ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

Grounds

–

Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance

–

Error of law relied on not identified

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(1)(c)) (see paras 7-11

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 17 November 2009 in Case T‑295/09 Hansen v Commission , by which that court dismissed as manifestly inadmissble an action seeking a declaration of failure to act by the Commission in that the latter had failed to bring proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC against the Kingdom of Sweden, and seeking an order that the Commission exercise its right of initiative, adopt measures and support initiatives intended to promote the right of handicapped persons to equal treatment and non-discrimination in their professional lives.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Hansen to bear his own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom to provide services

–

Restrictions (Arts 49 EC to 55 EC) (see para. 30, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank Breda – Interpretation of Articles 56 TFEU to 62 TFEU – National legislation providing for a registration tax to be levied upon a vehicle’s first being used on the national road network.

Operative part

Operative part

Articles 49 EC to 55 EC must be interpreted as precluding 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 in that Member State a motor vehicle registered and leased in another Member State must, on first using that vehicle on the first Member State’s road network, pay the full amount of a tax the balance of which, computed relative to the period for which that vehicle was used on that network, is repaid, without interest, once that use has come to an end.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure

–

Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought

–

Pleading setting out the grounds lodged within the period prescribed

–

Condition of admissibility (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 59; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Article 1, Rule 49) (see paragraphs 39-41

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 April 2010 in Case T‑225/09 Claro v OHIM and Telefónica , by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2009 (Case R 1079/2008‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Telefónica, SA and BCP S/A

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Claro SA shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

–

Admissibility

–

Questions referred without enough information on the factual and legislative context

–

Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 9-12, 18, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo – Interpretation of Article 3(2)(d) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) – Contract, concluded away from business premises, under which life assurance is offered in return for payment of a monthly premium invested in various products of the company itself.

Operative part

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo by decision of 22 June 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 45-50)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (see paras 85-86)

Subject of the case

Re

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Case T-234/06 Torresan v OHIM , by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 (Case R 517/2005-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG and Giampietro Torresan.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

–

Jurisdiction of the Court

–

Limits

–

Question clearly irrelevant (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 36-39

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Landgericht München I – Interpretation of Article 297 EC and of Article 5(1) of Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17) – Period for convocation of general meeting of a listed company – National legislation, ceasing to have effect on the expiry of the transposition period for the directive, which provides for a shorter convocation period than the minimum period under the directive – Provision likely seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive, in the light of the national legislation according to which some decisions of the general meeting remain valid after being registered in the commercial register, even in the event of annulment following legal action.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the first question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht München I.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

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. 112(1), first para. (c)) (see para. 41

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2010 in Case T-369/09 Quinta do Portal v OHIM – Vallegre , by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 1012/2008-1) relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto SA and Sociedade Quinta do Portal, SA.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Quinta do Portal, SA is ordered to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. adp Gauselmann GmbH shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Transport

–

Road transport

–

Driving licences

–

Directive 91/439

–

Mutual recognition of driving licences

–

Withdrawal of a Category B driving licence in one Member State

–

Subsequent issue of a Category B driving licence in another Member State, in breach of the condition of residence, and then of a Category C licence

–

Category C licence not showing any failure to observe the condition of residence

–

Refusal of the first Member State to recognise the validity of those new licences

–

Lawfulness (Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Directive 2000/56, Arts 1(2) and 8(2) and (4)) (see paras 32-33, 47-51, 54, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof – Interpretation, in the light of Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) – Category B driving licence issued by a Member State, without regard to the condition of residence, to a national of another Member State after his national licence had been withdrawn and after the period had expired in which an application for a new licence is prohibited – Subsequent issue, by the same Member State, of a Category C driving licence observing the condition of residence – Whether the Member State of residence can refuse to recognise the validity of those licences.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2000/56/EC of 14 September 2000, do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise authorisations to drive Category B and C vehicles issued by another Member State to an individual in respect of whom the first Member State has adopted measures under Article 8(2) of that directive, when the authorisation to drive Category B vehicles was issued in the second Member State without regard, as is apparent from the particulars given in the driving licence issued in respect of that authorisation, to the normal condition of residence laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive and when the authorisation to drive Category C vehicles was issued on the basis of the first authorisation and the failure to observe that condition of normal residence is not apparent in the new driving licence issued in respect of that authorisation to drive Category C vehicles.
Appeal against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2009 in Case T-390/09

Noko Ngele

v

Commission

, by which that court dismissed the appellant’s application for compensation for the loss he suffered as a result of the allegedly unlawful conduct of a member of the Commission and of certain of its staff – Failure to take account of an important item of evidence in the Court file – Principle of fair legal process – Absolute nullity.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2010 – Goncharov v OHIM

(Case C‑156/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Marks consisting of acronyms – Earlier trade mark DSB – Word sign ‘DSBW’ – Opposition proceedings – Relative ground for refusal – Examination of the likelihood of confusion – Visual similarity – Aural similarity – Inadmissibility – Assessment of the facts

Appeals – 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), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 38)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 in Case T-34/07 Goncharov v OHIM – DSB (DSBW) by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2006 refusing registration of the word sign ‘DSBW’ as a Community trade mark for certain services in Classes 39, 41 and 43 and upholding the opposition of the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘DSB’ – Likelihood of confusion – Account not taken, during the examination of the likelihood of confusion, of the particularities of marks consisting of acronyms – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2011 – Berkizi-Nikolakaki v Anotato Symvoulio epilogis prosopikou and Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis

(Case C-272/10)

Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Social policy – Article 155(2) TFEU – Directive 1999/70/EC – Clause 8 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work – Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector – Successive contracts – Abuse – Penalties – Conversion into an employment contract of indefinite duration – Detailed procedural rules – Time-limit – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Reduction in the general level of protection afforded to workers

1. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term contracts (Art. 155(2) TFEU; Council Directive 1999/70, Annex) (see paras 32-33, 37-38, 44-45, 48-49, 51-61, disp. 1)

2. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Reducing the general level of protection of workers in the field of that agreement prohibited (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 8(3)) (see paras 69, 74, 76-77, disp. 2)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis – Interpretation of clause 8(3) of the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) – National legislation introducing a time-limit for converting fixed-term employment contracts into employment contracts of indefinite duration

Operative part

1. Article 155(2) TFEU and the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 11(2) of Presidential Decree No 164/2004 laying down provisions concerning workers employed under fixed-term contracts in the public sector, which provides that an application by a worker to convert a succession of fixed‑term employment contracts that may be considered to constitute an abuse into an employment contract of indefinite duration must be made to the competent authority within a time-limit of two months from the date of entry into force of that decree, provided that that time-limit is not less favourable than that governing similar domestic actions regarding employment law and does not render impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Union law, which it is for the referring court to determine.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – Muñoz Arraiza v OHIM

(Case C-388/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Articles 8(1)(b), 43(2) and 44(1) – Application for Community word mark RIOJAVINA – Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community collective figurative mark RIOJA – Refusal to register – Likelihood of confusion

1. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see paras 31-32)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 74)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2010 in Case T‑138/09 Muñoz Arraiza v OHIM – Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja (RIOJAVINA) , by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2009 (Case R 721/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between the Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja and Mr Félix Muñoz Arraiza.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the President of the Court of 11 November 2011 – Nencini v Parliament

(Case C-530/10 P(R))

Appeal – Application for interim measures – Member of the European Parliament – Recovery of allowances paid by way of repayment of parliamentary assistance and travel expenses – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Lack of any urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Appeals – Suspension of operation of a measure – Claim relating to measures drafted in a language other than that of the addressee – Contested measures replaced by new measures essentially the same in substance but drafted in another language – No need to adjudicate – (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83) (see paras 16-19)

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for – Lodging of a supplementary pleading for the purpose of putting right deficiencies – Incompatibility with proceedings for interim measures (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 28-31, 37)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2010 in Case T-431/10 R Nencini v Parliament rejecting an application for suspension of the operation of various measures of the Parliament relating to the recovery of Parliamentary allowances said to have been overpaid.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 – Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău and Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău v Druțu

(Case C-438/10)

Article 104(3), first indent of the Rules of Procedure – Internal taxation – Article 110 TFEU – Pollution tax levied on first registration of motor vehicles

Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 20-22, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Appel Bacău Comercială, Contencios Administrativ şi Fiscal – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax on motor vehicles on first registration in a Member State – Compatibility of national legislation with Article 110 TFEU – Discrimination in relation to second-hand vehicles already registered in that Member State and not subject to that tax on subsequent sale and new registration.

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State if that tax is arranged in such a way as to discourage the putting into circulation in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the domestic market.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 June 2012 —

France Télévisions v TF1

(Case C-451/10 P-DEP)

Taxation of costs

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Proceedings before the Court of Justice on appeal — Expenses necessarily incurred in those proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 17)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 18)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers — Determination of fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 19)

4. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 20)

5. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Intervener (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 26)

6. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Lawyers’ knowledge of the case — Lawyers who have represented the applicant in that case both before the General Court and the Court of Justice — Taking account of that circumstance when determining the amount of costs which are recoverable (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 27, 28)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2011 in Case C-451/10 P TF1 v Commission .

Operative part:

The total amount of the costs that Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) must pay to France Télévisions SA is fixed at the sum of EUR 13 200.
6

Article 5 of that directive states: ‘1. Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable: (a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or (b) a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2. ... 3. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: … ... (c) reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making available of published articles on current economic, political or religious topics or of broadcast works or other subject-matter of the same character, in cases where such use is not expressly reserved, and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, or use of works or other subject-matter in connection with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible; (d) quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, unless this turns out to be impossible, the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose; ... 5. The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.’
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Internal taxation

–

Pollution tax imposed on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 23-26, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunalul Suceava – Registration of second-hand motor vehicles previously registered in other Member States – National legislation making the first registration of such motor vehicles conditional upon payment of an environmental tax, whereas second-hand motor vehicles already present on the national market are exempt from payment of that tax on the occasion of re-registration – Whether the national legislation is compatible with the first and second paragraphs of Article 110 TFEU – Obstacle to the free movement of goods.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.