ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 – 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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Dominio de la Vega, SL is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Definition — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Scope (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 21, 22)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 23)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Involvement of more than one lawyer — Included — Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 30-36)

4. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Intervener (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 35)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 in Joined Cases C-465/09 P to C-470/09 P Diputación Foral de Vizcaya and Others v Commission .

Operative part

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed by the Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, the Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and the Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, and the Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco to the Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja, in equal shares, are fixed at EUR 1 178.24.
Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising, on the basis of a keyword identical to that trade mark which that advertiser has, without the consent of the proprietor, selected in connection with an internet referencing service, goods or services identical to those for which that mark is registered, when that advertisement does not enable an average internet user, or enables that user only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to therein originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2010 – Municipio de Barcelos v Estado Português

(Case C‑408/09)

Definition of ‘national jurisdiction’ – Manifest lack of jurisdiction

Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – National court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC – Meaning – To be determined on the basis of criteria relating to that body’s constitution and function – Municipal body – No judicial function (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 4-11)

Re:

Interpretation of Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) – Question not referred by a court or tribunal – Jurisdiction of the Court – Manifest inadmissibility.

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to rule on the question referred by the Município de Barcelos.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2010 – Ivanov v Commission

(Case C‑532/09 P)

Appeal – Action for non-contractual liability – Loss of an opportunity for recruitment – Abuse of process – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. Actions for damages – Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment – Action seeking the withdrawal of an individual decision that has become definitive – Inadmissibility (Art. 235 EC) (see para. 24)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (see paras 36-37)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2009 in Case T-166/08 Ivanov v Commission , by which that court dismissed the action brought by the appellant seeking compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered following a Commission decision refusing to recruit him as a local administrative and technical assistance employee at the Commission delegation in Sofia – Autonomous nature of the action for non-contractual liability in relation to the action for annulment – Reservation of abuse of process – Possible for the Court of First Instance to have raised that rule of its own motion.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2010 – RANI Slovakia v Hankook Tire Magyarország

(Case C‑298/09)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Accession to the European Union – Freedom to provide services – Directive 96/71/EC – Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services – Temporary employment undertaking – Requirement to have a head office in the territory of the Member State in which the services are supplied

1. Freedom to provide services – Provisions of the Treaty – Applicability to the new Member States – Hungary (Arts 49 EC to 54 EC; Act of Accession 2003, Arts 2, 53 and 54) (see paras 37-39, operative part 1)

2. Freedom to provide services – Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services – Directive 96/71 (European Parliament and Council Directive 96/71, Recital 19 and Art. 1(4) (see paras 47-51, operative part 2)

3. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Temporary employment undertaking (Arts 49 EC to 54 EC) (see paras 56-58, operative part 3)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Fővárosi Bíróság – Interpretation of Article 3(c) EC, of Articles 49 EC, 52 EC and 54 EC, and of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) – National legislation restricting the undertaking of the activity of temporary employment undertakings to those undertakings established in national territory.

Operative part:

1. Declares that Articles 49 EC to 54 EC cannot be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s legislation concerning the activity of temporary employment undertakings, in force at the time of accession of that State to the European Union, remains valid so long as the Council of the European Union has not adopted a programme or directives for the purpose of implementing those provisions, with a view to laying down the conditions for liberalisation of the category of supply of services in question.

2. Neither the 19th recital in the preamble to Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services nor Article 1(4) thereof can be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may reserve the exercise of the activity of temporary employment undertaking to those undertakings alone that have their head office in the territory of that Member State or may treat them more favourably with regard to authorisation of the activity in question than undertakings established in another Member State.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2011 – van Delft and Others (Fokkens)

(Case C-345/09 INT)

Application for interpretation – Inadmissibility

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)

Re:

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

Operative part

1. The application for interpretation is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Action brought by a natural or legal person seeking to have Union law observed by a Member State

–

Union judicature lacking jurisdiction

–

Inadmissibility (see paras 3-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 February 2010 in Case T-3/10 Pérez Guerra v BNP Paribas and Spain by which that court dismissed, for manifest inadmissibility, an application for recognition of ownership of a pension fund and a claim for receipt of the sums supposedly due on that basis.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Pérez Guerra is ordered to bear his own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

(Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1))

Summary

When proceedings are brought before it under Article 267 TFEU, the Court of Justice is to have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of the TFEU as well as on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Union. The jurisdiction of the Court is confined to considering provisions of Union law only.

Under Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), its provisions are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law.

Moreover, according to Article 6(1) TEU, which gives a binding nature to the Charter, and according to the declaration on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union annexed to the final act of the intergovernmental conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the Charter neither establishes nor modifies any power of the Union.

Consequently, the Court clearly has no jurisdiction to rule on the questions referred concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the Charter, given that the order for reference contains no concrete element allowing the Court to consider that the national decision in question would either constitute a measure implementing Union law or present other elements linked to Union law.

(see paras 11-12, 14-15, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Time-limit for instituting proceedings

–

Appeals

–

Belatedness

–

Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 81(2)) (see points 4-8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2009 in Case T-390/09 Noko Ngele v Commission , by which that court dismissed the appellant’s application for compensation for the loss he suffered as a result of the allegedly unlawful conduct of a member of the Commission and of certain of its staff – Failure to take account of an important item of evidence in the Court file – Principle of fair legal process – Absolute nullity.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Noko Ngele is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Action brought by a natural or legal person against a Member State and seeking to have provisions of national law annulled – Union judicature manifestly lacking jurisdiction (Arts 13(2) TEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 12-13)

2. Union law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Infringement of Union law by the national authorities of a Member State – Bringing of proceedings before the Union judicature by the Commission or by another Member State and bringing of proceedings before the competent national courts by any natural or legal person – No prejudice to the effectiveness of judicial protection (Art. 6 TEU) (see paras 14-15)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 27 November 2009 in Case T-348/09 Uznański v Poland , by which the Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant for annulment of a measure of the Polish authorities confiscating certain immovable property – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Plea challenging the General Court’s decision declaring the action inadmissible – Admissibility regardless of the line of argument put forward before the General Court (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 25)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings – Not included (Arts 226 EC and 230 EC) (see para. 29)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 August 2010 in Case T-386/09 Grúas Abril Asistencia v Commission , by which that court dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter of 7 August 2009 informing the appellant that the facts in respect of which it had lodged a complaint with the Commission did not permit the conclusion that there had been an infringement of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC and that no action would be taken in respect of its complaint.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see paras 31-32)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 74)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2010 in Case T‑138/09 Muñoz Arraiza v OHIM – Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja (RIOJAVINA) , by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2009 (Case R 721/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between the Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja and Mr Félix Muñoz Arraiza.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Muñoz Arraiza is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Overlapping of the fields of application of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 29)

2. Community trade mark – Effects of the Community trade mark – Limitations – Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94 – Purpose – No decisive effect on the interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) and (c)) of that regulation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 12(b)) (see para. 58)

3. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 65)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T‑425/07 and T‑426/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM , by which that court dismissed two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2006 (Cases R 1274/2006-4 and R 1275/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the word marks 100 and 300 as Community trade marks – Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 38(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) – Descriptive character of marks composed exclusively of figures.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. 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 (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 12, 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 (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 13, 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 (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 14, operative part 3)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Lagardère v Éditions Odile Jacob

(Case C‑404/10 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 26)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Definition — Costs relating to the prelitigation stage — Not included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 34)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court (Third Chamber, former composition) of 28 June 2012 in Case C‑404/10 P Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob.

Operative part

The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Éditions Odile Jacob to Lagardère SCA is fixed at EUR 267 000.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Lagardère v Éditions Odile Jacob

(Case C‑404/10 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 26)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Definition — Costs relating to the prelitigation stage — Not included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 34)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court (Third Chamber, former composition) of 28 June 2012 in Case C‑404/10 P Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob.

Operative part

The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Éditions Odile Jacob to Lagardère SCA is fixed at EUR 267 000.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 April 2011 – Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Minicipiului Târgu-Jiu et Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu v Ijac

(Case C-336/10)

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 17-18, operative part)

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

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.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 – González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros

(Case C‑352/10)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Inadmissibility

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred without enough information on the factual and legislative context – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 9-12, 18, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo – Interpretation of Article 3(2)(d) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) – Contract, concluded away from business premises, under which life assurance is offered in return for payment of a monthly premium invested in various products of the company itself.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo by decision of 22 June 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.