ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-445/02 P

Glaverbel SA

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Community trade mark – Design applied to the surface of goods – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character)

Summary of the Order

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks devoid of any distinctive character – Various categories of trade mark – Distinctive character – Assessment by the same criteria – Relevant public’s perception – Perception may differ

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

Whilst the criteria for assessing distinctiveness within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark are the same for the various categories of trade mark, it may become apparent, when applying those criteria, that the relevant public’s perception is not necessarily the same in relation to each of those categories and that, therefore, it may prove more difficult to establish the distinctiveness of the marks in certain categories than of those in other categories.

(see para. 23)
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

17 October 2003

((Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC – The practice of dentistry by a doctor))

and

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

the national court having been informed of its intention to give its decision by reasoned order in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice having been invited to submit observations on that point, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following

Order

1

2

Legal background

3

1.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

2.

4

5

─ in Germany: Zahnarzt,

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

(1)

(2)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

R. Grass V. Skouris
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Judgment of the Court of First Instance against which an appeal has been brought — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Judgment annulling a decision withdrawing a mandatory authorisation for medicinal products for human use — Absence because of the need, according to the judgment under appeal, for action on the part of the Member States if there is to be any resumption of marketing — (Art. 242 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 62a and 83(2); Council Directive 65/65, Art. 11)

Summary

The condition relating to urgency, imposed by Article 83(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, in order that the Court may, under Article 242 EC, order the suspension of a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling a Commission decision withdrawing a marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use covered by Directive 65/65 relating to medicinal products, is not satisfied where the resumption of the marketing of the medicinal products in question does not follow automatically from the judgment under appeal, but requires a positive decision to that effect, and that, pursuant to the judgment under appeal, the competence to take any decision relating to the marketing authorisations for the medicinal products in question lies with the Member States acting on the basis of the requirements of the protection of public health.

see paras 46, 50, 53
Keywords



Keywords

Application for interim relief – Suspension of implementation – Temporary measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Balancing of all the interests at stake – Extension of a measure suspending implementation in the absence of new factors and agreement between the parties
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable harm — Balancing of all of the interests in issue — Operation and economic and financial stability of Community undertakings — (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2))

Summary

In order to establish the need to adopt interim measures and to determine their scope, it is necessary to balance the interests in issue, since the threat of serious and irreparable harm, which is the criterion for the alleged urgency, is one of the terms of the comparison made in this connection.

In this regard, harm caused to the protection of the environment and to health is generally irreversible since, more often than not, damage to such interests cannot, by reason of its nature, be eliminated retroactively.

However, in the case of a national regulation introducing a sectoral ban on motorway driving, with a view to reducing emissions linked to human activities and thus improving air quality, a structural approach over the medium term in regard to ambient air quality would not be jeopardised by the temporary non-application of that regulation.

By contrast, such a ban on driving could affect significantly the operation and economic and financial stability of many Community undertakings. Such harm would not be limited to the aggregation of adverse financial consequences for the various undertakings. As there is evidence of a significant risk that the ban on driving could force many undertakings to close permanently and that a structural and, to a certain extent, irreversible change in conditions of transport and trade flows of goods within and across the area in question could occur, the risk of serious and irreparable damage is in those circumstances sufficiently established.

see paras 90-92, 97, 101-102
Case C-320/03 R





Commission of the European Communities

v

Republic of Austria





«(Transport – Sectoral ban on driving)»

Order of the President of the Court, 30 July 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law — Operative part well founded on other grounds — Dismissed

2. Actions for failure to act — Institution must be called upon to act — Invitation to act — Constitution by the action itself — Excluded

(Art. 232, second para., EC)

3. Community law — Principles — Right to an effective remedy — Infringement of Community law by the national authorities of a Member State — Bringing of proceedings before the Community Courts by the Commission or by another Member State and bringing of proceedings before the competent national courts by any natural or legal person — Effectiveness of judicial protection not undermined

Summary

1. An infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance does not trigger the annulment of the contested order where its operative part appears well founded on other legal grounds.

(see para. 12)

2. The second paragraph of Article 232 EC makes the admissibility of an action for failure to act subject to the condition that the defendant institution concerned should first have been called upon to act. As regards a condition of the admissibility of the action, it cannot be considered that the application brought before the Court of First Instance may be described as an invitation for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 232 EC.

(see para. 16)

3. In the system of legal remedies provided for by the Treaty, an infringement of Community law by the national authorities, including an infringement of the third paragraph of Article 234 EC, may be brought before the Community Courts by the Commission or by another Member State, or may be brought before the competent national courts by any natural or legal person. In the latter case, it is for the national courts to ensure that rules of Community law are protected and thus that the effectiveness of judicial protection is not undermined in any way.

(see para. 28)
Joined Cases C-438/03, C-439/03, C-509/03 and C-2/04





Antonio Cannito and Others

v

Fondiaria Assicurazioni SpA and Others





(References for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Bitonto)

«(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Inadmissibility)»

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 11 February 2004

Summary of the Order
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 March 2006 – Strintzis Lines Shipping v Commission

(Case C-110/04 P)

Appeal – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Competition – Cartels – Agreement between undertakings – Commission’s powers of investigation

1. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law (Art. 230 CE) (see para. 28)

2. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 30-31)

3. Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Protection against arbitrary or disproportionate intervention by the public authorities – Right of natural persons to the inviolability of their home (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14) (see paras 32-33)

4. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14) (see paras 36-39, 46)

5. Appeals – Grounds (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 44, 54-55)

6. Appeals – Grounds – Failure to specify the error of law relied on – 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 para. 59)

7. Competition – Fines – Amount – Reduction of the amount of the fine in return for cooperation (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15) (see para. 63)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December 2003 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-65/99 Strintzis Lines Shipping SA v Commission dismissing as unfounded an action for the annulment of the Commission decision of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 – Greek Ferries)

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Dismisses the cross-appeal brought by the Commission of the European Communities;

3. Orders Strintzis Lines Shipping SA to pay 90% of the costs;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons

–

Freedom of establishment

–

Driving licences

–

Directive 91/439 (Council Directive 91/439, Arts 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) (see paras 29, 32, 39, operative part 1-2

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München – Interpretation of Art. 1(2) and Art. 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) – Refusal to recognise the validity or the exchange of a driving licence issued, after the expiry of the temporary ban, by another Member State, against a holder whose national driving licence had been confiscated for driving under the influence of narcotics – Duty to take aptitude tests.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997, preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise, within its territory, the right to drive conferred by a driving licence issued in another Member State and, accordingly, the validity of that licence, on the ground that the holder of that licence, whose licence had previously been confiscated within the territory of the first Member State, did not take the test for aptitude to drive required by the law of that State in order for a new licence to be supplied following the confiscation of the previous licence, where the temporary ban on obtaining a new licence imposed at the same time as that confiscation had expired when the driving licence was supplied in the other Member State.

2. The combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439, as amended by Directive 97/26, preclude a Member State, which has received a request, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to exchange a valid driving licence supplied in another Member State for a national driving licence, from making such an exchange subject to the condition that the applicant take a new test of his aptitude to drive, required by the law of the first Member State in order to remove any doubts in that regard by reason of circumstances predating the acquisition of the licence in the other Member State.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Excluded save in cases of distortion (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 22)

2. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Ground unrelated to pleas in law put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibile (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see paras 24, 73)

3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see para. 34)

4. Competition – Dominant position – Abuse – Meaning (Art. 82 EC) (see para. 37)

5. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 53)

6. Commission – Powers to impose penalties in respect of infringements of Community law committed by individuals (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 17) (see paras 54-58)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2005 in Case T-193/02 Piau v Commission , in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 April 2002 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning the regulation of the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) governing the activities of players’ agents

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Piau to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons

–

Freedom of establishment

–

Freedom to provide services

–

Restrictions (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 7, operative part 1-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale di Lecce – Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC – National legislation making the collection of bets subject to a licensing requirement.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

2. It is for the national court to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

3. Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes – and, moreover, continues to exclude – from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.

4. Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendant in this case for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessments of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Excluded except in cases of distortion (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 45-46)

2. Procedure – Measures of inquiry (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 66(1) (see para. 47)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – Whether admissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 53)

4. Procedure – Measures of organisation of procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 49 and 64(3)(d)) (see paras 67-68)

5. Appeal – Grounds – Ground put forward for the first time in the appeal – Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 42(2), and 118) (see para. 99)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2005 in Case T-254/02 L v Commission , dismissing, first, the action for annulment of the decisions of the Commission rejecting the request for assistance, access to documents and compensation and refusing to recognise an occupational disease and, second, the claim for damages for the loss suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 February 2006 – Lakép and Others

(Case C‑261/05)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Accession to the European Union – Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Application ratione temporis – Article 33 – Local tax on economic operations – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

1. Preliminary rulings – Answer capable of being clearly deduced from existing case-law – Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 104(3)) (see para. 17)

2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 17-21)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság – Interpretation of Art. 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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) – Prohibition of taxes capable of being characterised as turnover taxes – National rules authorising local authorities to introduce a tax on economic operations

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure – Costs – Taxation (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 33-35)

2. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Involvement of more than one lawyer (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 47-48)
1.

The combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997, preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise, within its territory, the right to drive conferred by a driving licence issued in another Member State and, accordingly, the validity of that licence, on the ground that the holder of that licence, whose licence had previously been confiscated within the territory of the first Member State, did not take the test for aptitude to drive required by the law of that State in order for a new licence to be supplied following the confiscation of the previous licence, where the temporary ban on obtaining a new licence imposed at the same time as that confiscation had expired when the driving licence was supplied in the other Member State.
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 – Front national and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case C-338/05 P)

Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 – Regulation and funding of political parties at European level – Action for annulment – Objection of inadmissibility – Act open to challenge – Standing to bring proceedings – Inadmissibility – Appeal manifestly inadmissible

Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Failure to specify the error of law relied on – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c), first subpara.) (see paras 23-25)

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2005 in Case T-17/04 Front national and Others v Parliament and Council , by which it dismissed as inadmissible an action for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1).

Operative part:

The Court:

Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2009 – Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission

(Case C‑326/05 P-DEP)

Taxation of costs

1. Procedure – Costs – Taxation (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 33-35)

2. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Involvement of more than one lawyer (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 47-48)

Re:

Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure – Action on taxation of costs following judgment of the Court of 18 July 2008.

Re:

The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the Commission of the European Communities to Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA is fixed at EUR 255 000.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 – Criminal proceedings against Di Maggio and Buccola

(Case C‑397/05)

First paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC – Games of chance – Collection of bets on sporting events – Licensing requirement – Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form – Requirement of police authorisation – Criminal penalties

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 7, operative part 1-4)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale di Palermo – Interpretation of Articles 31, 43, 49 and 81 to 89 EC – National legislation making the collection of bets subject to a licensing requirement.

Operative part:

National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes - and, moreover, continues to exclude - from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.