State aid proceedings in relation to the financing of public-law broadcasting bodies in Germany.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Mr Weber is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Admissibility

–

Questions referred without sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context (Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 16-18

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Civile di Genova – Direct attribution of the management of public services and infrastructures to a company with a controlling role in the market concerned – Attribution to that company of the right to determine the content of concession contracts existing between its own competitors and the State to determine those contracts – Compatibility with Arts 43, 49, 82, 86 and 87 EC

Operative part

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Gevova, by decision of 9 January 2007, is clearly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character

–

Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of the product (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-140/06 Philip Morris Products v OHIM by which that Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2006 concerning its application for registration of the shape of a packet of cigarettes as a Community trade mark – Infringement of Articles 4 and 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) – Distinctive character of a three-dimensional shape – Ways of embodying that shape and time at which it is to be assessed.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Philip Morris SA shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Directives 92/50 and 93/36 – Scope (Council Directives 92/50 and 93/36) (see paras 15-22, 26, operative part)

2. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Exception laid down by Article 6 of the directive – Condition (Council Directive 92/50, Art. 6) (see paras 24-26, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia – Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) – Scope – National provisions attributing, outside of the procedures for the award of public works contracts laid down in the directive, the management of heating installations of certain buildings in a commune to a municipal undertaking.

Operative part

Operative part

Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts do not apply to a contract concluded between a local authority and a person legally distinct from it, where the local authority exercises over the person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and, at the same time, that person carries out the essential part of its activities with the controlling local authority or authorities.

Article 6 of Directive 92/50 is applicable only if there are laws, regulations or administrative provisions which have been published and which grant the beneficiary an exclusive right concerning the subject‑matter of the contract awarded.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Time-limits

–

Point from which time starts to run

–

Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant

–

Subsidiary matter (Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 26) (see paras 20-23

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 September 2007 in Case T‑176/07 S.A.BA.R. v Commission by which that Court dismissed the application for annulment of the Commission decision of 5 June 2002 declaring incompatible with the common market the aid scheme (C‑27/99 ex NN 69/98) provided for under Italian legislation in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders S.A.BA.R. SpA to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 November 2008 – TEA v Commission

(Case C‑500/07 P)

Appeal – Action for annulment – Time-limit for bringing proceedings – Starting point – Action seeking a ruling from the Court of First Instance on the personal scope of a Commission decision – Manifest lack of jurisdiction

1. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run –Publication or notification (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 21-23)

2. Procedure – Application by a natural or legal person for a declaration relating to the scope ratione personae of a Commission decision – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Art. 230 et seq. EC) (see paras 32‑33)

Re:

Appeal against the order made by the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) on 17 September 2007 in Case T‑175/07 Territorio Energia Ambiente SpA v Commission by which that Court dismissed an application for a ruling that Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21), did not apply to the appellant and, in the alternative, that the appellant did not benefit from any unlawful aid, and for the consequential annulment, in so far as necessary, of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2008 – Philip Morris Products v OHIM

(Case C‑497/07 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a packet of cigarettes – Refusal to register

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of the product (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-140/06 Philip Morris Products v OHIM by which that Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2006 concerning its application for registration of the shape of a packet of cigarettes as a Community trade mark – Infringement of Articles 4 and 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) – Distinctive character of a three-dimensional shape – Ways of embodying that shape and time at which it is to be assessed.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Turnover taxes

–

Common system of value added tax

–

Prohibition on the levying of other domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 33) (see paras 32‑35, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht – Interpretation of Article 33(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – Account taken, for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of real property transfer tax (‘Grunderwerbsteuer’), of future building work subject to turnover tax if the purchase includes both the supply of the building plot and the building work.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, on the transfer of a plot of land not yet built on, from including future building work in the taxable amount used for the assessment of taxes on transfers and transactions – such as the ‘Grunderwerbsteuer’ provided for under German law – and thereby making a transaction that is subject to value added tax under that directive subject also to those other taxes, provided that the latter cannot be characterised as turnover taxes.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom to provide services

–

Restrictions (Arts 49 EC to 55 EC) (see para. 25, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag – Interpretation of Articles 49 EC to 55 EC – National legislation providing for the imposition of a registration tax on first use of a vehicle on the national road network irrespective of the period of use of that network – Liability to tax of a person established in that Member State who has leased a vehicle registered in another Member State and intended for use essentially in the first Member State for business and private purposes for a period of three years.

Operative part

Operative part

Articles 49 EC to 55 EC preclude the application of national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, by virtue of which a person, residing or established in a Member State, who uses – primarily in that Member State – a motor vehicle registered and leased in another Member State, must, on first use of that vehicle on the road network of the first Member State, pay a tax which is calculated without taking into account the duration of the leasing agreement for that vehicle or the length of time that vehicle will be used on that road network.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissible

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para., (c))