ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-208/03 P-R





Jean-Marie Le Pen

v

European Parliament





«(Interim relief – Suspension of operation – Application for interim measures – Judgment of the Court of First Instance holding an application for annulment inadmissible – Appeal – Suspension of the operation of the act annulment of which was sought at first instance – Admissibility – Prima facie case – Urgency – Balancing of interests involved)»

Order of the President of the Court, 31 July 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Judgment of the Court of First Instance against which an appeal has been brought – Right to effective judicial protection – Request for suspension of operation of the act in question challenged at first instance – Whether admissible

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(1))

2.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Judgment of the Court of First Instance against which an appeal has been brought – Prima facie case – Judgment declaring the action to be inadmissible – Grounds of appeal relied on against the judgment – Insufficient to justify prima facie suspension of operation of the contested act

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2))

3.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2))

1.

2.

3.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Companies – Directive 68/151 – Annual accounts

(Council Directive 68/151, Art. 6)

Summary

The requirement that penalties for a failure to publish annual accounts be appropriate, laid down in Article 6 of First Directive 68/151 on the co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community, cannot be relied on as such against accused persons by the authorities of a Member State within the context of criminal proceedings for the purpose of assessing the compatibility with that requirement of criminal provisions more favourable to accused persons, which entered into force after the offences were committed, since that assessment could have the effect of setting aside application of the system of more lenient penalties provided for by those articles. A directive cannot, of itself and independently of national legislation adopted by a Member State for its implementation, have the effect of determining or increasing the criminal liability of those accused persons.

(see paras 29-30, 36, 45, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 19, 30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 December 2005.

Operative part

Operative part:

The total amount of costs which Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG must repay to Krafft SA is fixed at USD 6 125.44.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Questions referred in the course of a dispute relating to the application of a national provision which is not within the scope of Community law – Excluded

(Art. 234 EC)

Summary

Where national provisions fall within the field of application of Community law the Court, on a reference for a preliminary ruling, must give the national court all the guidance as to interpretation necessary to enable it to assess the compatibility of those provisions with the fundamental rights whose observance the Court ensures. By contrast, the Court has no such jurisdiction with regard to national provisions outside the scope of Community law and when the subject-matter of the dispute is not connected in any way with any of the situations contemplated by the Treaties.

(see paras 12-13)
Keywords



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 104(3))

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 80/987 – Scope – Definition of pay – National legislation including compensation for unfair dismissal awarded by judgment or administrative decision and excluding claims established in a judicial conciliation procedure – Breach of the principle of equal treatment – Duties and powers of the national court

(Council Directive 80/987, as amended by Directive 2002/74, Art. 3(1))
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

Grounds of appeal

–

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, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 13-15

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 April 2005 by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-191/02 Lebedef v Commission , by which it dismissed an application for annulment of the Commission’s decision by which it repudiated the Framework Agreement of 20 September 1974 on the relations between the Commission and the trade union and professional organisations, adopted again the operational rules concerning the levels, process and procedure of consultation agreed by the Commission and the majority of trade union and professional organisations on 19 January 2000, which had been annulled by the Court of First Instance in its judgment of 15 November 2001, in so far as they excluded from the process of consultation the union ‘Action et Défense’

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Lebedef to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Officials

–

Actions

–

Prior administrative complaint (Staff Regulations, Arts 25, third para., and 90(2)) (see paras 21, 24

)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Organisation of working time – Working time – Concept

(European Parliament and Directive Council 2003/88, Art. 2; Council Directive 93/104, Art. 2)

Summary

Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as amended by Directive 2000/34 and Directive 2003/88, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, should be interpreted as:

– precluding national legislation under which on-call duty performed by a doctor under a system where he is expected to be physically present at the place of work, but in the course of which he does no actual work, is not treated as wholly constituting ‘working time’ within the meaning of the said directives;

– not preventing a Member State from applying legislation on the remuneration of workers and concerning on-call duties performed by them at the workplace which makes a distinction between the treatment of periods in the course of which work is actually done and those during which no actual work is done, provided that such a system wholly guarantees the practical effect of the rights conferred on workers by the said directives in order to ensure the effective protection of their health and safety.

(see paras 31, 35-36, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Whether admissible

–

Questions referred without sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context

–

Questions referred in a context making a useful answer impossible (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 7-11

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Hof van beroep te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) – Material scope – Whether applicable or not to a supplementary crisis contribution levied by a Member State to finance its social security system – Obligation to pay the contribution even where a person is liable to pay contributions to a social security system other than that of the State of residence – Whether compatible with Article 39 EC.

Operative part

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen, by decision of 29 November 2005, is inadmissible .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope

(Arts 43 EC and 56 EC)

Summary

A national measure which, within the framework of taxation on share dividends as income from assets up to a flat-rate yield calculated by applying a specific percentage to a base including, in addition to the capital invested by the shareholder, a fraction of the remuneration paid to employees of the company issuing the dividends, does not permit the taking into account of the salaries of workers employed in a branch of that company, or by a subsidiary of it, in a non-member country, fundamentally affects freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 43 EC et seq.

If such a measure were to have restrictive effects on the free movement of capital, such effects would be the unavoidable consequence of the restriction on freedom of establishment and do not justify an examination of that measure in the light of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC.

Article 43 EC et seq. may not be relied upon in a situation involving the establishment of a company of a Member State in a non-member country. The chapter of the Treaty relating to freedom of establishment does not include any provision which extends the scope of its provisions to such a situation.

(see paras 27, 29-30, operative part)
Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 23 February 2005 in Case T-454/04

Correia de Matos

v

Commission

, dismissing as manifestly inadmissible an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint made against the Portuguese Republic, concerning the refusal by the courts of that Member State to accept that an applicant may represent himself before them.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 February 2006 – Lebedef v Commission

(Case C 268/05 P)

Appeal – Officials – Rules concerning the levels, process and procedure of consultation agreed by the majority of trade union and professional organisations and the Commission – Exclusion of the ‘Action & Défense’ union – Manifestly inadmissible

Appeals – Grounds of appeal – 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, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 13-15)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 April 2005 by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-191/02 Lebedef v Commission , by which it dismissed an application for annulment of the Commission’s decision by which it repudiated the Framework Agreement of 20 September 1974 on the relations between the Commission and the trade union and professional organisations, adopted again the operational rules concerning the levels, process and procedure of consultation agreed by the Commission and the majority of trade union and professional organisations on 19 January 2000, which had been annulled by the Court of First Instance in its judgment of 15 November 2001, in so far as they excluded from the process of consultation the union ‘Action et Défense’

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Appeal lodged against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 25 May 2005 in Case T-288/03

TeleTech Holdings

v

OHIM

(intervener: Teletech International SA), in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal against a decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) which had upheld in part an application for a declaration of invalidity regarding the Community trade mark ‘TELETECH GLOBAL VENTURES’ brought by Teletech International SA as holder of the national trade mark ‘TELETECH INTERNATIONAL’.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Definition — Fees paid to its lawyer by an institution — Included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 9, 10)

2. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 13, 15)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement EC-Morocco – Social security for migrant workers

(Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement EC-Morocco, Art. 65(1), first subpara.)

Summary

The first subparagraph of Article 65(1) of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement EC-Morocco, which prohibits in the area of social security all discrimination based on the nationality of Moroccan nationals in relation to nationals of the host Member State, must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State from refusing to grant the statutory Guaranteed Income for Elderly Persons to a Moroccan national who has reached the age of 65 and resides legally in the territory of that State as long as she comes within the scope of that provision:

- either because she herself has been employed in the Member State concerned,

- or she is a member of the family of a worker of Moroccan nationality who is or has been employed in that Member State.

(see para. 73, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Customs union

–

Customs debt arising where preferential tariff treatment obtained in a non-member country (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 115(1)(b) and 216) (see para. 26, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova – Interpretation of Article 114, Article 115(1) and (3) and Article 216 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) – Rice exported under inward processing arrangements to a third country with which there is an agreement for preferential customs treatment.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 216 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, is applicable to the inward processing operations referred to in Article 115(1)(b) of that regulation in which compensating products have been exported from the Community before importation of the import goods.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 32)

2. Appeals – Grounds – 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. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1) (see para. 34)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2006 in Case T-247/03 Torres v OHIM and Bodegas Muga , by which the Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 April 2003 (Case R 998/2001-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres SA and Bodegas Muga SA.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Miguel Torres SA is ordered to pay the costs.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

26 January 2007

Case C-57/06 P

Elisabetta Righini

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Officials – Temporary staff – Classification by grade and step – Classification in a higher career bracket – Distortion of the facts – Defective statement of reasons – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2005 in Case T-145/04 Righini v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I-A-349 and II-1547 dismissing the action for annulment of the Commission’s decisions to classify the applicant on her entry into service in Grade A7/3 and, in so far as may be necessary, annulment of the decision of 21 January 2004 rejecting the applicant’s complaint.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mrs Righini is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

1. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense f the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

2. Officials – Actions – Grounds – Burden of proof proving a fact alleged by the applicant resting with the applicant

3. Appeals – Grounds – Insufficient statement of reasons – Mere drafting error

4. Appeals – Grounds – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support its operative part – Plea inoperative
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Sozialgericht Würzburg – Interpretation of Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) – Calculation of the unemployment benefits of a boatman on the Rhine (‘Rheinschiffer’) who was resident, during his last period of employment, on the territory of a Member State other than the State of employment and returned, in accordance with his contract of employment, only every second week to his place of residence – Classification of that worker as ‘a frontier worker’ or ‘a worker, other than a frontier worker’.
Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 27 September 2006 (T‑440/05)

Carlos Correia de Matos

v

European Parliament

dismissing as manifestly inadmissible an application for annulment of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 28 August 2004 rejecting the complaint lodged by the appellant against the Portuguese Republic.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Appeals – Ground– Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility

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

Operative part



Keywords

1. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337 – Obligation of the Member States to ensure that projects likely to have a significant impact on the environment are made subject to an environmental assessment – Scope

(Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, Art. 2(1))

2. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337 – Determination by the Member States of the projects in the classes listed in Annex II requiring to be made subject to an environmental assessment

(Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, Art. 4 and Annexes II and III)

3. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337 – Determination by the Member States of the projects in the classes listed in Annex II requiring to be made subject to an environmental assessment

(Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, Art. 4 and Annexes II and III)

Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby rules:

1. Article 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, must be interpreted as not requiring that any project likely to have a significant effect on the environment be made subject to the environmental impact assessment provided for in that directive, but only those referred to in Annexes I and II to that directive, under the conditions set out in Article 4 thereof and subject to Articles 1(4) and (5) and 2(3) of that directive.

2. Member States are required to take into account the relevant selection criteria listed in Annex III to Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, when they determine, in respect of the projects in the classes listed in Annex II thereto, either on the basis of case-by-case assessments or on the basis of thresholds or criteria fixed by the Member State, whether those projects must be subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure.

3. Where a Member State opts for determining on a case-by-case basis those of the projects in the classes listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, which must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment, it must, either by referring in its national rules to Annex III to that directive or by reproducing in its national rules the criteria listed there, ensure that all of those criteria can in fact be taken into account where one or more of them is relevant for the purposes of the project concerned, and cannot expressly or impliedly exclude them.