ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 17 December 2020 – Brands Up v EUIPO

(Case C‑404/20 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

1. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 14)

2. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 15-18)

3. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request for the appeal to be allowed to proceed not demonstrating that the issue is significant – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 19-21, 23, 25)

4. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Not included (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 58, first para., and 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see paras 22, 24)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred without sufficient information justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of a connection between the dispute in the main proceedings and the provision of EU law referred to in the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94(c))

(see paras 21, 22, 28, 31, 32, operative part)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 15-17, 20, 21, 23, 24, operative part)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2021 – Amoena II

(Case C‑706/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Headings 6212 and 9021 – Mastectomy bras – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1167 – Notion of ‘accessories’ – Interpretation of the judgment of 19 December 2019, Amoena (C‑677/18, EU:C:2019:1142))

Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature – Notion of breast form accessories for the purposes of that chapter – Criteria for assessment – Mastectomy bras – Not included

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 2016/1821, Annex I, Chapter 90)

(see paras 33-37)

Operative part

1. Paragraph 53 of the judgment of 19 December 2019, Amoena (C‑677/18, EU:C:2019:1142), in the English-language version, must be interpreted as meaning that: – in the first sentence of that paragraph, the terms ‘them’ and ‘their’ refer to the breast forms and the term ‘they’ refers to the mastectomy bras; – in the second sentence of that paragraph, the term ‘their’ and the first two occurrences of the term ‘they’ refer to the mastectomy bras, whereas the last occurrence of the term ‘they’ refers to the breast forms.

2. In the second sentence of paragraph 53 of the judgment of 19 December 2019, Amoena (C‑677/18, EU:C:2019:1142), the Court, in order to determine whether the mastectomy bras may be regarded as breast form ‘accessories’ for the purposes of Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016 merely applied the test defined in paragraph 51 of that judgment, according to which interchangeable parts or devices which enable a machine to perform a particular service relative to its main function must be classified as ‘accessories’ for the purposes of that chapter.

( 1 ) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2021 – Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Others v ECB and Banco de Portugal

(Case C‑450/20 P)

(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Appeal, first, against an order of the General Court dismissing an action for damages and, second, against an order of the General Court declaring inadmissible the application for rectification of that order – Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Appeal lodged out of time – Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

1. Appeal — Grounds of appeal — Grounds of appeal 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. 9)

2. Appeal –Grounds of appeal — Ground of appeal seeking rectification of the order of the General Court — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 164 and 165) (see paras 16, 17)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2.

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) establishing the ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) – Not necessary to include, in that decision, all figures necessary for verifying the accuracy of the calculation of the contribution – Weighing the obligation to state reasons against the general principle of protection of the commercial confidentiality of the institutions concerned – Legality of the provisions of Regulation 2015/63 concerning the method for the calculation of the ex ante contributions to the SFR (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 806/2014; Commission Regulation 2015/63; European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/59) (see paras 69-81)
2.

Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Scope – Passengers having tickets issued under a frequent flyer programme or other commercial programme by an air carrier or tour operator – Included – Passenger travelling free of charge due to his or her young age, who does not have an allocated seat or a boarding pass and whose name does not appear on the reservations – Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Arts 2(f) and (g) and 3(3), second sentence) (see paras 25-27, 29, 30, operative part 2)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2022 – Hochmann Marketing v European Commission

(Case C‑539/20 P-REV)

(Application for revision – Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Conditions – Manifest inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings – Revision of an order – Conditions for the admissibility thereof – New fact – Concept – Fact which is of such a nature as to be a decisive factor and which is unknown to the applicant and to the Court before service of the order – No new fact – Manifest inadmissibility

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

(see paras 27-29, 32-37)

Operative part

1. The application for revision brought by Hochmann Marketing GmbH is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 12 May 2021 – Topcart v EUIPO

(Case C‑49/21 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

1. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see para. 14)

2. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paras 15-20, 23)

3. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 21, 22, 24)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Appeal – 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) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see paras 4 (3-7, 15, 18), 5)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2021 – Agrárminiszter

(Case C‑273/21) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Agriculture – Common Agricultural Policy – Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 – Direct support schemes – Article 4(1)(c) and (e) – Article 32(2) – Single area payment application – Concept of ‘eligible hectare’ – Land classified as an aerodrome according to the land register – Actual use for agricultural purposes)

Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Direct support schemes – Common rules – Single payment scheme – Concept of area eligible for aid – Concept of agricultural area – Area classified under national law as an aerodrome but used for agricultural purposes – Included – Condition

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1307/2013, Arts 4(1)(c) and (e) and 32(2)(a))

(see paras 23-27, operative part)

Operative part

Article 4(1)(c) and (e) and Article 32(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that an area classified, under national law, as an aerodrome, but on which no activity relating to an aerodrome is carried out, must be classified as an agricultural area used for agricultural purposes since it is in fact used as permanent pasture for livestock.

( 1 ) OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 September 2021 – Wallonische Region (Registration of a vehicle belonging to an undertaking without legal personality)

(Case C‑23/21) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Road traffic – Driver residing in one Member State – Vehicle registered in another Member State – Vehicle made available to the partner and manager of an undertaking established in that other Member State – Registration obligation in the first Member State)

1. Freedom of establishment – Restrictions – Person residing in the national territory and being the manager of a company established in another Member State or a freelancer – Use of a vehicle registered in that other Member State – National legislation which provides, on pain of a fine, that certain documents must be permanently held on board that vehicle – Documents certifying that the person concerned satisfies the conditions for the application of the derogation from the requirement to register in the Member State of residence – Unlawful – No justification – Breach of principle of proportionality (Art. 49 TFEU) (see paragraphs 28-30, 32-37, 39-50, operative part 1))

2. Freedom of establishment – Restrictions – Person residing in the national territory and being the partner and manager of a company established in another Member State – Use of a vehicle registered in that other Member State – National legislation of the Member State of residence requiring that person to register his or her vehicle there – Person concerned not receiving any salary or income from that undertaking – Person concerned unable to prove the role he or she has within that undertaking – Unlawful – Condition – Vehicle not intended to be used essentially in the Member State of residence nor used in that manner (Art. 49 TFEU) (see paras 45-50, and operative part 2))

Operative part

1. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which a manager of an undertaking or a freelancer, resident in that Member State, may rely on an exception to the obligation to register, in that Member State, a vehicle registered in another Member State and made available to him or her by an undertaking, with or without legal personality, established in that other Member State, only if the documents attesting that the person in question meets the conditions for the exception are at all times carried in that vehicle.

2. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires a partner and manager of an undertaking, resident in that Member State, who does not receive a salary or income from that undertaking, established in another Member State, to register a vehicle made available to him or her by the undertaking, without having the possibility of proving the role he or she has within the undertaking, provided that that vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that manner.

( 1 ) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
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 paras 26-29)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 –

Rozhlas a televízia Slovenska

(Case C‑638/21)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13/EEC – Scope – Legal relationship between a national radio broadcaster and a natural person who is subject to the radio fee – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred without sufficient information justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of a link between the dispute in the main proceedings and the provision of EU law referred to in the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(c))

(see paras 14-16, 20, 23, 24, 26-29, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling lodged by the Okresný súd Prešov (District Court, Prešov, Slovakia), by decision of 8 September 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 March 2022 – IP and Others (Establishing the accuracy of the facts in the main proceedings)

(Case C‑609/21)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 4(3) TEU – Article 267 TFEU – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47, second paragraph – Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Content of a request for a preliminary ruling – National rule providing for the national criminal court to decline jurisdiction on the basis that it expressed a view on the facts of the case in the request for a preliminary ruling on pain of annulment of the decision to be given on the merits of the case – Article 18 TFEU – Article 21(2) of the Charter – Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Requirement for national courts to inform their own Member State of any request for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Reference to the Court – Content of a request for a preliminary ruling – National rule providing for the national criminal court to decline jurisdiction on the basis that it expressed a view on the facts of the case in the request for a preliminary ruling on pain of annulment of the decision to be given on the merits of the case – Not permissible (Art. 4(3) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see paras 30-32, 34-36, operative part 1)

2. Member States – Obligations – Power of the national courts to put questions to the Court of Justice – Primacy – National legislation preventing a national court or tribunal from maintaining a request for a preliminary ruling addressed to the Court – Not permissible – Obligations and powers of the national courts – Obligation to disapply any national provision contrary to EU law (Article 267 TFEU) (see para. 33)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Reference to the Court – Jurisdiction of national courts – Requirement for national courts to inform their own Member State of any request for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court – Irrelevant (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 39, 43, operative part 2)

Operative part

1. Article 267 TFEU and Article 94(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, read in the light of Article 4(3) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule which requires courts hearing criminal cases, when they make factual findings in the context of a request for a preliminary ruling made to the Court, to decline jurisdiction on pain of annulment of the decision to be given on the merits of the case. Such a rule must be disregarded by those courts and by any authority empowered to apply it.
State aid – Administrative procedure – Rights of the defence – Whether applicable to administrative procedures initiated by the Commission – Examination of an unlawful aid measure – Rights benefiting only Member States to the exclusion of interested parties

(Art. 108(2) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(b))

(see paras 6-8)
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 6 May 2022 – Inditex v EUIPO

(Case C‑65/22 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

1. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see para. 11)

2. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 12-14)

3. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 15-19)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
1.

Officials – Obligation of administration to provide assistance – Implementation in the case of psychological harassment – Bringing of a request for assistance – Opening of an administrative inquiry – Position taken by the administration on the truth of the facts before the end of the inquiry – Precluded (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 12a) (see para. 4(13))
17

Second, EUIPO claims that the issue raised by the appeal goes beyond the grounds of the appeal themselves, so that clarification by the Court of Justice is necessary both for individuals and for the competent national authorities. First of all, that issue is not exclusively linked to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union, but extends to any other case of the earlier right ceasing, ex nunc, in the course of the administrative proceedings, to be capable of being relied upon, in particular in the context of the frequent circumstances in which that right has expired, has been revoked or has been surrendered in the course of those proceedings. Next, that issue is not limited to the interpretation of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 or the earlier non-registered trade marks ceasing to be capable of being relied upon, but extends to all relative grounds for refusal and invalidity, provided for in Articles 8 and 53 of that regulation, and to the failure to be able to rely, on those grounds, on any earlier right, since that earlier right may be a right of more than mere local significance, an EU trade mark, a national trade mark, a copyright, a design or a patent. Lastly, that same issue concerns not only proceedings before EUIPO, but all proceedings before the national administrative or judicial authorities concerning relative grounds for refusal and invalidity based on earlier rights, in accordance with the national laws transposing Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1), in particular Article 5 thereof.