ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Dutka and Sajtos

(Joined Cases C‑614/12 and C‑10/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Absence — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of national dispute not having any connection with EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 13-16)

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Debreceni munkaügyi bíróság and Fővárosi munkaügyi bíróság — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and Articles 30 and 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection of workers in the event of unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without reasons being given — Official of a public administrative body who has been dismissed on the basis of a provision of national legislation governing the terms and conditions of civil servants.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Debreceni munkaügyi bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 6 December 2012, and by the Fővárosi munkaügyi bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 21 September 2012.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Dutka and Sajtos

(Joined Cases C‑614/12 and C‑10/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Absence — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of national dispute not having any connection with EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 13-16)

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Debreceni munkaügyi bíróság and Fővárosi munkaügyi bíróság — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and Articles 30 and 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection of workers in the event of unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without reasons being given — Official of a public administrative body who has been dismissed on the basis of a provision of national legislation governing the terms and conditions of civil servants.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Debreceni munkaügyi bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 6 December 2012, and by the Fővárosi munkaügyi bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 21 September 2012.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Lancôme v OHIM

(Case C‑593/12 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark Color Focus — Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the Community word mark Focus — Declaration of invalidity — Surrender — Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate’

Appeal — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it (see para. 13)

Application for

Appeal brought against the judgment of 5 October 2012 in Case T‑204/10 Lancôme v OHIM, by which the General Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the word mark ‘COLOR FOCUS’ for goods in Class 3 against Decision R 238/2009-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 February 2010, dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Cancellation Division upholding the action for a declaration of the invalidity of that mark, brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods in Class 3 — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the marks — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Abuse of rights.

Operative part

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

2. Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie is ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Lancôme v OHIM

(Case C‑593/12 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark Color Focus — Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the Community word mark Focus — Declaration of invalidity — Surrender — Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate’

Appeal — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it (see para. 13)

Application for

Appeal brought against the judgment of 5 October 2012 in Case T‑204/10 Lancôme v OHIM, by which the General Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the word mark ‘COLOR FOCUS’ for goods in Class 3 against Decision R 238/2009-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 February 2010, dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Cancellation Division upholding the action for a declaration of the invalidity of that mark, brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods in Class 3 — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the marks — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Abuse of rights.

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 —

Ettaghi



(Case C-73/12)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility

Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient 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 General Court, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 5-7)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and of Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a third-country national who has entered or stayed in the country illegally — Admissibility of the criminal offence of illegal stay — Possibility of substituting the fine with an order for expulsion with immediate effect for a period of at least five years or with a home detention (‘permanenza domiciliare’) sentence — Obligations of the Member States during the period prescribed for the transposition of a directive.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is clearly inadmissible.
2.

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Discretion of the Court — Costs incurred in the context of an appeal (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 13-21)
22

Where the characteristic obligation of the contract at issue is the sale of goods or the provision of services, Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 provides that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued, under such a contract, in the courts of the place in another Member State where the characteristic obligation of that contract was or should have been performed. Accordingly, regarding the place of performance of the obligations arising from contracts for the provision of services, the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of that regulation gives an autonomous definition of that linking factor, in order to reinforce the objectives of unifying the rules of jurisdiction and ensuring predictability (see, to that effect, Rehder, paragraphs 33 and 36, and Case C-19/09 Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger [2010] ECR I-2121, paragraphs 23 and 26).
It is not for the Court of Justice to determine the legal force which must be granted, in the context of the grant of EU financial aid, to the Commission’s failure to act and to specify the obligations incumbent on a Member State, those questions pre-suppose a factual interpretation of the conduct of the institution concerned which is not for the Court to decide within the context of Article 267 TFEU. Moreover, given that that institution’s failure to act cannot be declared by the Court in the course of preliminary ruling proceedings, the question of what legal force falls to be attached to that failure to act is a purely hypothetical issue and, therefore, inadmissible. Finally, the question as to the obligations incumbent on a Member State in the event of persistent failure to act on the part of the Commission is also purely hypothetical resulting in its inadmissibility.

(see paras 13, 14, 16, 17, operative part 1, 2)
Case C‑555/13

Merck Canada Inc.

v

Accord Healthcare Ltd and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral necessário)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — ‘Court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU — Tribunal Arbitral necessário — Admissibility — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 13 — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Period of validity of a certificate — Maximum period of exclusivity)

Summary — Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 13 February 2014

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Court or tribunal for the purposes of 267 TFEU — Definition

(Art. 267 TFEU)

2. Approximation of laws — Uniform legislation — Industrial and commercial property — Patent right — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Period of validity of a certificate — Maximum period of exclusivity

(European Parliament and Council Directive 469/2009, Recital 9 and Art. 13)

1. An arbitral tribunal, established on a legislative basis, which has permanent compulsory jurisdiction to determine, at first instance, disputes involving industrial property rights pertaining to reference medicinal products and generic drugs on the basis of national industrial property law, which observes the principle of equal treatment and the adversarial principle in the treatment of parties, which applies national legislation which defines and frames the procedural rules, whose decisions have the same effects as judgments handed down by the ordinary courts and, lastly, whose arbitrators are subject to the same obligations of independence and impartiality as judges belonging to the ordinary courts, must be considered to be a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU.

(see paras 19, 23-25)

2. Article 13 of Regulation No 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, read in conjunction with recital 9 in the preamble to the same regulation, must be interpreted as precluding the holder of both a patent and a supplementary protection certificate from relying on the entire period of validity of such a certificate, calculated in accordance with Article 13, in a situation where, pursuant to such a period, it would enjoy a period of exclusivity as regards an active ingredient, of more than 15 years from the first authorisation to be placed on the market, in the European Union, of a medicinal product consisting of that active ingredient, or containing it.

(see para. 34, operative part)
The condition of a prima facie case is satisfied where there is, at the stage of the interim proceedings, a major legal disagreement whose resolution is not immediately obvious, so that the action is not prima facie without reasonable substance. Since the purpose of the interim proceedings is to guarantee that the final decision to be taken is fully effective, in order to avoid a lacuna in the legal protection, the court hearing the application for interim relief must restrict itself to assessing ‘prima facie’ the merits of the grounds put forward in the main proceedings in order to ascertain whether there is a sufficiently large probability of success of the action.

As regards a decision of the Commission not to grant the request of a Member State, under Article 114(4) TFEU, seeking to obtain approval of the maintenance of national provisions incompatible with a harmonisation directive, the specific context of the procedure provided for in Article 114(4) TFEU and, inter alia, the fact that it is for the Member State to prove that the derogation which it requests is justified and the discretion which the Commission has in this respect are relevant for the purposes of the examination of whether there is a prima facie case. However, that relevance means only that the judge hearing the application for interim relief, in ascertaining whether the Member State requesting the adoption of an interim measure has submitted grounds which may, prima facie, establish that the Commission acted unlawfully, and consequently, that there is a prima facie case, must take account of the fact that it is for the Member State to establish, during the administrative proceedings, that the conditions for the grant of the derogation sought are satisfied. That relevance does not mean, by contrast, that the Member State is required to establish definitively, at the stage of the interim proceedings, that those conditions are fulfilled. Were the judge hearing the application for interim relief to adopt a position on that latter issue, he would be obliged to rule on an aspect of the merits of the main proceedings brought by the Member State concerned and would thereby exceed the limits of his own powers.

(see paras 41-44)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 March 2014 — Grimal

(Case C‑550/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Driving licences — Citizen of the European Union — Two driving licences issued to the same person by two different Member States — Suspension of a licence — Criminal proceedings — Factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Insufficient information — Grounds justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Insufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94) (see paras 12-25, 33, 34)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Poitiers — Interpretation of Article 18 TFEU — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Driving licence — National citizen holding two driving licences issued by two different Member States — Citizen whose licence has been suspended in one of the issuing Member States — National legislation which makes it an offence to drive during the period of suspension of that licence — No possibility for that citizen to rely on the licence issued by the other Member State — Practice of the national authorities not to pursue citizens of other Member States placed in a similar situation.

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the cour d’appel de Poitiers (France), by decision of 17 October 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — Teisseyre

(Case C‑370/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 18 TFEU — Citizenship of the Union — Non-discrimination — Compensation for loss of abandoned immovable property outside the current borders of the Member State concerned — Citizenship condition — Lack of connection to EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

1. Citizenship of the Union — Provisions of the Treaty — Substantive scope — Exclusion of purely internal situations (Arts 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU) (see paras 28-32)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question raised regarding a dispute confined within a single Member State — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Arts 21 TFEU and 267 TFEU) (see paras 33-39)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Compensation by a Member State for loss of abandoned immovable property outside the current borders of Poland — Exclusion of the heirs of such goods who do not have Polish nationality — Compatibility with Article 18 TFEU.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland).

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — Teisseyre

(Case C‑370/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 18 TFEU — Citizenship of the Union — Non-discrimination — Compensation for loss of abandoned immovable property outside the current borders of the Member State concerned — Citizenship condition — Lack of connection to EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

1. Citizenship of the Union — Provisions of the Treaty — Substantive scope — Exclusion of purely internal situations (Arts 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU) (see paras 28-32)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question raised regarding a dispute confined within a single Member State — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Arts 21 TFEU and 267 TFEU) (see paras 33-39)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Compensation by a Member State for loss of abandoned immovable property outside the current borders of Poland — Exclusion of the heirs of such goods who do not have Polish nationality — Compatibility with Article 18 TFEU.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland).
Case C‑153/13

Pohotovost s. r. o.

v

Ján Soroka

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bardejov)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Scope ratione temporis — Facts preceding the accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Summary — Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 3 April 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of a Community directive in proceedings predating the accession of a Member State to the European Union — Not included

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

See the text of the decision.

(see para. 24)

Case C‑153/13

Pohotovost s. r. o.

v

Ján Soroka

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bardejov)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Scope ratione temporis — Facts preceding the accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Summary — Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 3 April 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of a Community directive in proceedings predating the accession of a Member State to the European Union — Not included

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

See the text of the decision.

(see para. 24)
It is clear from Articles 122(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court that, if that Court considers that it has sufficient information to give judgment by default, if the admissibility of the application does not give rise to any doubt and if the formalities have been duly complied with, it will verify the substance of form of order sought by the applicant and give judgment, without being obliged to grant those forms of order. Moreover, Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court does not allow the party which applied for judgment in default to request a hearing nor does it lay down an obligation on the General Court to hold one.

Distinctive character of a trade mark, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, must be assessed, first, by reference to the goods or services in respect of which registration has been sought and, second, by reference to the relevant public’s perception of the mark.

However, the perception of the average consumer is not necessarily the same for trade marks consisting of the appearance of the product itself as it is in relation to a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign which is independent of the appearance of the products it denotes, since average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of products on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging in the absence of any graphic or word element, and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark.

First, in those circumstances, only a mark which departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. Second, that principle, which was developed in relation to three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the appearance of the product itself, also applies where, the trade mark applied for is a figurative mark consisting of the two-dimensional representation of that product. In such a case, the mark likewise does not consist of a sign unrelated to the appearance of the products it covers.

(see paras 47-49)
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer — Fictitious dispute or application for interpretation of provisions of EU law which are manifestly not applicable to the case in the main proceedings — Inapplicability of Article 168 TFEU (Arts 168 TFEU and 267 TFEU) (see paras 16, 19-21)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter o Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the national case having no link to EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(3) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 33, 35 and 51(1)) (see paras 22-26)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia), by decision of 6 August 2013 in Case C‑459/13.
4.

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. 68)