ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition

–

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices

–

Block exemptions

–

Agreements in the motor industry

–

Entry into force of Regulation No 1400/2002 (Art. 81(1) EC; Commission Regulations No 1475/95, Art. 5(3), first indent, first subpara., and No 1400/2002, Art. 10) (see paras 22-28, 31-38, operative part 1-2

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Handelsgericht Wien – Interpretation of the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (OJ 1995 L 145, p. 25) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ 2002 L 203, p. 30) – Termination of a distribution agreement by the supplier on one year’s notice on the ground that reorganisation of the whole or a substantial part of the network is needed owing to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002.

Operative part

Operative Part

1. The entry into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector does not in itself make it necessary to reorganise the distribution network of a supplier within the meaning of the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements. However, that entry into force may, in relation to the specific organisation of the distribution network of each supplier, necessitate changes that are so substantial that they constitute a real reorganisation of the network within the meaning of that provision .

2. The putting in place by a supplier after the entry into force of Regulation No 1400/2002 of a selective distribution system under which, first, the dealers are no longer restricted to a territory on which they may sell the contractual goods and, secondly, the authorised repairers may limit their activities to only providing repair and maintenance services is capable of constituting a reorganisation of the distribution network within the meaning of first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 1475/95. It is for the national courts or arbitrators to determine whether that is the case, in the light of all the evidence in the specific case and, in particular, of the evidence submitted to this end by the supplier.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities’ own resources – Establishment and making available by the Member States (Arts 10 EC and 226 EC; Council Regulation No 1150/2000) (see paras 34, 36, 38-40, 42-43)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 1150/2000) (see paras 36, 45, 54, 59-60)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2006 in Case T‑350/05 Finland v Commission dismissing as inadmissible an application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 8 July 2005 refusing to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Finland on the possibility of paying provisionally the customs duties on defence equipment claimed by the Commission in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations – Acts against which an action may be brought.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Republic of Finland is ordered to pay the costs.
I-B-2  - 5ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)
8 March 2007
Case C-237/06  P
Guido Strack
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Appeal — Staff cases — Decision to close an OLAF investigation — 
Allegations of fraud made by an official — Locus standi of the official)
Full text in German  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . II-B-2 - 43
Appeal:  against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of  
22  March 2006 in Case T-4/05 Strack v Commission [2006]  
E
CR-SC I-A-83 and II-361 by which the Court dismissed as inad-
missible an action seeking, first, annulment of OLAF’s decision 
to close an investigation initiated after allegations of fraud made by the appellant, and of the final report of the investigation, and, second, re-initiation of that investigation and the drawing-up of a new final report
.
Held:  The appeal is dismissed . Mr Strack is ordered to pay the costs .
I-B-2  - 6SUMMARY – CASE C-237/06 P
Summary
Officials — Actions — Acts adversely affecting an official — Concept — Decision of the 
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to close the investigation
(Staff Regulations, Arts 22a, 22b, 90 and 91; European Parliament and Council Regulation 
No 1073/1999)
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 – Eurodomus v Comune di Bolzano

(Case C-166/06)

Preliminary reference – Manifest inadmissibility

Preliminary rulings – Whether admissible – Questions not providing sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context – Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful reply (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 8-10)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale civile di Bolzano – Interpretation of Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union – Provincial administration adopting regulations capable of impeding the application of a decision of an administrative court that is res judicata – Compatibility with Community law.

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale civile di Bolzano, by decision of 4 January 2006, is inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Admissibility

–

Questions referred without sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context (Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 15-17, 21, 23

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale civile di Genova – Direct award of the management of public services and public infrastructures to a company responsible for the monitoring of the market in question – Conferral on that company of the power to determine the substance of the concession contracts existing between its own competitors and the State and to terminate those contracts.

Operative part

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling brought by the Tribunale civile di Genova by decision of 16 November 2006 is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 March 2007 – Alecansan v OHIM

(Case C‑196/06 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 − Article 8(1)(b) − Application for registration of a figurative mark – Opposition of the proprietor of an earlier national figurative mark – Likelihood of confusion − None – No similarity between the goods and services covered by the conflicting trade marks

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 28, 37)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 31)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03 Alecansan v OHIM by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the national figurative mark ‘COMP USA’ in respect of goods in Class 39 for annulment of Decision R 711/2002-1 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2003 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition lodged against the application for registration of the figurative Community trade mark ‘COMP USA’ in respect of goods in Classes 9 and 37 – Similarity between the marks – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part:

The appeal is dismissed.
The putting in place by a supplier after the entry into force of Regulation No 1400/2002 of a selective distribution system under which, first, the dealers are no longer restricted to a territory on which they may sell the contractual goods and, secondly, the authorised repairers may limit their activities to only providing repair and maintenance services is capable of constituting a reorganisation of the distribution network within the meaning of first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 1475/95. It is for the national courts or arbitrators to determine whether that is the case, in the light of all the evidence in the specific case and, in particular, of the evidence submitted to this end by the supplier.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2007 — Beyatli v Commission

(Case C-238/07 P)

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2007 — Beyatli v Commission

(Case C-238/07 P)

‛Appeals — Staff cases — Open competition for citizens of the Republic of Cyprus — Notice of competition — Time-limits — Complaint — Letter addressed to the head of the Commission delegation in Cyprus’

Appeals — Grounds — Plea alleging failure to produce documents — Documents not relevant for ruling on the admissibility of the action — Appeal dismissed (see paras 38, 39, 45, 46)

Re:

APPEAL against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04 Beyatli and Candan v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an application seeking the annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/A/1/03 for the establishment of a reserve list of assistant administrators of Cypriot nationality not to admit the appellants to the oral tests in that competition — Period within which a complaint must be lodged pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

Operative part

The Court:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Ms Beyatli is orders to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2007 — Beyatli v Commission

(Case C-238/07 P)

‛Appeals — Staff cases — Open competition for citizens of the Republic of Cyprus — Notice of competition — Time-limits — Complaint — Letter addressed to the head of the Commission delegation in Cyprus’

Appeals — Grounds — Plea alleging failure to produce documents — Documents not relevant for ruling on the admissibility of the action — Appeal dismissed (see paras 38, 39, 45, 46)

Re:

APPEAL against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04 Beyatli and Candan v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an application seeking the annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/A/1/03 for the establishment of a reserve list of assistant administrators of Cypriot nationality not to admit the appellants to the oral tests in that competition — Period within which a complaint must be lodged pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

Operative part

The Court:

1. The appeal is dismissed;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

Grounds

–

Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance

–

Error of law relied on not identified

–

Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 15-17

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Case T-150/06 Smanor and Others v Commission whereby the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action by the applicants for: (1) a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act by not taking a position on the complaints which they had lodged in 1986 against the French Republic; and (2) an order for suspension of operation of a judgment and of a decision taken by the national authorities.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Smanor SA and Mr & Mrs Ségaud are ordered to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Turnover taxes

–

Common system of value added tax

–

Sixth Directive

–

Territorial scope (Council Directive 77/388) (see para. 18

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias – Interpretation of the judgment of the Court in Case C‑124/96 which found that national legislation placing restrictions on exemption from VAT of certain services closely connected with the practice of sport or physical education is incompatible with Article 13A(1)(m) 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) – Application to the Canary Islands.

Operative part

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias by decision of 26 November 2006 is inadmissible.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Provincia di Ascoli Piceno and the Comune di Monte Urano shall bear their own costs.

Luxembourg, 25 January 2008.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mebrom NV shall pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 April 2008 – Termoraggi v Comune di Monza

(Case C‑323/07)

Public procurement – Public service and public supply contracts – Award without call for tenders – Award by a local authority to an undertaking whose capital it controls

1. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Directives 92/50 and 93/36 – Scope (Council Directives 92/50 and 93/36) (see paras 15-22, 26, operative part)

2. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Exception laid down by Article 6 of the directive – Condition (Council Directive 92/50, Art. 6) (see paras 24-26, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia – Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) – Scope – National provisions attributing, outside of the procedures for the award of public works contracts laid down in the directive, the management of heating installations of certain buildings in a commune to a municipal undertaking.

Operative part

Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts do not apply to a contract concluded between a local authority and a person legally distinct from it, where the local authority exercises over the person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and, at the same time, that person carries out the essential part of its activities with the controlling local authority or authorities.

Article 6 of Directive 92/50 is applicable only if there are laws, regulations or administrative provisions which have been published and which grant the beneficiary an exclusive right concerning the subject‑matter of the contract awarded.
Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

In Case C-132/07,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel (Belgium), made by decision of 26 February 2007, received at the Court on 5 March 2007, in the proceedings

Beecham Group plc and Others

v

Andacon NV,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE COURT,

after hearing Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

makes the following

Order

Grounds

1. By decision of 26 February 2007, received at the Court on 5 March 2007, the rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel (Commercial Court, Brussels) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC questions on the interpretation of Articles 4(2), 6 and 9(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7) and of Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1891/2004 of 21 October 2004 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2004 L 328, p. 16).

2. However, on 16 May 2007, the claimants in the main proceedings appealed against that decision before the hof van beroep te Brussel (Court of Appeal, Brussels) (Belgium). Consequently, the national proceedings continued before that court.

3. By letters of 6 March and 17 March 2008, received at the Court on 10 March and 25 March respectively, the parties to the main proceedings notified the Court that they had resolved the matter amicably and that, accordingly, the questions referred for a preliminary ruling had become devoid of purpose.

4. Subsequently, the hof van beroep notified the Court of the judgment that it had delivered on 9 June 2008 in the main proceedings, recording that the dispute had been settled amicably and ordering that the proceedings be removed from that court’s register.

5. In those circumstances, by letter of 20 November 2008, the Court informed the rechtbank van koophandel that, subject to any objections received from it by 15 December 2008, the Court intended to remove the case pending before it from the Register.

6. The rechtbank van koophandel did not reply to that letter.

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

8. 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.

Operative part

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

Case C-132/07 is removed from the Register of the Court.

Luxembourg, 12 March 2009.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

28 November 2008

Case C-525/07 P

Philippe Combescot

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Officials – Career development report – Duty to provide assistance – Mental harassment – Compensation for damage – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-249/04 Combescot v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, by which that Court dismissed an application for, first, recognition that the conduct of the appellant’s hierarchical superiors was unlawful, recognition that the appellant had the right to assistance, and annulment of the appellant’s career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002; and, second, payment of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant.

Held : The appeal is dismissed. Mr Combescot is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Summary

1. Appeals – Grounds – Admissibility

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

2. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225 EC, Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissible

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)( c))

4. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds

(Art. 225 EC, Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. US Steel Košice s.r.o. shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Effects of Community trade marks – Rights conferred by a trade mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 9(1)(a) and (2)(d))

Summary

The concept of ‘use’ for the purpose of Article 9(1)(a) and (2)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark covers a situation in which a trade intermediary, which is acting in its own name but on behalf of the vendor and is thus not an interested party in relation to trade in goods in which it is itself a contractual party, uses, in its business papers, a sign which is identical with a Community trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the mark is registered.

(see para. 54)
Operative part



Operative part

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

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland by decision of 8 September 2008 is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Conditions of admissibility

–

Main action dismissed as inadmissible (Art. 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(1) (see paras 3-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for interim measures – Application for interim measures seeking to obtain, first, suspension of the operation of the letter of the Commission of 18 September 2007 informing the appellant that it could not intervene in his favour before the German courts and, secondly, payment of provisional compensation.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

2. Mr Ayyanarsamy is ordered to bear his own costs.