ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Examination of the compatibility of national law with EU law — Not included — Providing the national court with full guidance on the interpretation of EU law — Included (Art. 267 TFEU) (para. 10)

2. 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 — National legislation on legal expenses which provides that a lawyer’s fees are to be reduced by half where he accepts to represent clients who have been granted legal aid — Legislation which does not implement EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 12-16)

Subject of the case

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Legal aid — National legislation providing that consultancy fees are to be reduced by half where the client has been granted legal aid.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).
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-313/12 Ioanovici 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 Doru Cristian Ioanovici is ordered to bear his own costs.
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 May 2012 —

Ciampaglia



(Case C‑185/12)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility

Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Request containing no precise questions and not giving enough details of the factual and legislative background — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92 and 103(1)) (see paras 4‑9)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Torre Annunziata — Interpretation of Articles 8 and 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the court having competence to rule on an application for separation as regards any question relating to parental responsibility.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torre Annunziata, made by order of 14 March 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.
Case C‑264/12

Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

v

Fidelidade Mundial — Companhia de Seguros SA

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector workers — Failure to implement EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Summary — Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 26 June 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation not constituting a measure implementing 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, Art. 53(2))

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 18-22)

Case C‑264/12

Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

v

Fidelidade Mundial — Companhia de Seguros SA

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector workers — Failure to implement EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Summary — Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 26 June 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation not constituting a measure implementing 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, Art. 53(2))

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 18-22)
10

Novontech-Zala sent that order to its lawyer in Hungary, who lodged a statement of opposition on 13 January 2012, that is, after the expiry of the time-limit of 30 days laid down in Article 16(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006. It is clear from the documents before the Court that the lawyer had based his calculation of the period in question on the incorrect assumption that the European order for payment had been notified to Novontech-Zala on 14 December 2011 and not 13 December, as was in fact the case. He calculated that period on the assumption that it would expire on 13 January 2012, whereas, in reality, it expired on 12 January 2012. Without asking the court which had issued the European order for payment the date from which the time-limit had started to run, the lawyer entered the date on which the time-limit was to expire (which had been incorrectly calculated) in the diary and, therefore, lodged the statement of opposition out of time.
In the absence of any definition of the concept of ‘active ingredient’ in Regulation No 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, the meaning and scope of those terms must be determined by considering the general context in which they are used and their usual meaning in everyday language. In this case, it is generally accepted in pharmacology that the term active ‘ingredient’ does not include substances forming part of a medicinal product which do not have an effect of their own on the human or animal body.

(see paras 27, 28)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM

(Case C‑301/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) –Word mark CLUB GOURMET and CLUB DEL GOURMET — Rejection of the opposition — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 181 — Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part’

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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 41)

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 mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64, 65)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 March 2013 in Case T‑571/11 El Corte Inglés v Chez Gerard (CLUB GOURMET), by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2011 (Case R 1946/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Groupe Chez Gerard Restaurants Ltd.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. El Corte Inglés SA is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM

(Case C‑301/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) –Word mark CLUB GOURMET and CLUB DEL GOURMET — Rejection of the opposition — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 181 — Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part’

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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 41)

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 mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64, 65)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 March 2013 in Case T‑571/11 El Corte Inglés v Chez Gerard (CLUB GOURMET), by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2011 (Case R 1946/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Groupe Chez Gerard Restaurants Ltd.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 January 2014 — Gbagbo v Council

(Case C‑397/13 P)

‛Appeal — Time-limit — Formal requirements — Manifest inadmissibility’

Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — No unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 45, second para., and 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) (see paras 3-9)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 in Case T‑119/11 Gbagbo v Council in which the General Court dismissed the action seeking an annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and, secondly, of Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the appellant — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Simone Gbagbo is ordered to bear, in addition to her own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

3. The Republic of Côte d’Ivoire is ordered to bear its own costs.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 January 2014 — Gbagbo v Council

(Case C‑397/13 P)

‛Appeal — Time-limit — Formal requirements — Manifest inadmissibility’

Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — No unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 45, second para., and 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) (see paras 3-9)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 in Case T‑119/11 Gbagbo v Council in which the General Court dismissed the action seeking an annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and, secondly, of Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the appellant — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Simone Gbagbo is ordered to bear, in addition to her own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
Articles 167, 187 and 189 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, together with the principle of neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law which, in a case where there is a change in the purpose of immovable property acquired as capital goods from an initial use in activities not conferring entitlement to deduct input tax to a subsequent use in activities which do confer such entitlement, provide for an adjustment period of 10 years starting from the time at which the goods are first used and, therefore, do not permit a one-off adjustment during a single tax year.

In that regard, the requirement for an adjustment period of at least five years for capital goods constitutes an essential element of the system of adjustment introduced by Directive 2006/112, in that it enables inaccuracies to be avoided in the calculation of deductions and unjustified advantages or disadvantages for a taxable person and thus seeks to ensure the neutrality of the tax burden.

(see paras 29, 30, operative part)
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Social policy — European Social Fund — Financial assistance for vocational training — Reduction of the assistance originally granted — Exclusive power of the Commission — Transfer of the Community’s rights to the Member States provided for in Article 6(2) of Regulation No 2950/83 — Transfer limited to the right to refund arising from the decision adopted by the Commission to reduce the assistance — Action for annulment brought by the beneficiary following a purely national decision reducing the national contribution and demanding the repayment of certain sums — Inadmissibility (Council Regulation No 2950/83, Art. 6(1)) (see paras 58‑61)

2. 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), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2)) (see paras 72, 73)

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeals are dismissed.

2. Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 –

GRE / OHIM

(Case C‑494/13 P) 1 ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in colour including the word elements ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a blue background — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark including the word elements ‘La LIBERTAD’ — Refusal of registration’

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 35-40)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 325, 09.11.2013

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 –

GRE / OHIM

(Case C‑494/13 P) 1 ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in colour including the word elements ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a blue background — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark including the word elements ‘La LIBERTAD’ — Refusal of registration’

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 35-40)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 325, 09.11.2013
3.

Appeals — Grounds — Error of law — Failure to take account of all of the relevant factors in assessing the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 — Distortion of the content of an act (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 62, 63)
12

In those circumstances, the Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Is Article 3(2)(d) of … Directive [2008/95] to be interpreted as meaning that, for the assessment of whether a trade mark applicant acted in good faith, only circumstances apparent before the date or on the date of the submission of the trade mark application are relevant, or can circumstances which occurred after the application was submitted also be used as supporting evidence of the fact that the applicant acted in good faith? 2. Is it necessary to apply the judgment [of 20 November 2001] in Joined Cases C-414/99 to C-416/99 [Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss [2001] ECR I-8691] generally to all cases where it is being assessed whether a trade mark proprietor agreed to conduct which may result in weakening or limitation of his exclusive rights? 3. Is it possible to infer good faith on the part of an applicant for a later trade mark from the situation in which the proprietor of an earlier trade mark concluded agreements with it, on the basis of which that proprietor consented to the publication of periodical printed material whose designation was similar to mark applied for by the later trade mark applicant, agreed with the registration of that printed material by the applicant for a later trade mark and offered that applicant support in its publication, but the agreements concerned nevertheless did not expressly regulate the issue of the intellectual property right? 4. In so far as circumstances occurring after a trade mark application was submitted may also be relevant for the purposes of the assessment of whether the trade mark applicant acted in good faith, is it possible, in the alternative, to infer the fact that the applicant acted in good faith from the situation in which the proprietor of the earlier trade mark knowingly tolerated the existence of the contested trade mark for a period of at least ten years?’
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 9 October 2014 — Calvi v European Court of Human Rights

(Case C‑171/14 P)

‛Appeal — Action seeking the annulment of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights declaring inadmissible an action brought against a decision of a national court’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see para. 8)

2. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Examination of the lawfulness of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 11-13)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Eleonora Giulia Calvi to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 9 October 2014 — Calvi v European Court of Human Rights

(Case C‑171/14 P)

‛Appeal — Action seeking the annulment of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights declaring inadmissible an action brought against a decision of a national court’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see para. 8)

2. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Examination of the lawfulness of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 11-13)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Statement of reasons for judgments — Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36) (see para. 28)

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 paras 33, 37)

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Three-N-Products Private Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2015 —

Pisciotti v Commission

(Case C‑411/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Article 181 Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Actions for annulment — Refusal of the European Commission to bring infringement proceedings — Inadmissibility — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see para. 11)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Romano Pisciotti to bear his own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2015 —

Pisciotti v Commission

(Case C‑411/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Article 181 Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Actions for annulment — Refusal of the European Commission to bring infringement proceedings — Inadmissibility — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see para. 11)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Romano Pisciotti to bear his own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.