ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Provisional measures

–

Conditions for granting

–

Prima facie case

–

Serious and irreparable damage

–

Balancing of all 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

)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

1. The Italian Republic shall suspend operation of 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 2006/2007, until delivery of the order terminating the present interim proceedings.

2. The costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Interpretation of Regulation No 40/94 and Directive 89/104 – Right of the proprietor of a trade mark to oppose the unlawful use of his mark – Use of the sign in business – Concept (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 9(1)(b); Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(1)(b)) (see paras 32-33)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Need for a precise criticism of a point in the reasoning of the Court of First Instance (Art. 225(1), EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 36-39)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice 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 60, 70-71)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Legal measure – Real damage, causal link and unusual and special damage – Cumulative (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 77-78)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 May 2006 in Case T-279/03 Galileo International Technology and Others v Commission by which the Court dismissed an application seeking, first, an order that the Commission cease to use the term Galileo in relation to the Community project for a global satellite navigation system and to encourage others to use that term, and, second, for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants on account of the use and promotion of that term by the Commission, which they claimed to be identical to trade marks registered by them and to their business names.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, Galileo International Ltd, The Galileo Co. and Timas Ltd are ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons

–

Freedom of establishment

–

Freedom to provide services

–

Restrictions (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 7, operative part 1-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale di Lecce – Interpretation of Articles 31, 43, 49 and 81 to 86 EC – National law making the activity of collecting bets subject to prior authorisation

Operative part

Operative part:

1. National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

2. It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

3. Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes – and, moreover, continues to exclude – from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.

4. Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

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

2. The costs are reserved.
Case C-492/06

Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele

v

Elilombarda Srl and Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda di Milano

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato

‛Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts — Persons to whom review procedures must be available — Tender by a consortium — Right of each member of a consortium to bring an action individually’

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 4 October 2007 I-8191

Summary of the Order

Approximation of laws — Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts — Directive 89/665

(Council Directive 89/665, Art 1)

Article 1 of Directive 89/665 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 92/50, is to be interpreted as not precluding the possibility, under national law, for an individual member of a consortium without legal personality which has participated as such in a procedure for the award of a public contract and has not been awarded that contract to bring an action against the decision awarding that contract.

(see para. 31, operative part)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2006 – Autosalone Ispra v Commission

(Case C‑129/06 P)

Appeal – Non-contractual liability of the European Atomic Energy Community – Overflowing drain – Misinterpretation of the evidence – Measures of inquiry

1. Appeal – Grounds – Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support its operative part – Plea inoperative (see para. 17)

2. Appeal – Grounds – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (see para. 22)

3. 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; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 28)

4. 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 para. 30)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 30 November 2005 in Case T‑250/02 Autosalone Ispra v Commission , in which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for a declaration that the Community was liable for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of an overflowing drain the management and maintenance of which are the responsibility of the Joint Research Centre in Ispra – Breach of the procedural rules concerning the burden of proof.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs

–

Meaning (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 15-17

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure – Taxation of costs following the order of the Court of 14 June 2006.

Operative part

Operative part:

The total costs to be reimbursed by Endesa SA to Gas Natural SDG SA are fixed at EUR 6 150.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 April 2007 – Castellblanch v OHIM

(Case C‑131/06 P)

Appeal – Figurative mark CRISTAL CASTELLBLANCH – Refusal of registration

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 46)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 55-56)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2005 in Case T‑29/04 Castellblanch v OHIM in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action brought by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘CRISTAL CASTELLBLANCH’ for goods in Class 33 for annulment of Decision R 0037/2002-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 17 November 2003 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing to register that mark in the context of the opposition brought by the proprietor of national and international word marks containing the word ‘CRISTAL’ for goods in Class 33.

Operative part

The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 – Ceramika Paradyź v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

(Case C‑168/06)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – First and Sixth VAT Directives – Facts pre-dating the accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union – Jurisdiction of the Court

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 21-25)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi (Poland) – Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ English Special Edition 1967(I), p. 14), and Articles 2, 10(1)(a), 10(2) and 27(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) – National legislation providing for the imposition of an additional tax in cases where irregularities are found in the return submitted by the taxable person.

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 September 2008 – Correia de Matos v Parliament

(Case C‑502/06 P-INT)

Procedure – Application for interpretation – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

Procedure – Interpretation of a judgment – Application for the interpretation of an order – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 102) (see paras 6-8)

Re:

Application for the interpretation of the order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 November 2007 in Case C-502/06 P Carlos Correia de Matos v European Parliament .

Operative part:

1. The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly does not have jurisdiction to provide a reply to the application for interpretation made by Mr Correia de Matos;
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2007 – PTV v OHIM

(Case C‑512/06 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctiveness – Word mark ‘map&guide’

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctiveness of sign (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 26, 41)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2006 in Case T-302/03, PTV v OHIM (map&guide), dismissing the action for annulment of the decision which refused the application for registration of the word mark ‘map&guide’ in respect of certain goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42 – Distinctiveness of the mark.

Operative part

The appeal is dismissed.
To the extent that a charge on the first registration of motor vehicles is clearly fiscal in nature and is levied not on account of the crossing of the border of the Member State which imposed it, but upon the first registration of a motor vehicle on the territory of that Member State, it must be held that it comes within a general system of internal dues on goods and therefore falls to be assessed in the light of Article 90 EC.

(see para. 26)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, second para., 24 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(6) and 64)

2. Acts of the institutions – General obligation to inform the addressees of measures of the judicial remedies available and of the time-limits – None

Summary

1. Neither Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance nor Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, also applicable to the Court of First Instance pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, nor any other provision of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and of the Statute of the Court of Justice, place any obligation on the Court of First Instance to advise the party lodging an action that his application is inadmissible when it has not been signed by a lawyer authorised to appear before the Community courts.

While it is true that the Statute of the Court of Justice and the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provide for the possibility of rectifying an application which does not comply with certain procedural requirements, it is also true that, on any view of the matter, non-compliance with the mandatory condition of representation by a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area is not one of the requirements which can be rectified after expiry of the time-limit for bringing an action, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

(see paras 25-26)

2. The Community institutions are not subject to any general obligation to inform the persons to whom their measures are addressed of the judicial remedies available or to any obligation to state the time-limits applicable to them.

(see para. 41)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

Grounds

–

Incorrect assessment of the evidence

–

Inadmissibility Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 34

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2007 in Case T 322/05 Brinkmann v OHIM – Terra Networks ( Terranus ) dismissing the action brought by the applicant for the Community word mark ‘TERRANUS’ (for goods in Class 36) for annulment of Decision R 1145/2004-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 June 2005, by which the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to refuse registration of the mark was dismissed in opposition proceedings brought by the holder of the Community trade mark and national figurative mark ‘TERRA’ for goods in Class 36 – Likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Brinkmann to pay the costs.
Natural or legal persons can claim to be concerned individually only if the contested provision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from any other person and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the addressee of a decision. Where a contested measure affects a group of persons who were identified or identifiable when that measure was adopted by reason of criteria specific to the members of the group, those persons might be individually concerned by that measure inasmuch as they form part of a limited class of traders. On that question, the number and the identity of the persons potentially concerned by a Commission decision reserving an internet domain name for use by the Community institutions and bodies could not be known definitively or even be determined. According to the procedure provided for in Regulation No 874/2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the ‘.eu’ Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration, each domain name on the list is reserved not merely in regard to holders of prior rights but also in regard to the general public.

Similarly, the question whether the persons concerned by that decision are identified or identifiable is to be assessed at the date on which the decision at issue was adopted.

The fact that a person participates in the process by which a Community measure is adopted does not differentiate him individually in regard to the measure in question except where Community rules have provided procedural guarantees in favour of that person. Thus, once a provision of Community law requires that, in adopting a decision, a procedure must be followed in which a natural or legal person may possibly claim rights, including the right to be heard, the special legal position which that person enjoys has the effect of differentiating him individually within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. Although it is true that Regulation No 874/2004 provides for a period of early and reserved registration of domain names in favour of holders of prior rights, it provides no procedural guarantee which may be analysed as a vested right. Consequently, an applicant cannot rely on the provisions of that regulation to argue that they ‘differentiate’ him within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

(see paras 41-43, 50, 53, 54)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Own resources of the European Communities – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties (Council Regulations No 2913/92, Arts 217(1) and 221(1), and No 1552/89, Art. 6) (see paras 18, 22-23, operative part 1)

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 221(1) and (3)) (see paras 25-30, operative part 2)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Hof van beroep te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Articles 217 and 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) (now Council Regulation 1150/2000 (EC, Euratom) of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2000/597/EC (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1)) – Concepts of ‘entry in the accounts’ and ‘communication’ of the amount of duty to the debtor – Prior entry in the accounts of the amount of the customs debt – Recovery of the debt.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. Article 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘entry in the accounts’ of the amount of the duty to be recovered referred to therein is the ‘entry in the accounts’ of that amount as defined in Article 217(1) of that regulation and that that entry in the accounts is to be distinguished from the recording of that duty in the accounts of the own resources referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources.

2. Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 is to be interpreted as meaning that the communication of the amount of duty to be recovered must have been preceded by the entry in the accounts of that amount by the customs authorities of the Member State and that, in the absence of due notification in accordance with that provision, that amount may not be recovered by those authorities. However, those authorities remain entitled to proceed with a new notification of that amount, in accordance with the conditions laid down by that provision and the limitation rules in force at the time the customs debt arose.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2007 – Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios and Others

(Joined Cases C‑72/07 and C-111/07)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Inadmissibility

1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Jurisdiction of the national Court (Art. 234 EC) (see para. 16)

2. 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 17-19)

Re:

Reference for preliminary ruling – Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias – Interpretation of Article 43 EC – Regulations laying down conditions required to open new pharmacies.

Operative part:

The references for preliminary rulings made by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias, by decisions of 30 November 2006 and 29 January 2007, are manifestly inadmissible.
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 February 2007 in Case T‑204/04

Indorata-Serviços e Gestão Ldª

v

OHIM

, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for the annulment of the decision refusing registration of the word mark HAIRTRANSFER for goods and services in Classes 8, 22, 41 and 44 – Distinctiveness of the mark.