ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2010 – OHIM v Frosch Touristik

(Case C‑332/09 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Community word mark FLUGBÖRSE – Invalidity proceedings – Material date for the examination of an absolute ground for invalidity

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute ground for invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7 – Material date for the examination of an absolute ground for invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see paras 41, 47)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2009 in Case T-189/07 Frosch Touristik v OHIM – DSR touristik (FLUGBÖRSE) , by which the Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 dismissing the appeal by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘FLUGBÖRSE’ against the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring that mark partially invalid – Determination of the material date for the examination of an absolute ground for invalidity in invalidity proceedings.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2010 – Polisseni v Azienda Sanitaria Locale No 14 VCO and Giuliano

(Case C‑217/09)

Article 104(3, first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Public health – Pharmacies – Proximity – Supply of the population with medicines – Authorisation to operate – Territorial distribution of pharmacies – Establishment of limits based on a criterion of demographic density – Minimum distance between pharmacies

Freedom of establishment – Restrictions – National legislation requiring prior administrative authorisation for the opening and transfer of pharmacies in a given area (Art. 49 TFEU) (see paras 33-34, operative part 1 and 2)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte – Interpretation of Arts 43, 152 and 153 EC – Opening of new pharmacies – National legislation making authorisation for the moving of a pharmacy subject to the keeping of a minimum distance between one pharmacy and another.

Operative part

1. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not, in principle, precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which places limits on the setting up of pharmacies by providing that:

– in each pharmaceutical area, only one pharmacy may be created, in principle, per 4 000 or 5 000 inhabitants; and

– each pharmacy must keep a minimum distance from pre-existing pharmacies, that distance being, as a general rule, 200 metres.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 2010 – Dominio de la Vega v OHIM

(Case C‑459/09 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Application for Community figurative mark DOMINIO DE LA VEGA – Earlier Community figurative mark PALACIO DE LA VEGA – Existence of a likelihood of confusion in part of the territory of the European Union – Assessment of the similarity between the marks – Dominant element

1. 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-32, 51, 64-65)

2. 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 – Earlier mark consisting of a Community trade mark – Refusal of registration where there is an absolute ground for refusal even if it obtains in only part of the Community (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – 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), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 44)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 in Case T-458/07 Dominio de la Vega v OHIM dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 1431/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Ambrosio Velasco, SA and Dominio de la Vega, SL.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeals are dismissed.

2. European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – MP3 media players

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Heading 8521)

Summary

Heading 8521 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1549/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that MP3 media players are not to be classified under that heading, for the principal function of all such apparatus is the recording and reproduction of sounds.

(see para. 26, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Internal taxation

–

Pollution tax imposed on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 17-18, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Apel Craiova – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax levied on motor vehicles upon first registration in a particular Member State – Whether national legislation is compatible with Article 110 TFEU.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Mandatory nature – Point from which time starts to run – Date on which the measure at issue was published – Measure continuing to have effects – No bearing (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 81(1) and (2)) (see paras 8-9)

2. Procedure – Action brought by a natural or legal person seeking a declaration that a Member State has infringed Union law – Union judicature’s clear lack of jurisdiction – Inadmissibility (Arts 258 TFEU, 259 TFEU and 267 TFEU) (see paras 13-15)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – 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. 18)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2010 in Case T‑311/10 Platis v Council and Greece whereby the General Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of several Council regulations adopted in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 laying down provisions on the introduction of the euro, on unit values and technical specifications of euro coins to enter circulation, and on conversion rates between the euro and the currencies of Member States adopting the euro, and the annulment of the national laws 2842/2000 and 2948/2001 transposing the contested regulations into the Greek legal order – Clearly inadmissible – Clear lack of jurisdiction.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term contracts (Art. 155(2) TFEU; Council Directive 1999/70, Annex) (see paras 32-33, 37-38, 44-45, 48-49, 51-61, disp. 1)

2. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Reducing the general level of protection of workers in the field of that agreement prohibited (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 8(3)) (see paras 69, 74, 76-77, disp. 2)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis – Interpretation of clause 8(3) of the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) – National legislation introducing a time-limit for converting fixed-term employment contracts into employment contracts of indefinite duration

Operative part

Operative part

1. Article 155(2) TFEU and the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 11(2) of Presidential Decree No 164/2004 laying down provisions concerning workers employed under fixed-term contracts in the public sector, which provides that an application by a worker to convert a succession of fixed‑term employment contracts that may be considered to constitute an abuse into an employment contract of indefinite duration must be made to the competent authority within a time-limit of two months from the date of entry into force of that decree, provided that that time-limit is not less favourable than that governing similar domestic actions regarding employment law and does not render impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Union law, which it is for the referring court to determine.

2. Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 11(2) of Presidential Decree No 164/2004, which provides that an application by a worker to convert a succession of fixed-term employment contracts that may be considered to constitute an abuse into an employment contract of indefinite duration must be made to the competent authority within a time‑limit of two months from the date of entry into force of that decree, whereas the corresponding time-limits laid down by similar national legislative measures which preceded that date were extended, in so far as that legislation does not affect the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Admissibility

–

Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context

–

Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 19-32, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Application for

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma – Interpretation of Art. 13, section A, of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Deduction of input tax – Public or private health establishments engaged in an exempt activity – National legislation excluding the deduction of tax referring to the purchase of goods or services used in those exempt activities.

Operative part

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) by decision of 7 July 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

2. The appellants, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – Agreement on the European Economic Area – Free movement of capital – Restrictions

(Article 40 of the EEA Agreement and Annex XII thereto; Council Directive 88/361, Art 6(4))

Summary

Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), of 2 May 1992, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, on the basis of Article 6(4) of Directive 88/361 for the implementation of Article 67 (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) of the Treaty, prohibits a national of the Principality of Liechtenstein from purchasing a secondary residence situated in a Member State of the European Union, and, therefore, a national authority must disregard that national legislation.

Since 1 May 1995, the date of the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in respect of the Principality of Liechtenstein, and in the areas covered by that agreement, Member States may claim and rely on legislation restricting the freedom of movement of capital in respect of the Principality of Liechtenstein only if, pursuant to European Union law, that legislation can be applied in respect of other Member States of the European Union.

(see paras 39, 51, operative part)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 — Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission and Lagardère

(Cases C‑553/10 P-DEP and C‑554/10 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Definition — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Factors to be taken into account (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 23-33)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 in Joined Cases C‑553/10 P and C‑554/10 P Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed in equal amounts by the European Commission and Lagardère SCA to Éditions Odile Jacob SAS are fixed at EUR 127 500.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 — Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission and Lagardère

(Cases C‑553/10 P-DEP and C‑554/10 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Definition — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Factors to be taken into account (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 23-33)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 in Joined Cases C‑553/10 P and C‑554/10 P Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed in equal amounts by the European Commission and Lagardère SCA to Éditions Odile Jacob SAS are fixed at EUR 127 500.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 April 2011 – Obreja v Ministerul Economiei şi Finanţelor and Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a judeţului Mureş and Ministerul Economiei şi Finanţelor and Others v Darmi

(Joined Cases C-136/10 and C-178/10)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Internal taxation – Article 110 TFEU – Pollution tax levied upon first registration of motor vehicles

Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Pollution tax imposed on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 20-25, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureş – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax levied on motor vehicles upon first registration in a Member State – Whether national legislation is compatible with Articles 23, 25 and 90 EC – Possible derogation on the basis of Article 174 EC.

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma – Interpretation of Art. 13, section A, of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Deduction of input tax – Public or private health establishments engaged in an exempt activity – National legislation excluding the deduction of tax referring to the purchase of goods or services used in those exempt activities.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – Cassina v Alivar and Galliani Host Arredamenti

(Case C-198/10)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Industrial and commercial property – Directive 98/71/EC – Legal protection of designs – Article 17 – Obligation concerning the cumulation of design protection with copyright protection – National legislation precluding copyright protection in the case of designs which entered the public domain before that legislation entered into force

Approximation of laws – Designs – Directive 98/71 – Principle of the cumulation of the protection of designs with the protection of copyright – National legislation excluding entirely, or within the limits of prior use, from protection by copyright, designs that entered the public domain before that legislation entered into force, with regard to third parties having manufactured and marketed products made following those designs – Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Directive 98/71, Art. 17) (see paras 24-28, 32-34, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Corte d’appello di Milano – Interpretation of Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs – National legislation transposing the directive into national law by introducing copyright protection for designs – Right of a Member State to extend the conditions for the grant of such protection.

Operative part

Article 17 of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which excludes, either entirely or within the limits of prior use, from protection by the law of copyright of that Member State designs which entered the public domain before that legislation entered into force, with regard to all third parties who have previously manufactured or marketed in the national territory products based on those designs before that date.
Case C-313/10

Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

v

Sylvia Jansen

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln)

(Removal from the register)













ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE COURT

25 October 2011 ( )

(Removal from the Register)

In Case C-313/10,

REFERNCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln (Germany), made by decision of 13 April 2010, received at the Court on 29 June 2010, in the proceedings

Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

v

Sylvia Jansen,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE COURT,

after hearing the Advocate General, N. Jääskinen,

makes the following

Order

1 By letter of 6 October 2011, received at the Registry of the Court on 13 October 2011, the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln (Higher Labour Court, Cologne) informed the Court that the dispute in the main proceedings had become devoid of purpose and that, consequently, it was withdrawing its reference for a preliminary ruling.

2 In those circumstances, the present case must be removed from the Register of the Court.

3 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court hereby orders:

Case C‑313/10 is removed from the Register of the Court.

Luxembourg, 25 October 2011.

A. Calot Escobar J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Jurisdiction of the Court

–

Limits

–

Question raised in a case concerning national, not Union, law

–

Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 35-41

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale di Trani – Interpretation of the general European Union principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Fields of application of those principles – Compatibility of national legislation validating in the national legal system a clause not specifying the reason for employment on a fixed-term basis for recruitment of workers at the SpA Poste Italiane.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunale di Trani (Italy) by decision of 7 February 2011.
Keywords



Keywords

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. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 28, 30-35, operative part

)
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

–

Similarity of the marks concerned

–

Criteria for assessment

–

Composite mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40-41

)

Subject of the case

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

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.

3. DTL Corporación SL is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Approximation of laws

—

Uniform legislation

—

Industrial and commercial property

—

Patent right

—

Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 469/2009, Arts 4 and 5) (see para. 23, operative part

)