ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — Devillers

(Case C‑318/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Failure to set out the factual and legal context of the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(a)) (see paras 4-9)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil régional d'expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1) — Question referred for a preliminary ruling by a professional association — Concept of court within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Insufficient as to facts and law — Admissibility of the question.

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium), by decision of 12 May 2012 (Case C‑318/12), is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — Devillers

(Case C‑318/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Failure to set out the factual and legal context of the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(a)) (see paras 4-9)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil régional d'expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1) — Question referred for a preliminary ruling by a professional association — Concept of court within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Insufficient as to facts and law — Admissibility of the question.

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium), by decision of 12 May 2012 (Case C‑318/12), is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Measures adopted by the national authorities — Decision of the ordre des avocats — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 8, 9)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Right of the Commission and Member States to bring judicial proceedings — Action by a natural or legal person — Inadmissibility (Arts 258 TFEU and 259 TFEU) (see paras 10, 11)

Subject of the case

Re:

Action brought by a natural person against a professional body for lawyers seeking the annulment of an order concerning that person and a finding of an infringement of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the present case; the action is therefore declared inadmissible.

2. Mr Christophe Gassiat is ordered to bear his own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

—

Grounds

—

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, Arts 168(1)(d), 169 and 181) (see paras 12-15

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 September 2012 in Case T-312/12 Barliba v Commission by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, first, an action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to initiate infringement proceedings against Romania for alleged infringements of the applicant’s rights to property and, second, an action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the actions of the Romanian authorities.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Mr Adrian Barliba is ordered to bear his own costs.
3.

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Involvement of more than one lawyer — No effect — Assessment having regard primarily to the total number of hours’ work objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 28, 29)
In this connection, there is no indication in either the recitals in the preamble to the directive or in the wording of Article 7 to suggest that the guarantee provided for in that article might be limited.

Article 7 of Directive 90/314 on package travel, package holidays and package tours must be interpreted as precluding national legislation where the detailed rules laid down therein do not achieve the result of ensuring that the consumer is provided with an effective guarantee of the refund of all money paid over and repatriation in the event of insolvency on the part of the travel organiser. It is for the referring court to establish whether that is the case as regards the national legislation at issue in the dispute before it.

Article 7 of Directive 90/314 on package travel, package holidays and package tours must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has no discretion as regards the ambit of the risks that fall to be covered by the security to be provided by the travel organiser or retailer for the benefit of consumers. It is for the referring court to determine whether the criteria laid down by the Member State concerned for setting the amount of the security have the object or effect of limiting the ambit of the risks that fall to be covered by the security, in which case they would clearly be incompatible with the obligations under the directive and would constitute a sufficiently serious infringement of EU law, which, subject to a finding of a direct causal link, might give rise to liability on the part of the Member State concerned.

In this connection, national legislation properly transposes the obligations under Article 7 of the directive only if, whatever the detailed rules laid down in that legislation, it achieves the result of providing the consumer with an effective guarantee of the refund of all money paid over and repatriation in the event of the travel organiser’s insolvency.

(see paras 44, 47, operative part 2)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Fercal v OHIM

(Case C‑159/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community trade mark JACKSON SHOES — Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the national business name Jacson of Scandinavia AB — Declaration of invalidity — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. 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(1), first para. TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 173(1)) (see para. 20)

2. 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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art.58) (see para 23)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 January 2013 in Case T‑474/09 Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Jacson of Scandinavia, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 August 2009 (Case R 1253/2008‑2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Jacson of Scandinavia AB and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Umbra Packaging

(Case C‑355/13)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure — Articles 53(2) and 99 — Possible to infer the answer to a question referred for a preliminary ruling clearly from the case-law — Request manifestly inadmissible — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) — Article 3 — Imposition of a government authorisation charge when a telephone subscription is taken out — Charge not applied to the use of prepaid telephone cards — Article 102 TFEU’

1. Approximation of laws — Electronic communications networks and services — Authorisation and regulatory framework — Directive 2002/20 — Mobile telephone subscriptions — National legislation imposing a government authorisation charge on subscribers for use of the mobile telephone service — Lawfulness (European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/20, Art. 3) (see paras 17-20 and operative part)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Extent of the obligation in the sphere of competition — Lack of precision in that regard — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(a)) (see paras 22-26, 28, 29)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Commissione Tributaria Regionale dell’Umbria — Interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) and of Article 102 TFEU — National legislation imposing a fee on mobile telephone operators — Imposition of a government authorisation charge when a telephone subscription is taken out — Charge not applied to the use of prepaid telephone cards.

Operative part:

Article 3 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation such as that relating to the charge on activities carried out in the context of a government concession.
As regards the French Republic’s argument that it would paradoxical for a Member State to be obliged to adopt binding measures for the recovery of aid in order to obtain an order suspending the operation of a decision requiring it to recover that same aid, it is sufficient to point out that the obligation upon a Member State, pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1), to instigate procedures for the recovery of aid which it has granted on the ground that the aid is incompatible with the internal market, compels that Member State to adopt, against its own wishes, legally binding measures so as to comply with the obligations imposed on it by EU law. Moreover, as the President of the General Court correctly pointed out in paragraph 14 of the order under appeal, Article 278 TFEU lays down the principle that actions brought before the Court do not have suspensory effect, since the suspension of operation of an act which an applicant seeks to have annulled and which individuals may apply for under that same provision, is an exceptional measure.

Therefore, it must be held that the President of the General Court did not err in law by finding that fulfilment of the condition relating to urgency was contingent on the adoption, by the competent national authorities, of binding measures designed to ensure the recovery of the aid in question. Having also concluded in this connection, in particular in paragraphs 33 and 37 of the order under appeal, without the French Republic alleging any distortion of the facts, that the French Republic had adopted no such measures, the President of the General Court was entitled to find, in paragraph 42 of the order under appeal, that that Member State had failed to establish that the condition relating to urgency had been met in this case.

It follows that the fact that a Member State must adopt binding measures for the recovery of aid even when it has applied to the European Union judicature for the suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision requiring it to adopt those same measures, is the consequence of the procedural rules and the division of powers between the Commission and the national authorities established by EU law.

(see paras 24-27)
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals — Grounds — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law — Rejection (see para. 47)

2. 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) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 57)

3. 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. 169(2)) (see para. 64)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256(1) 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 para. 90)

5. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities (see para. 102)

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

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. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 30-32)

2. 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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 33)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (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 41-43)

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Kastenholz is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 February 2015 —

Wedl & Hofmann v Reber Holding

(Case C‑141/13 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Intervener (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 138(1), 140(3) and 184(1)) (see paras 12-14)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Court with jurisdiction in the event of an appeal (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 137; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 87(1) and 92) (see paras 15-17)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 144(b) and 184(1)) (see paras 19-23, 28)

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed by Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to Wedl & Hofmann GmbH are fixed at EUR 3 283,15.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 February 2015 —

Wedl & Hofmann v Reber Holding

(Case C‑141/13 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Intervener (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 138(1), 140(3) and 184(1)) (see paras 12-14)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Court with jurisdiction in the event of an appeal (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 137; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 87(1) and 92) (see paras 15-17)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 144(b) and 184(1)) (see paras 19-23, 28)

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed by Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to Wedl & Hofmann GmbH are fixed at EUR 3 283,15.
7

In support of her application, the applicant in the main proceedings alleges that she was the victim of sexual assault committed by one Mr M. The latter individual, inter alia, was ordered to pay her the sum of EUR 20 000 by way of provisional damages. Mr M, however, did not make the payment. When the order was made, Mr M was detained in custody, destitute and without employment or residence. According to Ms C, when he is released from prison, Mr M will be insolvent and deported from Italy, so that she will lose all opportunity of gaining fair and appropriate compensation from him. However, the Italian Republic did not adopt the measures necessary to guarantee her compensation that was nevertheless fair and appropriate, in breach of the obligation incumbent on that Member State by virtue of Article 12 of Directive 2004/80.
2.

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) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 26)
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application signed by a lawyer not authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the European Economic Area Agreement — Inadmissibility — No obligation on the General Court to inform the applicant of the irregularity — Situation remedied after the time-limit for bringing an action — Not permissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(6)) (see paras 15, 16, 21)

2. Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Definition — Application signed by a lawyer not authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the European Economic Area Agreement (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see paras 24, 25)

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Asos v OHIM

(Case C‑320/14 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark ASOS — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark ASSOS — Partial refusal to register — Assessment of the facts and evidence by the General Court of the European Union — Challenge — Distortion of the facts or evidence — No distortion — Appeal manifestly inadmissible’

1. 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) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 19)

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. 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 25, 26)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 36)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Asos plc is ordered to bear its own costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Asos v OHIM

(Case C‑320/14 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark ASOS — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark ASSOS — Partial refusal to register — Assessment of the facts and evidence by the General Court of the European Union — Challenge — Distortion of the facts or evidence — No distortion — Appeal manifestly inadmissible’

1. 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) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 19)

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. 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 25, 26)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 36)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed;
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — Stylinart

(Case C‑282/14)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Award of damages to the owner of expropriated property — Harm resulting from the expropriation — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the national dispute bearing no link to EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(c)) (see paras 18-22)

Operative part:

The European Court of Justice manifestly lacks jurisdiction to provide an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie (Poland), by decision of 20 May 2014.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — Stylinart

(Case C‑282/14)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Award of damages to the owner of expropriated property — Harm resulting from the expropriation — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the national dispute bearing no link to EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(c)) (see paras 18-22)

Operative part:

The European Court of Justice manifestly lacks jurisdiction to provide an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie (Poland), by decision of 20 May 2014.