ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 March 2014 — Leśniak-Jaworska and Głuchowska-Szmulewicz

(Case C‑520/13)

‛Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Lack of sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling’

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 — Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 16, 18-20, 29, operative part)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku — Interpretation of Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) and of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation giving rise to a difference in remuneration as between workers occupying the same positions and having the same seniority — No circumstances justifying such a distinction.

Operative part:

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Sąd Rejonowy Wydział Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Płocku (Poland), by decision of 12 September 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 — Fercal v OHIM

(Case C‑324/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark PATRICIA ROCHA — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ROCHAS — Refusal to register by the Opposition Division of OHIM — Inadmissibility of the action brought before the Board of Appeal of OHIM’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of EU law by the General Court — Admissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (cf. point 39)

2. 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, Art. 1, Rules 62(3) and 70(2) and (4)) (see paras 42-48)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 April 2013 in Case T‑360/11 Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Parfums Rochas (PATRIZIA ROCHA) by which the General Court dismissed an action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 2355/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Parfums Rochas SAS and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda. is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 — Fercal v OHIM

(Case C‑324/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark PATRICIA ROCHA — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ROCHAS — Refusal to register by the Opposition Division of OHIM — Inadmissibility of the action brought before the Board of Appeal of OHIM’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of EU law by the General Court — Admissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (cf. point 39)

2. 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, Art. 1, Rules 62(3) and 70(2) and (4)) (see paras 42-48)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 April 2013 in Case T‑360/11 Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Parfums Rochas (PATRIZIA ROCHA) by which the General Court dismissed an action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 2355/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Parfums Rochas SAS and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
4.

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 paras 43, 44)
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

—

Reference to the Court

—

Court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU

—

Definition

—

Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture (Italy)

—

Optional reference leading to a non-binding opinion

—

Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 25-31

)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture (Italy), by decision of 22 May 2013 (Case C‑427/13).
4.

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 paras 56, 58)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 — Page Protective Services v SEAE

(Case C‑501/13 P)

‛Appeal — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Public service contracts — Restricted call for tenders concerning the provision of security services to the EU delegation in Lebanon — Rejection of the applicant’s request to participate — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Calculation (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 101 and 102(2)) (see paras 21-24, 30, 31, 35, 36)

2. Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Strict application of EU rules (see paras 37, 38)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Page Protective Services Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 — Page Protective Services v SEAE

(Case C‑501/13 P)

‛Appeal — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Public service contracts — Restricted call for tenders concerning the provision of security services to the EU delegation in Lebanon — Rejection of the applicant’s request to participate — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Calculation (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 101 and 102(2)) (see paras 21-24, 30, 31, 35, 36)

2. Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Strict application of EU rules (see paras 37, 38)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2.

Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the national court has established the ‘unfairness’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 of a clause in a contract between a consumer and a seller or a supplier, the fact that that clause has not been executed cannot, in itself, prevent the national court drawing the appropriate conclusions from the ‘unfair’ nature of that clause.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 November 2014 — VG Vodoopskrba

(Case C‑254/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community action in the field of water policy — Directive 2000/60/EC — Price to the consumer — Whether fixed costs can be invoiced — Facts preceding the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of a Community directive in proceedings antedating the accession of a Member State to the European Union — Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 10, 11)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia).

( 1 ) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 November 2014 — VG Vodoopskrba

(Case C‑254/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community action in the field of water policy — Directive 2000/60/EC — Price to the consumer — Whether fixed costs can be invoiced — Facts preceding the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of a Community directive in proceedings antedating the accession of a Member State to the European Union — Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 10, 11)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia).

( 1 ) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2014 — Kárász

(Case C‑199/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Lack of implementation — 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 case having 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)) (see paras 14-16)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) by decision of 25 March 2014.

( 1 ) OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 May 2015 — Pondiche

(Case C‑608/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Grant of child allowance — Determination of the law applicable in accordance with the date of birth of the child and not in accordance with its date of conception — Failure to implement EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

1. 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 — National legislation not constituting a measure implementing EU law and not having any other connection with EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Arts 6(1) TEU and 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 19-24, 28)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of national law — Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 26)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) by decision of 20 November 2014.

( 1 ) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 May 2015 — Pondiche

(Case C‑608/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Grant of child allowance — Determination of the law applicable in accordance with the date of birth of the child and not in accordance with its date of conception — Failure to implement EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

1. 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 — National legislation not constituting a measure implementing EU law and not having any other connection with EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Arts 6(1) TEU and 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 19-24, 28)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of national law — Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 26)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) by decision of 20 November 2014.

( 1 ) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
2.

EU law must be interpreted as not precluding an administrative fine from penalising the failure by a taxable person to comply with his obligation to state when an economic activity commences where the proceeds of that activity do not exceed the threshold of the exemption scheme for small businesses. It is for the referring court to assess whether, in the case in the main proceedings, the penalty imposed is in conformity with the principle of proportionality.
2.

Neither the fact that a taxable person’s upstream suppliers in the supply chain have not cooperated with the tax authorities nor the fact that there has been no transhipment of the goods concerned constitutes, in itself, sufficient objective evidence for concluding that that taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as its basis for the right to deduct value added tax was connected with tax fraud. Nevertheless, those two facts constitute objective evidence which may be taken into account, in the context of an overall assessment of all the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to determine whether the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as its basis for the right to deduct was connected with tax fraud.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 —

Aktiv Kapital Portfolio

(Case C‑122/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Order for payment procedure — Enforcement proceedings –– Powers of the national court responsible for enforcement to raise of its own motion the fact that the unfair term is invalid –– Principle of effectiveness –– Principle of res judicata)’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 22, 23)

2. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Order for payment procedure — No possibility for the national court responsible for enforcement of the payment order to assess of its own motion the unfair nature of a term in a contract submitted to it for assessment where the consumer does not oppose that enforcement order — Unlawful — Incompatibility with the principle of effectiveness — Force of res judicata of that order — No effect (Council Directive 93/13) (see paras 26-39, operative part)

Operative part

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow the court dealing with the enforcement of a payment order to assess of its own motion, even though it has all the elements of law and fact necessary for that purpose, the unfairness of a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer which gave rise to that order, where, in the absence of opposition to the order by the consumer, the court which delivered that order was not empowered to carry out such an assessment.

( 1 ) OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.
21

In those circumstances the Judecătoria Câmpulung decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Are [Directives 93/13 and 2008/48] applicable also to a credit agreement concluded on 5 October 2006, before Romania acceded to the European Union, but whose effects are still produced now, in that the terms thereof form the subject of enforcement at present, following successive assignments of the debt for which it makes provision? (2) If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, can terms such as those concerning “service of the borrower’s debt”, that refer to the existence of delays in payment on the part of the debtor, and those relating to the increase in the rate of interest after one year, after which the rate is the variable reference rate of the Banca Comercială Română, posted at the bank’s headquarters, increased by 1.90 [percent], be considered to be unfair within the meaning of [Directive 93/13]? (3) Does the principle of effective judicial protection of the rights that individuals derive from EU law, as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter …, preclude a provision of national law, such as that laid down in Article 120 of Emergency Decree No 99 …, which recognises the enforceability of a bank credit agreement concluded by private agreement and without allowing the terms thereof to be negotiated with the debtor, under which, with brief verification and after obtaining authorisation for enforcement in a non-contentious procedure, and with limited scope for the court to assess the amount of the debt, a bailiff may seize the debtor’s assets? (4) Must [Directive 93/13] be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State, such as Article 372 et seq. of the former Code of Civil Procedure, from allowing a creditor to seek enforcement of a debt deriving from unfair contractual terms by seizing an asset charged as security through the sale of the immovable property, notwithstanding the consumer’s objection, without an independent judge’s carrying out an examination of the contractual terms? (5) Does the existence in national law of a provision such as Article 120 of Emergency Decree No 99 …, which recognises the enforceability of the bank credit agreement, prejudice the right to freedom of establishment laid down in Article 49 TFEU and the freedom to provide services laid down in Article 56 TFEU in that it discourages citizens of the Union from establishing themselves in a State in which the same value as an enforceable instrument represented by a judgment is conferred on a bank agreement concluded by a private institution? (6) If the answer to the preceding questions is in the affirmative, can the national court raise of its own motion the non-enforceability of such an instrument pursuant to which the enforcement of a debt stated in a contract is carried out?’
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2016 —

Raiffeisen Privatbank Liechtenstein

(Case C‑397/15) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — First Protocol concerning the interpretation by the Court of the Rome Convention — Articles 1 and 2(a) and (b) — National courts entitled to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Protocol concerning the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Rome Convention — National courts entitled to request the Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings — German regional court giving a ruling at first instance — Not included — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Protocol of 19 December 1988, Art. 2(a) and (b); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 14-21)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Landgericht Itzehoe (Regional Court, Itzehoe (Germany)) for a preliminary ruling by decision of 15 June 2015 in Case C-397/15.

( 1 ) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
Indeed, as recital 10 of Directive 93/13 states, the uniform rules of law in the matter of unfair terms should apply to all contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers, as defined in Article 2(b) and (c) of that directive. In that regard, the purpose of the contract is, subject to the exceptions listed in that recital, irrelevant in determining the scope of the directive. It is therefore by reference to the capacity of the contracting parties, according to whether or not they are acting for purposes relating to their trade, business or profession, that Directive 93/13 defines the contracts to which it applies.

Articles 1(1) and 2(b) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that that directive can apply to a contract of guarantee or a contract providing security concluded between a natural person and a credit institution in order to secure contractual obligations owed by a commercial company to that institution under a credit agreement, where that natural person acted for purposes outside his trade, business or profession and has no link of a functional nature with that company.

The concept of consumer, within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, is objective in nature and must be assessed by reference to a functional criterion, consisting in an assessment of whether the contractual relation at issue has arisen in the course of activities outside a trade, business or profession. The national court before which an action relating to a contract which may be covered by that directive has been brought is required to determine, taking into account all the circumstances of the case and all of the evidence, whether the contracting party in question may be categorised as a consumer within the meaning of that directive.

As to whether a natural person who agrees to secure the contractual obligations owed by a commercial company to a banking institution under a credit agreement can be regarded as a consumer, while a contract providing security or a contract of guarantee can be described, with regard to its purpose, as a contract which is ancillary to the principal contract which gives rise to the debt it secures, from the point of view of the contracting parties it presents itself as a distinct contract, as it is concluded between persons other than the parties to the principal contract. It is therefore as parties to the contract providing security or contract of guarantee that the capacity in which those parties acted must be assessed. It is therefore for the national court to establish whether that natural person acted for purposes relating to his trade, business or profession or because of functional links he has with the commercial company in respect of which he acts as guarantor or surety, such as a directorship or a non-negligible shareholding, or whether he acted for purposes of a private nature.

(see paras 26-29)