ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C‑67/17

Todor Iliev

v

Blagovesta Ilieva

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Varna)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 1(2)(a) — Scope — Matters excluded — Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship — Dissolution of the marriage — Liquidation of property acquired during the marriage)

Summary — Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 14 June 2017

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 1215/2012 — Scope — Matters excluded — Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship — Concept — Action for liquidation of property acquired during the marriage following the dissolution of that marriage — Included — Inapplicability of the regulation

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 1(2)(a))

Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, relating to the liquidation of property — acquired during marriage by spouses who are nationals of a Member State but domiciled in another Member State — after a divorce has taken place, does not come within the scope of that regulation but comes rather within the scope of matrimonial property regimes and, consequently, within the scope of the exclusions listed in Article 1(2)(a) of that regulation.

(see para. 32, operative part)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 January 2018 — Cafés Pont v EUIPO

(Case C‑559/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Art’s Cafè’ — Article 51(1)(a) — Declaration of revocation — Article 15(1), second paragraph, point (a) — No genuine use of the trade mark — Probative value of the evidence)

Appeal—Grounds—Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted—Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute—Included

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 4)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal—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. 6)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — HB and Others v Commission

(Case C‑336/17 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’ — Protection of stray animals — Psychological effects on adults and children — Refusal to register the initiative for manifest lack of powers on the part of the European Commission — Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Article 4(2)(b) — Article 4(3))

Judicial proceedings—Measures of inquiry—Parties’ appearance in person—Expert’s report—Discretion of the General Court

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 88 and 91(a) and (e))

(see paras 26, 27)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. HB, Robert Coates Smith, Hans Joachim Richter, Carmen Arsene, Magdalena Anna Kuropatwinska, Christos Yiapanis and Nathalie Louise Klinge, on the one hand, and the European Commission, on the other hand, shall bear their own respective costs.

( 1 ) JO C 283 du 28.8.2017.
2.

Appeal—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—Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence—Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion—Requirement for the distortion to be obvious from the documents in the Court’s file (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para,; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see para. 6)
Appeal—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 paras 12, 13)
EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—No need to adjudicate—Appeal lodged by the proprietor of an EU trade mark against a judgment of the General Court upholding the decision of a Board of Appeal which granted the application for revocation of the mark—Withdrawal of the application for revocation of the mark—End of the dispute

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 149 and 190(1); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Arts 66(1) and 71(3))

(see paras 14, 16)
Judicial proceedings – Costs – Dispute over recoverable costs – Concept – No requirement that the party ordered to pay the costs must have refused a request for reimbursement

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 145(1))

(see paras 13, 14)
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 December 2018 — GX v Commission

(Case C‑233/17 P-REV)

(Application for revision — Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure — Conditions — Appeal — No reliance on a new fact — Inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings — Revision of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility thereof — New fact — Definition

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 159(1))

(see paras 19, 21, 22)

Operative part

1. Dismisses the application for revision brought by GX.
3.

Appeal—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—Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence—Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 5, 6)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — HBOR

(Case C‑90/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — 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; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 18-32)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki upravni sud (Administrative Court of Appeal, Croatia), by decision of 1 February 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Order of the vice-President of the Court of 17 May 2018 — United States of America v Apple Sales International and Others

(Case C‑12/18 P(I))

(Appeal — Intervention — Third country — State aid — Aid implemented by Ireland in favour of Apple — Advance tax agreement (tax ruling) — Selective tax advantages — Action for annulment — Interest in the result of the case)

1. Judicial proceedings—Intervention—Admissibility criteria—Interest in the result of the case—Definition—Need for a direct and existing interest—Interest which must lead to a solution to the dispute such as to affect the legal position of the applicant (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.) (see paras 7-9, 23)

2. Judicial proceedings—Measures of inquiry—Discretion of the General Court (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 91 and 92) (see para. 22)

3. Appeal—Grounds—Plea directed against a superfluous ground—Invalid plea in law—Rejection (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 25, 26)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The United States of America shall bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 September 2018 — FR

(Case C‑422/18 PPU) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Area of freedom, security and justice — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Decision rejecting an application for international protection — National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction — Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance)

Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32 — Right to an effective judicial remedy — Decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return — National legislation providing for an appeal without suspensory effect against such a decision — Lawfulness — Limits — Respect for the principles of equivalence and effectiveness

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 18, 19(2) and 47; European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/115, Art. 13; European Parliament and Council Directive 2013/32, Art. 46)

(see paras 32-47, operative part)

Operative part

EU law, in particular the provisions of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for an appeal procedure against a first-instance judgment confirming a decision of the competent administrative authority which rejects an application for international protection, without granting it automatic suspensory effect, but which allows the court which has handed down that judgment to order, upon application by the person concerned, the suspension of its enforcement, after having assessed whether or not the grounds raised in the appeal brought against that judgment are well founded but not whether or not there is a risk of serious and irreparable damage for that applicant as a result of the enforcement of that judgment.

( 1 ) OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 October 2018 — UF v Parliament and Council

(Case C‑300/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the defendant — Action brought against the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) — Incorrect designation of the defendant)

Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Incorrect designation of the defendant—Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21)

(see para. 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.
Case C‑334/18 P(R)

Hércules Club de Fútbol SAD

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Order of the court hearing the application for interim measures — State aid — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain football clubs — Guarantee given by a public body in connection with loans to three football clubs in the Autonomous Community of Valencia — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Recovery order — Suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Statement of reasons — Rights of defence)

Summary — Order of the court hearing the application for interim measures of 22 November 2018

Application for interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Application — Formal requirements — No separate document — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(4)) Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Admissibility Appeal — Grounds — Failure to have regard to the rights of defence — Admissibility Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate or contradictory grounds — Scope of the obligation to state reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 119) EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Audi alteram partem rule — Compliance in the context of judicial proceedings — Decision based on facts and documents on which the parties have not been able to formulate an opinion — Infringement Appeal — Appeal upheld — Judgment to be given on the substance by the appeal court — Condition — Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given — Absence — Case remitted to the General Court — Application to appeals directed against an order for interim measures (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 57, second para., and 61, first para.)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 January 2019 — AK and EP (Confiscation by Bulgaria of an undeclared sum leaving the Union)

(Joined Cases C‑335/18 and C‑336/18) ( 1 )

(References for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Article 3(1) — Infringement of the obligation to declare — Article 4(2) — Measure to detain — Article 9(1) — Penalties provided for by national law — National legislation providing that, in addition to the imposition of a penalty of a term of imprisonment or a fine in the amount of one fifth of the amount of the undeclared sum, that sum is to be confiscated by the State — Proportionality)

Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation No 1889/2005 — Obligation to declare — Infringement — Penalties — National legislation providing, first, for confiscation by the State of the undeclared sum and, second, for a term of imprisonment of up to five years or a fine in the amount of one fifth of the undeclared sum — Not permissible — Breach of principle of proportionality

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1889/2005, Arts 3, 4(2) and 9(1))

(see paras 35-40, operative part)

Operative part

Articles 4(2) and 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of penalising an infringement of the obligation to declare provided for in Article 3 of that regulation, provides that, in addition to the imposition of a penalty of a term of imprisonment of up to five years or a fine in the amount of one fifth of the amount of the undeclared sum of cash, that undeclared sum is to be confiscated by the State.

( 1 ) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 February 2019 — Adis Higiene v EUIPO

(Case C‑669/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of Rules of Procedure of the General Court — EU trade mark — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

Action for annulment — Time limits — Mandatory — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Calculation

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 58(2), 60 and 191; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 72)

(see para. 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.
1.

Articles 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency containing a term which transfers the foreign exchange risk to the consumer, without expressly warning him that there is no ceiling on currency fluctuation, and which mentions the amount of the loan denominated in a foreign currency and the amount of the repayment instalments denominated in the national currency for information purposes only, satisfies the requirement of clear and comprehensible drafting, referred to in the above mentioned provisions, provided that, – first, the consumer has been informed not only of the possibility that the foreign currency in which the loan was agreed may increase or decrease in value, but is also in a position to be able to evaluate the –potentially significant — economic consequences of the foreign exchange risk on his financial obligations, and – second, the total amount made available to the borrower and the amount of the repayment instalments may be clearly determined. In so far as those amounts depend, respectively, on the exchange rate applicable on the date the funds are released and on the dates on which reimbursement is due, the requirement of clear and comprehensible drafting dictates that the method of calculation of those sums and the applicable exchange rate must be set out in a transparent manner.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 — Ryanair

(Case C‑646/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Determination of the court having jurisdiction to hear an application for compensation in respect of a delayed flight — Article 26 — Implied prorogation — Requirement that the defendant enter an appearance)

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Appearance by the defendant without disputing the jurisdiction of the court before which the action is brought — Concept — Defendant who did not submit observations or appear — Not included

(European Parliament and Concil Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 26(1))

(see paras 21-24, operartive part)

Operative part

Article 26(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in a case, such as that in the main proceedings, where the defendant has not submitted observations and has not appeared.

( 1 ) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
European Parliament — Members — Payment of expenses and allowances — Parliamentary assistance allowances — Check relating to the use of parliamentary assistance costs — Burden of proof

(Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, Art. 33(1))

(see para. 35)
Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Plea based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure — None — Amplification of an existing plea — No amplification — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1))

(see paras 21, 22)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 — HJ

(Case C‑680/18)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Law applicable to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Hague Protocol — Insufficient statement of reasons which led the referring court to have doubts as to the interpretation of EU law — 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 — Inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94; Council Regulation No 4/2009, Art. 15)

(see paras 12, 14-18)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 5 (Prague 5 District Court, Czech Republic), by decision of 29 October 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.
Judicial proceedings – Omission to give a decision – Definition – Obligation to rule on all the pleas in law submitted by the parties – No failure to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 155)

(see paras 11-20)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — Cyprus v EUIPO

(Joined Cases C‑608/18 P, C‑609/18 P and C‑767/18 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Invalidity of the mark cited by the opposing party — Appeals which have become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

Appeal — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it — Opposition proceedings — Invalidity of the trade mark cited by the opponent — Appeals which have become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56, second paragraph; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 149 and 190(1); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), (2) and (5))

(see paras 27-33)

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeals.

2. The Republic of Cyprus is ordered to pay the costs of the appeals.

( 1 ) OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
26

In view of the particular circumstances of the main proceedings, it should be noted that the fact that Article 3(5) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in conjunction with Article 2(a) thereof, prevents the passengers concerned from receiving compensation under that regulation does not prevent them from seeking reparation in other ways, including — as provided for in Article 3(6) of the same regulation — under Directive 90/314. In particular, Article 5(1) of that directive provides that Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that the organiser and/or retailer party to the contract is liable to the consumer for the proper performance of the obligations arising from the contract, irrespective of whether such obligations are to be performed by that organiser and/or retailer or by other suppliers of services without prejudice to the right of the organiser and/or retailer to pursue those other suppliers of services.