ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Direct effect – Conditions – Articles 2(1), 3(1), and 6 of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and preamble to the additional protocol (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Arts 2(1), 3(1) and 6; Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement) (see paras 36-40)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 46, 52, 56-57, 64)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Illegality (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see para. 48)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 61)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2006 in Case T-367/03 Yeda ş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed, as being unfounded, an action seeking to recover compensation in respect of damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of the respondent institutions’ failure to comply with the obligations laid down in the provisions governing the Customs Union between the European Union and Turkey, in particular the obligation to provide financial aid for the purpose of offsetting the negative effects of the Customs Union on the Turkish economy.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court of 6 April 2006 – An Post

(Case C-130/06 P)

Appeal – Intervention – Conditions – Interest in the resolution of the dispute

1. Procedure – Intervention – Conditions as to admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, para. 2) (see paras 8-9)

2. Procedure – Intervention – Persons establishing an interest (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, para. 2) (see para. 11)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2006 in Case T‑493/04 Deutsche Post AG v Commission dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to intervene.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords



Keywords

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

)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 March 2007 – Galileo International Technology and Others v Commission

(Case C‑325/06 P)

Appeals – Community project for a satellite navigation system (GALILEO) – Harm suffered by the proprietors of trade marks and business names containing the word Galileo – Appeal partly manifestly admissible and partly manifestly unfounded

1. 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)

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

The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2007 – Schneider Electric v Commission

(Case C‑188/06 P)

Appeals – Concentrations between undertakings – Electricity distribution market – Decisions to initiate and close proceedings

1. Appeals – Grounds – 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)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law pleaded not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 55, 78)

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support its operative part – Plea inoperative (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 64, 80)

4. Competition – Concentrations – Examination by the Commission – Decision to open the detailed examination stage (Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 6(1)(c)) (see para. 72)

Re:

Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 in Case T-48/03 Schneider Electric v Commission , rejecting as inadmissible an application for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 4 December 2002 to initiate a detailed examination of the concentration between Schneider and Legrand (Case COMP/M.2283 – Schneider/Legrand II) and of the Commission’s Decision of 13 December 2002 to close the proceedings examining the concentration.

Operative part:

The appeal is dismissed.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale civile di Genova – Direct award of the management of public services and public infrastructures to a company responsible for the monitoring of the market in question – Conferral on that company of the power to determine the substance of the concession contracts existing between its own competitors and the State and to terminate those contracts.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

25 October 2007

Case C-495/06 P

Bart Nijs

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Appeals – Promotion – 2003 promotion procedure – Staff report – Decision establishing the definitive version of the report – Decision to promote another official to the grade of Translator-reviser – Claim for compensation for damage – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05 Nijs v Court of Auditors ECR-SC I-A-2-195 and II-A-2-999 in which the Court of First Instance dismissed – in so far as it relied on grounds other than a failure to give reasons – the action seeking, first, annulment of the decision establishing the definitive version of the appellant’s staff report for the 2003 reporting period, the decision allocating the appellant merit points for the 2003 reporting period and the decision not to promote him in 2004, and of the decision rejecting the complaint brought against those decisions and, secondly, an application for compensation in respect of the harm suffered.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Nijs is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

1. 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 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissible

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Eurostrategies SPRL is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see para. 27)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part – Invalid plea in law (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 40)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 December 2006 in Case T-138/03 É.R. and Others v Council and Commission , by which the Court dismissed as partially inadmissible and, for the remainder, as unfounded, the action brought by the applicants seeking compensation under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for the damage allegedly suffered as a consequence of the infection and subsequent death of members of their families who suffered from a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which was linked to the outbreak and spread in Europe of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, for which the Council and the Commission were allegedly responsible – Conditions giving rise to non contractual liability of the Communities.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. É.R., O.O., J.R., A.R., B.P.R., T.D., J.D., D.D., V.D., D.E., É.E., C.R., H.R., M.S.R., I.R., B.R., M.R., and C.S. are ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

Pleas in law

–

Incorrect assessment of the evidence

–

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 para. 49

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 in Case T-491/04 Merant v OHIM , by which that Court annulled decision R 542/2002-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2004 upholding an action against the opposition decision which partially rejected the application for registration of Community word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national figurative mark ‘MICRO FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 41 and 42 – Likelihood of confusion between two marks.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH to pay the costs .
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of Community law – National legislation incompatible with Community law as interpreted in a judgment delivered in response to a reference for a preliminary ruling (Art. 10 EC; Council Directives 76/207 and 79/7) (see paras 22-24, operative part 1)

2. Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Directive 79/7 (Council Directive 79/7, Art. 7(1)(a)) (see paras 26-27, operative part 2)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commissione Tributaria Provinicale di Latina – Interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) and Council Directive 79/7/EEC on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6. p. 24) – Interpretation and scope of the judgment in Case C-207/04 Vergani – Application of a reduced rate of tax in respect of sums received by way of voluntary redundancy incentive for workers who have reached a particular age – Tax advantage granted to workers at different ages according to their gender.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Following the judgment of 21 July 2005 in Case C-207/04 Vergani , in which national legislation was found to be incompatible with Community law, it is for the authorities of the Member State concerned to adopt the general or specific measures necessary to ensure that Community law is complied with in their territory, those authorities retaining the choice of measures to be taken to ensure that national law is changed so as to comply with Community law and that the rights which individuals derive from Community law are given full effect. Where there has been found to be discrimination contrary to Community law, for as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, a national court must set aside any discriminatory provision of national law, without having to request or await its prior removal by the legislature, and apply to members of the disadvantaged category the same arrangements as those enjoyed by the persons in the other category.

2. The derogation provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security is not applicable to a tax measure such as provided for in Article 17(4a) of Decree No 917 of the President of the Republic of 22 December 1986, as amended by Legislative Decree No 314 of 2 September 1997.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2008 — Combescot v Commission

(Case C-526/07 P)

‛Appeal — Officials — Appointment to the post of Head of Delegation in Colombia — Exclusion from competition — Application for damages — Determination of the extent of compensation — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — 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. 30)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons (see paras 48, 50)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-250/04 Combescot v Commission, by which that Court dismissed the appellant’s application for recognition that the decision excluding him from the competition for appointment to the post of Head of Delegation in Colombia was unlawful, dismissed the application for annulment of the procedure of that competition and of the decision making the appointment to the post concerned, and held that there was only non-material damage, rejecting the claim for compensation for the other heads of damage raised by the appellant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Measures producing binding legal effects

–

Commission press release publishing data relating to government debt and deficit

–

Implied decision approving the classification of a body in the general government sector of the European System of Accounts 1995

–

None (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 3605/93, Arts 8a(1), 8c, 8g, 8h and 8i(1) (see paras 45-53

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 in Case T-177/06 Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30, SA v Commission dismissing as inadmissible an action for the annulment of the Eurostat news release No 48/2006 of 24 April 2006 to the extent that it contains a decision of the Commission (Eurostat) on the classification of Madrid Calle 30 in the ‘general government’ sector within the European System of Accounts (ESA 95).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30, SA to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 May 2007 – Smanor and Others v Commission

(Case C‑99/07 P)

Appeals – Order of the Court of First Instance – Actions for failure to act – Complaints of alleged failure to act by a Member State – Commission not taking a position – Appeal manifestly inadmissible

Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 15-17)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Case T-150/06 Smanor and Others v Commission whereby the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action by the applicants for: (1) a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act by not taking a position on the complaints which they had lodged in 1986 against the French Republic; and (2) an order for suspension of operation of a judgment and of a decision taken by the national authorities.

Operative part:

The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure

–

No need to adjudicate (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 13-16

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2007 in Case T-425/03 AMS v OHIM – American Medical Systems (AMS Advanced Medical Services) , by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘AMS Advanced Medical Services’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 10 and 42 against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2003 annulling the decision of the Opposition Division and allowing in part the opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘AMS’ – Opposition proceedings – Admissibility of a request to prove the genuine use of the earlier mark made by the applicant for the first time before the Board of Appeal.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH.

2. AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH is ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 January 2008 – Polier v Najar

(Case C‑361/07)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Convention No 158 of the International Labour Organisation – European Social Charter – Dismissal of an employee without valid reason – Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 10-11)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Conseil de Prud’Hommes de Beauvais – Interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Arts 30 and 33), the European Social Charter (Arts 24 and 27), and of Convention No 158 of the International Labour Organisation, as regards termination of employment – Dismissal of an employee without valid reason – Whether national legislation is valid in the light of the abovementioned provisions.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions posed by the Conseil de prud’hommes de Beauvais by decision of 9 July 2007.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 November 2007 – Autostrada dei Fiori and AISCAT v Government of the Italian Republic and Others

(Case C‑12/07)

Preliminary references – Inadmissibility

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 16-18)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Civile di Genova – Direct attribution of the management of public services and infrastructures to a company with a controlling role in the market concerned – Attribution to that company of the right to determine the content of concession contracts existing between its own competitors and the State to determine those contracts – Compatibility with Arts 43, 49, 82, 86 and 87 EC

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Gevova, by decision of 9 January 2007, is clearly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 May 2008 – Ladbroke and Derby v État belge

(Joined Cases C‑231/07 and C-232/07)

Rules of Procedure – First subparagraph of Article 104(3) – Sixth VAT Directive – Article 13B(d)(3) – Exemptions – Concepts of ‘deposit accounts’ and of ‘payments’ – Refusal of exemption

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(d)(3)) (see paras 22, 24-25, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Cour d’appel de Bruxelles – Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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) – Exemptions in relation to transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts and payments – Bets, lotteries and other games of chance or forms of gambling – Supply of services by intermediaries responsible for collecting the bets on behalf of a principal and, where appropriate, for paying out winnings to bettors – Whether eligible for the exemption provided for in Article 13(B)(d)(3)?

Operative part

The terms ‘transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts and payments’ used in Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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 are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not refer to the supply of services by an agent acting on behalf of a client which carries out the activity of accepting bets on horse races and other sporting events, consisting of acceptance by the agent of bets on behalf of the client, registration thereof, confirmation to the client, by presentation of the betting slip, that a bet was made, collection of funds, payment of winnings, the sole assumption of liability as regards the client for the management of the funds collected and for thefts and/or losses of money and where the agent receives remuneration in the form of commission from the client in return for that activity.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 – C.A.S. v Commission

(Case C‑204/07 P-DEP)

Taxation of costs

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 11-45)

Re:

Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure – Action on taxation of costs following judgment of the Court of 25 July 2008.

Operative part:

The total costs to be reimbursed by the Commission of the European Communities to C.A.S. SpA are fixed at EUR 29 568.