ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the Court of First Instance – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 34-36)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility (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)) (see paras 37-41)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for interim measures – Application for provisional measures annulling the award of a legislative mandate in the European Parliament to Mr Andreas Mölzer and awarding that mandate to the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part:

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

2. Mr Kronberger shall pay his own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Union citizenship – Treaty provisions – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality – Not allowed – Substantive scope – Exclusion of purely internal situations (Arts 12 EC and 17 EC) (see paras 17-22)

2. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of age – Not allowed – Scope – Discriminatory treatment having no link with Community law – Excluded (Art. 13 EC; Council Directive 2000/78) (see paras 24-27)

3. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Scope – National rules providing for differences in treatment between surviving spouses and surviving partners in awarding survivor’s benefit – Discriminatory treatment having no link with Community law – Excluded (Arts 12 EC and 13 EC; Council Directive 2000/78) (see paras 30-31)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Ordinario di Milano (Italy) – Interpretation of Articles 12 EC and 13 EC – Equal treatment in employment matters – Grant of survivor’s benefit – National rules providing for differences in treatment between surviving spouses and surviving partners who were in a life partnership.

Operative part

Operative part

Community law does not impose a prohibition of all discrimination, the application of which the courts of Member States must ensure, where the allegedly discriminatory treatment has no link with Community law. In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, no such link arises from Articles 12 EC and 13 EC in themselves.

Those articles do not preclude, in those circumstances, national rules under which, in the event of the death of a person as a result of an accident, a pension amounting to 50% of the remuneration received by that person before his death is paid solely to his surviving spouse and the infant child of the deceased receives only a pension amounting to 20% of that remuneration.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Act having adverse effect – Letter informing a member of the temporary staff that his contract will not be renewed – Decision separate from the contract – Included

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1))

2. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the Court of First Instance – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

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

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility – Alteration of the subject-matter of the dispute – Excluded

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(2))

3. European Communities’ own resources – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2700/2000, recital 11; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b), fourth and fifth subparas.)

Summary

1. It follows from Article 225 EC and Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that an appeal is limited to points of law. The Court of First Instance therefore has exclusive jurisdiction to find the facts, except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it, and to appraise those facts. That appraisal thus does not, save where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice in an appeal.

(see para. 46)

2. In accordance with Article 113(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance may not be changed in the appeal. The jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the Court of First Instance.

(see para. 49)

3. Under the fourth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, the person liable may plead good faith, in order to be eligible for repayment or remission of import or export duties, when he can demonstrate that, during the period of the trading operations concerned, he has taken due care to ensure that all the conditions for the preferential treatment have been fulfilled.

This is not the case, as follows from the clear and unequivocal wording of the fifth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of that regulation, corroborated by recital 11 in the preamble to Regulation No 2700/2000, when the Commission has published a notice in the Official Journal, stating that there are grounds for doubt concerning the proper application of the preferential arrangements by the beneficiary country.

As regards the relevant date for taking into account the good faith of the person liable, it is expressly stated in the fourth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) that the demonstration by the operator of his good faith, where such demonstration is allowed, applies to his behaviour ‘during the period of the trading operations concerned’. Consequently, the relevant date for taking into account the good faith of the person liable is that on which the import transactions were carried out.

(see paras 55-58, 60)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 June 2008 – Kurt v Bürgermeister der Stadt Wels

(Case C‑104/08)

Articles 92(1) and 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Fundamental freedoms – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National legislation requiring the possession of a diploma for the issue of a permit to operate a driving school – Discrimination against own nationals as compared to nationals of other Member States

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Provisions of the Treaty – Inapplicable in a situation which is purely internal to a Member State (Arts 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) (see paras 19-24, operative part 1)

2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 27-28)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich – Interpretation of the fundamental principles of the EC and EU Treaties and the fundamental freedoms thereunder, as well as Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National legislation establishing a permit system for establishing, operating and managing a driving school and establishing a diploma requirement – Discrimination against own nationals as compared to nationals of other Member States who avail themselves of their rights under Community law and who do not necessarily have to satisfy the diploma requirement.

Operative part

1. Articles 23 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State which, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, refuses to recognise professional qualifications acquired by a national of that Member State as equivalent to the possession of the diploma required by that legislation for the purposes of operating a driving school as an independent operator in that Member State.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of establishment

–

Restrictions

–

National legislation requiring prior authorisation for the opening of new pharmacies in a given region

–

Conditions for grant linked to demographic density and to the minimum distance between pharmacies

–

Whether permissible

–

Conditions

–

To be determined by the national court (Art. 49 TFEU) (see paras 21-38, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consiglio di Stato – Interpretation of Articles 152 and 153 EC – Opening of new pharmacies – National legislation fixing limits on the basis of the number of inhabitants and laying down the conditions for authorising the opening of a new pharmacy.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 49 TFEU does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the establishment of new pharmacies by providing that

– in towns with a population of fewer than 4 000 inhabitants, one pharmacy only may be set up and

– in towns with more than 4 000 inhabitants, the establishment of a new pharmacy is subject to conditions, such as the exceeding by at least 50% of the number of inhabitants needed for a pharmacy and a minimum distance from already existing pharmacies,

on condition that such legislation permits, by way of derogation from its basic rules, the establishment of a sufficient number of pharmacies to guarantee an appropriate pharmaceutical service in areas with special demographic or geographical characteristics, something which it is for the national court to ascertain.
Article 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, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, on the transfer of a plot of land not yet built on, from including future building work in the taxable amount used for the assessment of taxes on transfers and transactions – such as the ‘Grunderwerbsteuer’ provided for under German law – and thereby making a transaction that is subject to value added tax under that directive subject also to those other taxes, provided that the latter cannot be characterised as turnover taxes.
Order of the President of the Court of 19 May 2009 – Kronberger v Parliament

(Case C‑349/08 P-R)

Application for interim measures – Inadmissibility of the main proceedings

1. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the Court of First Instance – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 34-36)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility (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)) (see paras 37-41)

Re:

Application for interim measures – Application for provisional measures annulling the award of a legislative mandate in the European Parliament to Mr Andreas Mölzer and awarding that mandate to the applicant.

Operative part:

1. There is no further need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 March 2009 – Pignataro v Ufficio centrale circoscrizionale presso il Tribunale di Catania and Others

(Case C‑535/08)

Eligibility requirements for regional elections – Requirement of residence in the region concerned – Articles 17 EC and 18 EC – Fundamental rights – No link with Community law – Court clearly lacking jurisdiction

1. European Union citizenship – Treaty provisions – Substantive scope – Exclusion of purely internal situations (Arts 17 EC and 18 EC) (see paras 14-18, operative part 1)

2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Question referred in the course of a dispute relating to the application of a national provision which is not within the scope of Community law – Excluded (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 22-24, operative part 2)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia – Interpretation of Article 6 EU, Article 3 of the First Additional Protocol and Article 2 of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Interpretation of Articles 17 EC and 18 EC – Compatibility of regional legislation restricting the right of an Italian national to be nominated for election on the basis of a requirement of residence in the region.

Operative part:

1. Articles 17 EC and 18 EC do not preclude national legislation which, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, includes among the requirements for eligibility for election to a regional assembly, the obligation to reside in the region concerned at the time when nominations are put forward.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

9 December 2009

Case C-513/08 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal – Officials – Social security – Express refusal of an application for reimbursement of 100% of certain medical expenses incurred by the official – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-143/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of the decisions of the Settlements Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities refusing to pay 100% of certain medical expenses incurred by the appellant and to reimburse the cost of a medical consultation in accordance with the rules applicable to consultations of medical experts, and an application that the Commission be ordered to pay certain medical expenses.

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

Summary

1. Appeal – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

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

2. Appeal – Pleas in law – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community law – Interpretation – Acts of the institutions (Council Regulation No 1164/94; Commission Regulation No 1386/2002, Art. 1) (see paras 33, 35)

2. Acts of the institutions – Temporal application – Immediate application of the new rule to the future effects of a situation arising when the old rule was in force (see paras 47-54)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para., (c)) (see paras 61-63)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) in Case T-404/05 Greece v Commission , by which the Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3243 of 1 September 2005 reducing the financial assistance initially granted by the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/09/65/040, concerning the new Athens International airport at Spata.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Measure adopted on the basis of Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty – Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments

(Art. 68(1) EC; Council Regulation No 44/2001)

Summary

It follows from Article 68(1) EC that Article 234 EC is to apply to Title IV of the Treaty where a question on the interpretation of acts of the institutions of the European Community based on this Title, such as Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law. Since decisions on jurisdiction taken by the national court in the main proceedings are subject to appeal under national law, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of Regulation No 44/2001.

(see paras 12-16)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility – Regulation No 1347/2000 (Accession Act of 2003; Council Regulation No 1347/2000, Arts 2, 42(1), and 46) (see paras 25-26 and operative part)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility – Regulation No 1347/2000 (Accession Act of 2003; Council Regulation No 1347/2000, Art. 42(2)) (see paras 27-28)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Anotato Diastirio Kyprou – Jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State (Cyprus) to interpret and apply Articles 2(1), 42 and 46 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 19) – Divorce proceedings begun by the husband before the courts of Cyprus after the entry into force of the regulation but before Cyprus became a Member State – Divorce proceedings begun by the wife after 1 May 2004 before the courts of another Member State (United Kingdom) which was a Member State throughout the relevant period – Both spouses being Cypriot nationals but having their permanent residence in the United Kingdom.

Operative part

Operative part:

Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses is not applicable to divorce proceedings brought before the courts of a State before the latter became a Member State of the European Union.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

–

Trade marks

–

Directive 89/104

–

Right of the trade mark proprietor to prevent third parties from using an identical sign for identical goods

–

Advertising in connection with an internet referencing service

–

Condition of the proprietor’s right (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(1)(a)) (see para. 28

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Bundesgerichtshof Karlsruhe – Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) – Inscription of a sign similar to a trade mark with a service provider operating an internet search engine in order automatically to have displayed on the screen, after entry of that sign as a search term, adverts for goods or services identical to those for which the trade mark in question was registered (‘keyword advertising’) – No authorisation by the proprietor of the trade mark – Classification of that use of the mark as ‘use’ within the meaning of the provision cited above.

Operative part

Operative part:

Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising, on the basis of a keyword identical to that trade mark which that advertiser has, without the consent of the proprietor, selected in connection with an internet referencing service, goods or services identical to those for which that mark is registered, when that advertisement does not enable an average internet user, or enables that user only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to therein originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time – Paid annual leave – Concept of worker

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7(1) and (2))

Summary

Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/88 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘worker’ includes an employee of a body governed by public law in the social security sector who is subject, in particular as regards entitlement to paid annual leave, to the rules applicable to civil servants.

(see para. 27, operative part)