ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2010 – Uznański v Poland

(Case C-143/10 P)

Appeal – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure – Action brought by a natural or legal person against a Member State – Court of First Instance manifestly lacking jurisdiction – Appeal manifestly unfounded

1. 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)

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 – Dai Cugini v Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid

(Case C-151/10)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 97/81/EC – Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers – Discrimination – Administrative obstacle likely to limit the opportunities for part-time work – Mandatory publication and retention of contracts and work-schedules

Social policy – Framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC – Directive 97/81 – National legislation requiring part-time workers’ contracts and work schedules to be kept and published (Council Directive 97/81, Annex, Clauses 4 and 5(1)) (see paras 45-46, 49-50, 55-56, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Afdeling Hasselt) – Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9) – National legislation providing for a system for the publication and monitoring of work schedules of part-time workers, consisting of the mandatory compilation and retention, subject to criminal or administrative penalties, of documents recording the exact duration of work performed by each worker.

Operative part

Clause 4 of the Framework agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes employers responsible for the obligations of retention and publication of the contracts and work-schedules of part-time workers, if it is established that such legislation does not lead to their being treated less favourably than full-time workers in a similar situation or, if there is such a difference in treatment, it is established that it is justified on objective grounds and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives thus pursued.

It is for the referring court to perform the necessary factual and legal investigation, particularly with regard to the applicable national law, in order to determine whether that is so in the case before it.

If the referring court were to conclude that the national legislation at issue is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81, Clause 5(1) thereof would have to be interpreted as precluding such legislation.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 – ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases C-448/10 P to C-450/10 P)

Appeal – Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest – Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Notion of advantage – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Interpretation of national law – Distortion – Definition – Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded

1. 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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 32, 34, 46)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Distortion of the sense of the national law relied on as evidence – Admissibility (see para. 33)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para., (c)) (see paras 62, 66-67)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgments of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 in Case T-62/08 ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni v Commission , Case T‑63/08 Cementir Italia v Commission , and Case T‑64/08 Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche v Commission by which that court dismissed the applications for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37).

Operative part

1. The appeals are dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 September 2011 – Lebrun and Howet v État belge

(Case C-538/10)

Articles 92(1), 103(1) and 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Examination of the conformity of a national provision with both European Union law and the national constitution – National legislation giving priority to an interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Necessity of link to Union law – Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Reference to the Court – Jurisdiction of the national courts – National legislation giving priority to an interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality – Not permissible – Condition (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para.16)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National decision not indicating any connection to the law of the Union – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFUE; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 17, 47 and 51(1)) (see points 17-20)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal de première instance, Liège – Interpretation of Articles 6 TEU, 267 TFEU and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National courts bound to make a referral beforehand to the Constitutional Court in cases of presumed infringement by national legislation of fundamental rights – Whether the national provision requiring that preliminary referral accords with Union law – Possibility for national courts of reviewing the compatibility of the national rules with international treaties when the Constitutional Court has declared the national legislation at issue compatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Re:

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium).
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Patriciello

(Case C‑496/10)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Member of the European Parliament — Protocol on Privileges and Immunities — Article 8 — Criminal proceedings for the offence of insulting behaviour — Statements made outside the precincts of the European Parliament — Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties — Immunity — Conditions

Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Members of the European Parliament — Immunity in respect of opinions expressed and votes cast in the performance of their duties — Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of duties — Application in connection with legal proceedings against a member of the Parliament — Jurisdiction of the national court before which the case was brought (Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Art. 8) (see paras 15-17, 19, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro — Interpretation of Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities (JO 1967 L 152, p. 13) — Member of the European Parliament charged with the offence of insulting behaviour in consequence of his making false accusations against a representative of the forces of order — Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties.

Operative part

On a proper construction of Article 8 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament beyond the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of insulting behaviour, does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties. It is for the court making the reference to determine whether those conditions have been satisfied in the case in the main proceedings.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Statement of the forms of order sought – Implicit claims seeking a declaration of an institution’s failure to act (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(d)) (see paras 18-21)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects – Presentation of the internet sites of the Presidencies of the Council – Letter sent by an institution – Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 25-29)

3. Union law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Inadmissibility of an action for annulment of measures that do not produce binding legal effects – Whether possible for persons to challenge such measures by means of an action for the Union’s non-contractual liability (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 30-31)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2010 in Case T‑245/10 Verein Deutsche Sprache v Council by which that court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the appellant’s action for a declaration that the Council had infringed European Union law by, in particular, failing to ensure that the entire contents of the Council Presidency’s website be available in German – Failure to take account of the nature and purpose of the action – No legal scrutiny of the Council’s position – Breach of the obligation to safeguard the unity and consistency of Union law.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Verein Deutsche Sprache eV is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Turnover taxes

–

Common system of value added tax

–

Taxable amount

–

Provision of services

–

Consideration actually received by the provider

–

Costs that were not charged but that could have been under the contract

–

Excluded (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 11(A)(1)(a)) (see para. 22, operative part

)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Uniform legislation – Industrial and commercial property – Patent law – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Conditions for granting – Product covered by a basic patent in force

(European Parliament and Council Directive No 469/2009, Art. 3(a))

Summary

Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as precluding the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate relating to active ingredients which are not identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on in support of the application for such a certificate.

(see para. 30, operative part)
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature –Weighing up of all the interests involved (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 27, 28)

2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Whether damage is actually caused dependent on uncertain, future events — Lack of urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 31-40)

3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Damage that can be made good by the grant of compensation in the action in the main proceedings — Not irreparable (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 41-46)
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Absolute grounds for refusal

—

Lack of distinctiveness

—

Trade mark made up of several elements

—

Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 40

)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 May 2012 — World Wide Tobacco España v Commission

(Case C-240/11 P)

‛Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — The Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Mitigating circumstances — Maximum limit of 10% of turnover — Cooperation’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Necessity of some specific criticism of a point in the General Court’s reasoning (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 41)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36, 53, first para., and 58) (see para. 65)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2011 in Case T-37/05 World Wide Tobacco España v Commission by which that court rejected in part an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final, of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C. 38. 238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain).

Operative part

1. The main appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed.

2. World Wide Tobacco España, SA is ordered to pay the costs of the main appeal.

3. The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 May 2012 — World Wide Tobacco España v Commission

(Case C-240/11 P)

‛Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — The Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Mitigating circumstances — Maximum limit of 10% of turnover — Cooperation’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Necessity of some specific criticism of a point in the General Court’s reasoning (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 41)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36, 53, first para., and 58) (see para. 65)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2011 in Case T-37/05 World Wide Tobacco España v Commission by which that court rejected in part an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final, of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C. 38. 238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain).

Operative part

1. The main appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed.

2. World Wide Tobacco España, SA is ordered to pay the costs of the main appeal.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 — Smanor v Commission and European Ombudsman

(Case C-474/11 P)

‛Appeal — Article 119 of the rules of the procedure — Marketing of frozen yoghurt prohibited — Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Action for damages — Manifest inadmissibility’

Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 112(1)(c), and 119) (see paras 9-12)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2011 in Case T-185/11 Smanor v Commission and Ombudsman, by which that court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking, first, a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully failed to initiate infringement proceedings against the French Republic and, secondly, compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Smanor SA shall bear its own costs.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 — Smanor v Commission and European Ombudsman

(Case C-474/11 P)

‛Appeal — Article 119 of the rules of the procedure — Marketing of frozen yoghurt prohibited — Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Action for damages — Manifest inadmissibility’

Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 112(1)(c), and 119) (see paras 9-12)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2011 in Case T-185/11 Smanor v Commission and Ombudsman, by which that court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking, first, a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully failed to initiate infringement proceedings against the French Republic and, secondly, compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais v Commission

(Case C-389/11 P)

‛Appeal — State aid — Construction of railway equipment — Decisions declaring aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery’

Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 25, 26)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Joined Cases T-267/08 and T-279/08 Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais v Commission and Communauté d’agglomération du Douaisis v Commission dismissing the actions, initially, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 1089 final of 2 April 2008, then for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4112 final of 23 June 2010, on State aid C 38/2007 (ex NN 45/2007) implemented by France in favour of Arbel Fauvet Rail SA — Construction of railway equipment — Recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of the right to be heard.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais v Commission

(Case C-389/11 P)

‛Appeal — State aid — Construction of railway equipment — Decisions declaring aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery’

Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 25, 26)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Joined Cases T-267/08 and T-279/08 Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais v Commission and Communauté d’agglomération du Douaisis v Commission dismissing the actions, initially, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 1089 final of 2 April 2008, then for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4112 final of 23 June 2010, on State aid C 38/2007 (ex NN 45/2007) implemented by France in favour of Arbel Fauvet Rail SA — Construction of railway equipment — Recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of the right to be heard.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.