ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment — Action based on Article 33 CS — Action brought by an intra-State authority — Inadmissible — (Art. 33 CS)

2. Actions for annulment — Action based on the second paragraph of Article 33 CS — Restrictive conditions for admissibility — Limitation offset by flexible rules governing intervention — (Art. 33, second para., CS; ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 34)

3. Actions for annulment — Action based on the second paragraph of Article 33 CS — Interpretation contra legem of the condition relating to the need to have locus standi — Not permissible — (Art. 33, second para., CS)

Summary

1. Article 33 CS provides an exhaustive list of the persons entitled to bring an action for a declaration that a measure is void and does not mentioned intra-State authorities; the latter cannot therefore validly bring such an action.

see para. 27

2. The restrictive conditions for admissibility stemming from the second paragraph of Article 33 CS are offset by flexible rules governing intervention. Under Article 34 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, any natural or legal person and, therefore, intra-State authorities, may intervene in an action for annulment brought by a Member State against a decision adopted on the basis of the ECSC Treaty, if it can establish an interest in the outcome of the case.

see para. 32

3. Although the conditions for bringing an action before the Community judicature must be interpreted in the light of the principle of effective legal protection, such an interpretation cannot have the effect of setting aside a condition expressly laid down in the ECSC Treaty, such as that of having locus standi under the second paragraph of Article 33 CS, without going beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Treaty on the Community Courts.

see para. 34
Case C-186/02 P





Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Applications to intervene)»

Order of the President of the Court, 6 March 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order

1.. Procedure – Intervention – Persons having an interest – Territorial entity claiming to be affected by an aid scheme likely to attract undertakings to a neighbouring region – Admissibility dependent on whether there is a direct and present effect on that entity

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40)

2.. Procedure – Intervention – Conditions governing admissibility – Indirect interest in the result of the case by reason of similarity of situations – Not admissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40)

1.

2.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs

–

Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 13-14

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2004.

Operative part

Operative part:

The total amount of the costs which Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA are to reimburse to the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja is set at EUR 4 723.44.
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2006 – Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja v Ramondín and Others

(Case C-186/02 P-DEP)

Taxation of costs

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 13-14)

Re:

APPLICATION for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2004.

Operative part:

The total amount of the costs which Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA are to reimburse to the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja is set at EUR 4 723.44.
Case C-150/02 P





Streamserve Inc.

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)





«(Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Absolute ground for refusal to register – Distinctive character – Marks consisting exclusively of descriptive signs or indications – Streamserve)»

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 5 February 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods or services – Aim – Requirement of free availability

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

2.. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of Justice of the appraisal of the facts submitted to the Court of First Instance – Excluded – Sign applied for as a Community trade mark

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

1.

2.
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures — Interim measures — Powers conferred on the President by Article 84(2) of the Rules of Procedure — (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 84(2))
Keywords



Keywords

References for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Measure adopted on the basis of Part Three, Title IV, of the Treaty – Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments – National courts and tribunals having the power to request the Court to give a preliminary ruling – Courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law

(Arts 61(c) EC and 68 EC; Council Regulation No 44/2001)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Serious and irreparable harm — Environmental damage — System for limiting road traffic transiting through Austria — Freezing of ecopoints issued but not yet used — Balancing all the interests involved — (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession; Commission Regulation No 3298/94)

Summary

Although environmental damage such as that linked to the density of traffic on certain road axes is irreversible since it cannot be eliminated retroactively, the judge hearing an application for interim relief may not, in connection with the system for limiting road traffic transiting through Austria established by Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation No 3298/94, for the purpose of establishing the urgency justifying his intervention, take into account such damage in order to restrict the transit possibilities introduced by a Commission decision, until the time when the negative effects of such transit traffic exceed the level which had been considered acceptable when the Protocol was adopted.

Consequently, where it is not clear, after an initial examination, that that level has in fact been exceeded, the grant of a suspension of operation or interim measures does not appear justified, in view of the fact that the virtually definitive effects of a measure which would result in limiting the transit traffic in question must be weighed against the direct and considerable impact on the activities of undertakings operating in the market under consideration and, more generally, on the proper functioning of the internal market.

Moreover, a decision ordering, as an interim measure, the freezing, in the ratio corresponding to the remainder of 2003, the use of the ecopoints already issued but not yet used, might lead to the loss of those ecopoints and therefore have a definitive effect on the activities of those undertakings and, more generally, on the proper functioning of the internal market, since it is not clear that, if an ecopoints system for heavy goods vehicles in transit through Austria is established for 2004, it will be possible to apply in that year ecopoints from the current system.

see paras 60, 63-65
Case C-320/03 R





Commission of the European Communities

v

Republic of Austria





«(Interlocutory proceedings – Application for interim measures – Transport – Sectoral ban on driving)»

Order of the President of the Court, 2 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 19, 30

)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Directive 2000/26 – Settling of claims – Period for insurance undertaking to assess compensation claims – National rule allowing an injured party to bring a legal action after expiry of a reasonable period within the period set down by the directive – Whether permissible

(Art. 4(6) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/26)

Summary

Article 4(6) of Directive 2000/26 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Directives 73/239 and 88/357 (fourth motor insurance directive) provides that within three months of the date when the injured party presents his claim for compensation, the insurance undertaking of the person responsible is required, as appropriate, to make a reasoned offer of compensation or to provide a reasoned reply to the points made in the claim.

That provision is to be interpreted as not precluding a national rule allowing an injured party to bring a legal action against the insurance undertaking within the three-month period, after the setting of a reasonable period for payment.

It would run counter to the objective of protecting the injured party pursued by Article 4(6) of Directive 2000/26 to interpret the three-month period as meaning that there can be no possibility for the injured party, even in a simple legal or factual situation, to have the claim settled by the insurer before that period expires.

(see paras 26, 28, operative part)
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 – Failure to specify the error of law relied on – Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1), first subpara., (c)) (see paras 42-44)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 66(1) (see para. 49)

3. Procedure – Measures of inquiry (see paras 55-56)

4. Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Presumption of innocence (Art. 6 EU) (see paras 59-60)

5. Appeals – Grounds – 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) (see paras 65, 68)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2005 in Case T-141/01 Entorn v Commission , rejecting an application for annulment of the Commission decision withdrawing aid under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance Section, granted to the applicant for a demonstration project concerning the introduction of new cultivation techniques

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria i Serveis to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Answer capable of being clearly deduced from existing case-law – Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 104(3)) (see para. 17)

2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 17-21)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság – Interpretation of Art. 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Prohibition of taxes capable of being characterised as turnover taxes – National rules authorising local authorities to introduce a tax on economic operations

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible –Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 39-41)

2. Officials – Organisation des services – Assignment of staff (Staff Regulations, Art. 7(1)) (see paras 45-48, 54-57, 75, 78)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Insufficient reasoning (see paras 82-84)

4. Appeal – Grounds – Error of law pleaded not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 95-96)

5. Officials – Measure of internal organisation taken in the interests of the service and not affecting either the position of the official under the Staff Regulations or the principle that grade and post should correspond (Staff Regulations, Art. 25) (see para. 104)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case T‑76/03 Meister v OHIM , in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of OHIM’s decision of 22 April 2002 appointing the appellant, in the interest of the service, with his post, as legal adviser to the Vice‑President for Legal Affairs.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed;

2. Mr Meister is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal;

3. The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is ordered to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Supplies of goods – Supplies under a contract to make up work (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 5(5)(a)) (see paras 31-33, operative part 1)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Chargeable event and chargeability of tax (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 10(2)) (see paras 36-38, operative part. 2)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch – Interpretation of Article 5(7)(a) 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) – Horse that has not been broken trained to make it suitable for a specific use – Horse trained for use as a riding horse capable, following training, of participating in competitions at a higher level – In both cases: have new goods been produced? – Importance of a change which can be measured objectively in the horse and the attainment or non-attainment of the objective – Tax paid under a procedure for periodic declarations

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court declares that:

1. Article 5(5)(a) 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 94/76/EC of 22 December 1994 by the introduction of transitional measures applicable, in the context of the enlargement of the European Union on 1 January 1995, as regards value added tax, is to be interpreted as meaning that there is no supply under a contract to make up work when a horse is trained to make it suitable for use as a riding horse or trained so as to make it capable of participating in (dressage) competitions and that a horse, in such circumstances, cannot be regarded as falling within the category of ‘goods produced’;

2. Whether or not value added tax is to be charged on amounts collected periodically as payment for the provision of services comprising the training of horses is to be determined according to the conditions laid down in Article 10(2) of the Sixth Directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Uniform laws – Industrial and commercial property – Patent right – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products

(Council Regulation No 1768/92, Art. 1(b))

Summary

Article 1(b) of Regulation No 1768/92 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products is to be interpreted as meaning that in a case where a basic patent protects a second medical use of an active ingredient, that use does not form an integral part of the definition of the product.

(see para. 20, operative part)
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 March 2006 – EFfCI v Parliament and Council

(Case C-113/05 P)

Appeal – Directive 2003/15/EC – Action for annulment – Cosmetic products – Protection of public health – Experiments on animals – Prohibition of substances which are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction – Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded

1. Procedure – Obligation on the Court of First Instance to initiate the oral procedure before giving a ruling on a plea of inadmissibility – None (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114(4)) (see para. 26)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Ground having no connection to the pleas raised before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 42(2)) (see para. 36)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para.,, EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/15) (see paras 37, 56)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2004 in Case T-196/03 EFfCI v European Parliament and Council – Admissibility of an action for partial annulment of Article 1 of Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 2003 L 66, p. 26) – Person directly and individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 September 2006 – Enosi Efopliston Aktoploïas and Others v Ypourgos Emporikis Naftilías and Ypourgos Aigaíou

(Case C-285/05)

Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 – Maritime cabotage – Transitional period – Direct application – Directive 98/18/EC – Safety rules and standards for passenger ships – Compatibility of a national rule prohibiting the supply of maritime services in respect of ships having reached a specific age

1. Transport – Maritime transport – Freedom to provide services – Maritime cabotage (Council Regulation No 3577/92, Art. 6(3)) (see paras 18, 22, operative part 1)

2. Transport – Maritime transport – Safety rules and standards for passenger ships (Council Directive 98/18, Arts 5(2) and 6(3)(a) to (c), (f) and (g)) (see paras 27-31, operative part 2)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Simvoulio tis Epikratias – Interpretation of Articles 1(2), 4 and 6(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) – Ability of individuals to rely on the regulation to challenge the validity of a national rule adopted before the end of the exemption laid down by the regulation – Interpretation of Articles 5(2) and 6(3)(a) to (c), (f) and (g) of Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (OJ 1998 L 144, p. 1) – Compatibility of a national rule prohibiting the supply of maritime services in respect of ships having reached a specified age.

Operative part

1. Having regard to Article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), the latter must be interpreted as not conferring rights on individuals, before 1 January 2004, in the area of cabotage with the Greek islands for regular passenger and cargo services and services provided by vessels of less than 650 gross tonnes.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 June 2006 – V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers

(Case C-233/05)

Sixth VAT Directive– Supplies under a contract to make up work – Concept of ‘goods produced’ – Training of a horse – Whether or not tax is chargeable

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Supplies of goods – Supplies under a contract to make up work (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 5(5)(a)) (see paras 31-33, operative part 1)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Chargeable event and chargeability of tax (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 10(2)) (see paras 36-38, operative part. 2)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch – Interpretation of Article 5(7)(a) 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) – Horse that has not been broken trained to make it suitable for a specific use – Horse trained for use as a riding horse capable, following training, of participating in competitions at a higher level – In both cases: have new goods been produced? – Importance of a change which can be measured objectively in the horse and the attainment or non-attainment of the objective – Tax paid under a procedure for periodic declarations

Operative part:

The Court declares that:

1. Article 5(5)(a) 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 94/76/EC of 22 December 1994 by the introduction of transitional measures applicable, in the context of the enlargement of the European Union on 1 January 1995, as regards value added tax, is to be interpreted as meaning that there is no supply under a contract to make up work when a horse is trained to make it suitable for use as a riding horse or trained so as to make it capable of participating in (dressage) competitions and that a horse, in such circumstances, cannot be regarded as falling within the category of ‘goods produced’;