ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 13-17)

2. Applications for interim measures – Procedure – Whether appropriate to hear the parties – Whether appropriate to admit further observations and documents after the end of the written or oral procedure – Discretion of the judge hearing the application for interim measures (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 39, first para., and Art. 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 105) (see paras 29-30, 34)

3. Applications for interim measures – Formal requirements – Submission of applications (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Practice Directions to parties before the General Court, point 71) (see para. 33)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of operation of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine imposed for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 43-48)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2009 in Case T‑199/08 R Ziegler v Commission , rejecting for want of urgency the appellant’s application to be released from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of the fine imposed by Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 on a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning international removal services – Incorrect assessment of the conditions of urgency – Whether the appellant is likely to be caused serious, irreparable damage – Whether or not necessary to take into account the financial resources possessed by the group to which that party belongs – Breach of the obligation to state reasons and of the principles of equal treatment and of equality of arms.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ziegler SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Interpretation of a judgment

–

Application for interpretation of a preliminary ruling

–

Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 92(1)) (see paras 3-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for interpretation of the judgment of 14 October 2010 in Case C‑345/09 Van Delft and Others.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interpretation is dismissed.

2. Mr Fokkens is ordered to bear his own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 32-34)

2. State aid – Commission decision – Assessment of legality by reference to the information available when the decision was adopted (Art. 87 EC) (see para. 40)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 52)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 January 2009 in Case T‑162/06 Kronoply v Commission by which the Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/262/EC of 21 September 2005 declaring State aid which Germany is planning to implement for the appellant to be incompatible with the common market (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 50) – Proposed aid intended to amend aid previously granted to the recipient undertaking notified to the Commission after the investment project had been carried out in full by means of the aid initially approved – Incorrect assessment of the incentive effect and of the necessity of the aid at issue.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 30 April 2010 – Ziegler v Commission

(Case C‑113/09 P(R))

Appeal – Application for interim measures – Competition – Payment of a fine – Bank guarantee – Rejection of application for suspension of operation of a measure – Incorrect assessment of the conditions of urgency – Principles of equal treatment and of observance of the right to a fair hearing

1. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 13-17)

2. Applications for interim measures – Procedure – Whether appropriate to hear the parties – Whether appropriate to admit further observations and documents after the end of the written or oral procedure – Discretion of the judge hearing the application for interim measures (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 39, first para., and Art. 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 105) (see paras 29-30, 34)

3. Applications for interim measures – Formal requirements – Submission of applications (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Practice Directions to parties before the General Court, point 71) (see para. 33)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of operation of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine imposed for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 43-48)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2009 in Case T‑199/08 R Ziegler v Commission , rejecting for want of urgency the appellant’s application to be released from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of the fine imposed by Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 on a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning international removal services – Incorrect assessment of the conditions of urgency – Whether the appellant is likely to be caused serious, irreparable damage – Whether or not necessary to take into account the financial resources possessed by the group to which that party belongs – Breach of the obligation to state reasons and of the principles of equal treatment and of equality of arms.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 June 2010 – Michalias v Ioannou-Michalia

(Case C‑312/09)

Article 104(3), second paragraph of the Rules of Procedure – Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 – Articles 2, 42 and 46 – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction in matrimonial matters – Accession of a State to the European Union – Divorce proceedings begun before accession – Temporal scope of Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility – Regulation No 1347/2000 (Accession Act of 2003; Council Regulation No 1347/2000, Arts 2, 42(1), and 46) (see paras 25-26 and operative part)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility – Regulation No 1347/2000 (Accession Act of 2003; Council Regulation No 1347/2000, Art. 42(2)) (see paras 27-28)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Anotato Diastirio Kyprou – Jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State (Cyprus) to interpret and apply Articles 2(1), 42 and 46 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 19) – Divorce proceedings begun by the husband before the courts of Cyprus after the entry into force of the regulation but before Cyprus became a Member State – Divorce proceedings begun by the wife after 1 May 2004 before the courts of another Member State (United Kingdom) which was a Member State throughout the relevant period – Both spouses being Cypriot nationals but having their permanent residence in the United Kingdom.

Operative part:

Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses is not applicable to divorce proceedings brought before the courts of a State before the latter became a Member State of the European Union.
8

The Commission considers that Elf Aquitaine’s application, for a total of over 1000 hours of work carried out by 19 lawyers, far exceeds that which can be considered to be necessary expenses for the purposes of the proceedings at first instance. In that regard, the Commission disputes the fact that the case was one of particular difficulty and was significant from a competition law perspective or, for the applicant, in terms of economic interest. Furthermore, as regards the amount of the work giving rise to the fees claimed, the Commission submits that the fee notes at issue include services which were not necessary for the purposes of the proceedings at first instance. Since the Commission is of the opinion that the average hourly rate arising from Elf Aquitaine’s application, namely EUR 244, is acceptable, it considers that the recoverable amount for lawyers’ fees ought to be fixed at EUR 24 400, which corresponds to 100 hours of work. As for disbursements and expenses other than the lawyers’ fees, the Commission is of the opinion that the recoverable amount in this respect must be limited to EUR 2 000.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Stay of execution of a judgment

–

Conditions for granting

–

Urgency

–

Serious and irreparable damage

–

Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 14-17, 20-21

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 19 November 2009 in Case T-234/06 Torresan v OHIM , by which the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) dismissed an action contesting the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 (Case R 517/2005-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG and Giampietro Torresan.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Bayramoglu shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Action brought by a natural or legal person against a Member State seeking a declaration that the latter has failed to fulfil its obligations under Union law, for an order that that Member State should amend its domestic legislation or for suspension of the operation of a decision made by one of its courts or tribunals

–

Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Union judicature

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 13(2) TEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 92(1)) (see paras 5-6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Incorrect transposition by the Kingdom of Spain 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 (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) – Action brought by an individual.

Operative part

Operative part

1. It is clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this application.

2. Transportes y Excavaciones J. Asensi SL is ordered to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality – Relation of Article 12 EC to Articles 43 EC and 56 EC (Arts 12 EC, 43 EC and 56 EC) (see paras 23-24)

2. Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Fiscal legislation – Corporation tax – Taxation of dividends (Arts 56 EC and 58 EC) (see paras 36-38, 40-41, 43, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Supremo Tribunal Administrativo –Compatibility with Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 56 EC, 58(3) EC (now Articles 18, 49, 63 and 65(3) TFEU) and with Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) of national fiscal legislation on the taxation of dividends distributed by a resident company to a non‑resident company having a holding in the company paying the dividends of less than 25% – Taxation by deduction at source at the rate of 15% provided for by the double taxation agreement concluded between the two Member States at issue ‑ Exemption of dividends paid to resident companies.

Operative part

Operative part:

Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding a tax scheme under a double-taxation agreement concluded between two Member States, which provides for a withholding tax of 15 % on the dividends distributed by a company established in one Member State to a company established in another Member State, whereas the national legislation of the first Member State exempts from that tax dividends paid to a resident company. It would be otherwise only if the tax withheld at source might be set off against the tax payable in the second Member State in the full amount of the difference in treatment. It is for the court making the reference to determine whether such a neutralisation of the difference in treatment has been effected by the application of all the provisions of the convention for the avoidance of double taxation and prevention of the avoidance or evasion of taxes with respect to taxes on income, concluded on 26 October 1993 between the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Spain.
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 45-50)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (see paras 85-86)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the Union judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Review of the legal classificaiton made of the facts of the case – Included (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 47-48)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Plea alleging such distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(1)(c)) (see paras 66-67)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2010 in Case T-60/09 Herhof v OHIM – Stabilator , by which that court dismissed the action brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark STABILAT in respect of goods and services in Classes 1, 7, 11, 20, 37, 40 and 42, against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2008, rejecting its opposition against registration of the figurative Community trade mark stabilator in respect of goods and services in Classes 19, 37 and 42 – Incorrect assessment of the similarity between the services covered by the marks at issue – Infringement of the right to be heard before a court.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH is ordered to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 26-27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2010 in Case T-233/08 MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM , by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision to refuse registration of the word sign ‘ROI ANALYZER’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 – Distinctive character of the mark.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

2. MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — Gambling — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of criminal penalties, the collecting of bets without a licence or authorisation — Licence or authorisation refused in breach of Union law — New licences awarded in order to remedy the situation — New operators required to observe minimum distances between establishments — Whether permissible (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 8, operative part 1)

2. Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — Gambling — National legislation prohibiting the collecting of bets without a licence or police authorisation — Operator excluded from the call for tenders for the award of such licences, in breach of Union law — Criminal penalties applied to persons linked to such an operator, acting without police authorisation — Not permissible, because of the failure to remedy properly the unlawful exclusion of that operator from an earlier call for tenders (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 9, operative part 2)

3. Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Gambling — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of criminal penalties, the collecting of bets without a licence or authorisation — Conditions for the withdrawal of licences granted at the end of a tendering procedure — Duty to draft those conditions clearly, precisely and unambiguously and to observe the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 10, operative part 3)
Keywords



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt – Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(3)) (see para. 15)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Compulsory distillation of table wines – Purpose of Regulation No 343/94 – Implementation of Regulation No 822/87 (Council Regulation No 822/87, Arts 39(9) to (11) and 83; Commission Regulation No 343/94) (see paras 18-19, 22 and operative part.)

3. Member States – Obligations – Obligation to impose penalties for infringements of Union law – Observance of the principle of proportionality – Assessment by the national court (Art. 4(3) TEU) (see paras 24-25)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — EMSA v Evropaïki Dynamiki

(Case C-252/10 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Fees paid by an agency to its legal representative — Included — Particulars to be taken into account for the purpose of taxation of costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 18-24)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 July 2011 in Case C-252/10 P Evropaïki Dynamiki v EMSA.

Operative part:

The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) is fixed at EUR 16 054.67.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — EMSA v Evropaïki Dynamiki

(Case C-252/10 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Fees paid by an agency to its legal representative — Included — Particulars to be taken into account for the purpose of taxation of costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 18-24)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 July 2011 in Case C-252/10 P Evropaïki Dynamiki v EMSA.

Operative part:

The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) is fixed at EUR 16 054.67.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 October 2010 – REWE-Zentral v OHIM

(Case C-22/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark Clina – Earlier Community word mark CLINAIR – Refusal of registration – Relative ground for refusal – Examination of the likelihood of confusion – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b)

1. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 32)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 36)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2009 in Case T-150/08 REWE-Zentral v OHIM , by which that court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2008 refusing the registration of the word sign ‘Clina’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 3 and 21 by upholding the opposition brought by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘CLINAIR’ – Likelihood of confusion of two marks – Failure to carry out a global assessment of the relevant factors in examining the likelihood of confusion – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.