ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 – Cozman v Teatrul Municipal Târgovişte

(Case C-462/11)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – First Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – Whether national legislation establishing reductions in the salaries of several categories of public-sector employees is lawful – No implementation of Union law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights – National legislation not amounting to a measure giving effect to Union law – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 12, 14-16, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunalul Dâmboviţa – Interpretation of Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – Whether national legislation establishing reductions in the salaries of several categories of public-sector employees is lawful – Nature of remuneration rights – Limits.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by Tribunalul Dâmboviţa (Romania) by decision of 7 February 2011.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 – DTL Corporación v OHIM

(Case C-67/11 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Opposition procedure – Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Solaria’ and earlier national figurative mark containing the word element ‘Solartia’ – Registration refused in part – Likelihood of confusion – Request for a stay of the proceedings before the General Court – Failure to lodge the request in good time

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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40-41)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 in Case T‑188/10 DTL v OHIM – Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales (Solaria) by which that court dismissed an action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2010 (Case R 767/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales SL and DTL Corporación SL.

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal in so far as it concerns the services falling within Class 37 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended.

2. The appeal is dismissed in so far as it concerns the services falling within Class 42 of the Nice Agreement.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 February 2012 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case C‑421/11 P)

Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Competition — Cartel — Market for methacrylates — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Presumption of decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Extension of the authority of a final decision — Deterrent multiplying factor — Indivisible nature of the fine — Unlimited jurisdiction

1. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 17, 31, 69-71)

2. Competition — Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption that a parent company wields decisive influence over its wholly-owned subsidiaries (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 25, 28, 30, 33, 38, 46-50, 62)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Whether permissible — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see paras 41-42)

4. Appeals — Jurisdiction of the Court — Challenge on grounds of fairness to the General Court’s assessment concerning the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking — Excluded (Art. 101 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see para. 87)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2011 in Case T‑206/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission , in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) — Competition — Cartel — Infringement of the principle that the institutions must act within the limits of their powers and of the principle of proportionality — Manifestly erroneous interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of equity and of equality of arms — Duty to state reasons — Infringement of the principle of sound administration.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 April 2012 —

Notermans v Boddenberg



(Case C-114/11)

Articles 18 EC and 39 EC — Motor vehicles — Use in one Member State of a private motor vehicle registered in another Member State — That vehicle taxed in the first Member State on its first use on the national road network — Vehicle taken at the time of moving to the first Member State and used for both private use and for going to the place of work situated in the second Member State

Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Equal treatment — Worker employed in one Member State and having transferred his residence to another Member State (Art. 39 EC) (see para. 33, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 18 EC and 39 EC (now Articles 21 TFEU and 45 TFEU) — National rules requiring payment of a registration tax on the first use of a vehicle on the national road network — Liability to that tax of a person who has transferred residence from another Member State, is a national of that Member State and uses, on a permanent basis, a vehicle registered there, and included in the transfer of residence, for purposes of private and work-related use involving work-related travel to that other Member State.

Operative part

Article 39 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State that requires its residents who have moved from another Member State and have brought with them a vehicle registered in that latter Member State, on the first use of that vehicle on the national road network, to pay a tax normally due on the registration of a vehicle in the first Member State, when that vehicle is essentially used permanently in the territory of that first Member State, even if that use includes journeys by those residents to their place of work in the second Member State.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2012 —

Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb v Yorma’s



(Case C-191/11 P-DEP)

Taxation of costs

Procedure — Costs – Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 17)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2012 in Case C-191/11 P Yorma’s v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (Yorma’s)

Operative part

Yorma’s AG is ordered to repay Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG a total amount of costs of EUR 3 080.91.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Provision of national law under which exclusive jurisdiction in relation to an application for annulment of an arbitral award is attributed to the court in whose area of jurisdiction the arbitration proceedings took place — Provision of national law under which that court is under an obligation, upon annulling an arbitral award, to continue the main proceedings without re-examining its territorial jurisdiction — Unfair arbitration agreement or arbitration clause.
27

Regarding the economic interests at issue, it is not disputed, in the light of the significance of trade marks in business, that Schwaaner Fischwaren clearly had an interest in the judgment under appeal – by which the General Court dismissed the Rügen Fisch’s action against the contested decision – being upheld on appeal. By that decision, the Board of Appeal of OHIM upheld the application, brought by Schwaaner Fischwaren, for a declaration of partial invalidity of the Community trade mark SCOMBER MIX, in that case for goods in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement of 15 June 1957 concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, as revised and amended, namely ‘tinned fish; preserved fish; preparations of fish, also using spices, spice extracts, salads and vegetables; prepared and semi-prepared fish dishes’.
When assessing the seriousness of the alleged financial harm in the context of an application for interim measures, the fact that the appellant failed to provide information concerning the size of the undertaking to which it belongs is not in itself sufficient to justify rejection of that application on the ground that the appellant failed to establish the seriousness of the alleged harm.

Admittedly, the size of the undertaking may have an influence on the assessment of the seriousness of that financial harm, since that harm will be all the more serious where it is significant compared to the undertaking’s size and correspondingly less serious if the contrary applies. Thus, in certain circumstances, the arguments concerning the seriousness of the harm alleged may be rejected by simply comparing it to the turnover of the undertaking which may suffer that harm.

However, it cannot be excluded that financial harm which is objectively significant and which allegedly results from the obligation to make a final commercial choice of some magnitude within a disadvantageous time-scale could be considered as ‘serious’, or even that the seriousness of such harm could be considered as obvious, even in the absence of information concerning the size of the undertaking concerned.

(see paras 31-33)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Trevisanato v Commission

(Case C-25/12 P)

‛Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Application seeking an order that the Commission take a position concerning the interpretation and the transposition of a directive — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 15-18)

2. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any legal basis — Order delivered without a defence having been submitted — Lawfulness (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 111) (see paras 21-23)

Re:

Appeal against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11 Trevisanato v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed an action seeking an order that the Commission take a position on the complaint lodged by the applicant — Failure by the Commission to adopt a binding opinion on the scope of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies — (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Conditions for application of Article 111 of the Rules and Procedures of the General Court

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Trevisanato is ordered to bear his own costs.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Trevisanato v Commission

(Case C-25/12 P)

‛Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Application seeking an order that the Commission take a position concerning the interpretation and the transposition of a directive — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 15-18)

2. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any legal basis — Order delivered without a defence having been submitted — Lawfulness (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 111) (see paras 21-23)

Re:

Appeal against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11 Trevisanato v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed an action seeking an order that the Commission take a position on the complaint lodged by the applicant — Failure by the Commission to adopt a binding opinion on the scope of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies — (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Conditions for application of Article 111 of the Rules and Procedures of the General Court

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the national court — Assessment of the necessity and relevance of the questions referred (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 23)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 24)

3. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Block exemption — Vertical agreements — Regulation No 2790/1999 — Non-compete obligation imposed on the buyer upon expiry of a franchise agreement — ‘Premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period’ — Definition — Place from which the contracted goods and services are offered — Included — Entire territory of the place of sale of those goods or services — Exclusion (Commission Regulation No 2790/1999, Art. 5(b)) (see point 41, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Burgos — Interpretation of Article 5(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21) — Block exemption — Distortions of competition not exempt — Conditions imposed on the buyer upon expiry of the franchise agreement — Concept of ‘premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period’.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 5(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) [EC] to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, must be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period’ refers only to the place from which the contract goods or services are offered for sale and not to the whole of the territory in which those goods or services may be sold under a franchise agreement.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — 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, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 31, 32, 47-49, 55-57)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 81) (see para. 37)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2012 in Case T-203/11 Schiocchet v Council and Commission , by which the General Court rejected as manifestly unfounded in law an application for compensation of a loss allegedly suffered due to the application of the system laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1) — Conditions on which an action for compensation may be brought — Wrongful act of an institution.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 May 2012 —

Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor



(Case C‑134/12)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Validity of national legislation imposing salary reductions on several categories of civil servants — Failure to give effect to European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice

1. References for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union — National legislation not amounting to a measure giving effect to Union law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 12, 13, operative part)

2. References for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court to give a ruling on the interpretation of provisions of international law binding the Member States outside the ambit of Union law (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 14, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Interpretation of Articles 17(1), 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Interpretation of Article 15(3) of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Lawfulness of national legislation imposing salary reductions on several categories of civil servants — Infringement of the right to property and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania), made by decision of 8 February 2012.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — J v Parliament

(Case C‑550/12 P)

‛Article 227 TFEU — Right of petition — Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to take no further action — Subject not falling within an area of activity of the European Union’

1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament to shelve a petition without taking any further action (Arts 227 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 19, 20)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 22)

3. Acts of the institutions — Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament to shelve a petition without taking any further action — Petition concerning an alleged infringement by a Member State of the right to property laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Petition bearing no relation to the application of EU law — Whether the decision to shelve the petition is well founded (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 17 and 51) (see paras 28-31)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T‑160/10 J v Parliament, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by Mr J seeking annulment of the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010 to shelve the appellant’s petition of 19 November 2009 (petition No 1673/2009) without taking any further action — Lack of reasoning — Infringement of fundamental rights.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The application for legal aid is dismissed.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question raised regarding a dispute within a single Member State — Jurisdiction in the light of the possible applicability of the rule of EU law to the dispute by reason of a prohibition of discrimination laid down by national law — Need for the referring court to indicate that national law does impose such a prohibition

(Art. 267 TFEU)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — IDT Biologika v Commission

(Case C‑6/13 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public supply contracts — Call for tenders related to the supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines — Rejection of a tender — Appeal clearly inadmissible or unfounded’

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 18, 19)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2012 in Case T‑503/10 IDT Biologika v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 10 August 2010 awarding the contract (reference EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS) for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium led by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant — Whether the limits to which the Commission is subject in the exercise of its discretion were exceeded.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. IDT Biologika GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — IDT Biologika v Commission

(Case C‑6/13 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public supply contracts — Call for tenders related to the supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines — Rejection of a tender — Appeal clearly inadmissible or unfounded’

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 18, 19)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2012 in Case T‑503/10 IDT Biologika v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 10 August 2010 awarding the contract (reference EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS) for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium led by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant — Whether the limits to which the Commission is subject in the exercise of its discretion were exceeded.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.