ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Definition — Fees paid to its lawyer by an institution — Included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 9, 10)

2. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 13, 15)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 March 2007 in Case C‑323/06 P Kallianos v Commission .

Operative part

Operative part

The total amount of the costs that Mr Kallianos must pay to the Commission is fixed at the sum of EUR 3 500.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2007 — Righini v Commission

(Case C-57/06 P)

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2007 — Righini v Commission

(Case C-57/06 P)

‛Appeal — Officials — Temporary staff — Classification by grade and step — Classification in a higher career bracket — Distortion of the facts — Defective statement of reasons — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissible — Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence — 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 32, 33)

2. Officials — Actions — Grounds — Burden of proof proving a fact alleged by the applicant resting with the applicant (see para. 41)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Insufficient statement of reasons — Mere drafting error (see para. 56)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support its operative part — Plea inoperative (see paras 61, 62)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2005 in Case T-145/04 Righini v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of the Commissions decisions to classify the applicant on her entry into service in Grade A7/3 and, in so far as may be necessary, annulment of the decision of 21 January 2004 rejecting the applicants complaint.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Righini to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2007 — Righini v Commission

(Case C-57/06 P)

‛Appeal — Officials — Temporary staff — Classification by grade and step — Classification in a higher career bracket — Distortion of the facts — Defective statement of reasons — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissible — Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence — 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 32, 33)

2. Officials — Actions — Grounds — Burden of proof proving a fact alleged by the applicant resting with the applicant (see para. 41)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Insufficient statement of reasons — Mere drafting error (see para. 56)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support its operative part — Plea inoperative (see paras 61, 62)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2005 in Case T-145/04 Righini v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of the Commissions decisions to classify the applicant on her entry into service in Grade A7/3 and, in so far as may be necessary, annulment of the decision of 21 January 2004 rejecting the applicants complaint.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third para., and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 37(1), 38(3), and 58) (see paras 11-13

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 27 September 2006 (T‑440/05) Carlos Correia de Matos v European Parliament dismissing as manifestly inadmissible an application for annulment of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 28 August 2004 rejecting the complaint lodged by the appellant against the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal by Mr Correia de Matos is inadmissible.

2. The case is removed from the register of the European Communities.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Commission’s refusal to bring proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations – Inadmissibility (Arts 226 EC and 230 EC) (see paras 23-26)

2. Procedure – Statement of reasons for judgments – Scope (see para. 35)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2006 in Case T-242/05 AEPI v Commission – Inadmissibility of an application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision not to bring proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations against the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the Court of 19 December 2006 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑503/06 R)

Applications for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation and interim measures – Application for a ruling without hearing the other party – Protection of birds – Derogations

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Provisional measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable damage – Balancing of all the interests involved – Interest in the sound administration of justice (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 84(2); Council Directive 79/409) (see paras 14-20)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations – Adoption and application by the Region of Liguria of legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds failing to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The Italian Republic shall suspend operation of Law No 36/2006 of the Region of Liguria of 31 October 2006, implementing the derogation provided for in Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC concerning the conservation of wild birds, for the hunting season of 2006/2007, until delivery of the order terminating the present interim proceedings.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs

–

Meaning (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 15-17

)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 March 2007 – Saiwa v OHIM

(Case C‑245/06 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion – Application for a figurative mark including the word element ‘SELEZIONE ORO Barilla’ – Opposition by the holder of the national and international trade mark ORO and the national trade mark ORO SAIWA – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. 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 paras 33, 48)

2. 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. 47)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 April 2006 in Case T-344/03 Saiwa v OHIM , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action, brought by the applicant for the national and international word mark ‘ORO’ and the national word mark ‘ORO SAIWA’ for goods in Class 30, for annulment of Decision R 480/2002-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 18 July 2003 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected the opposition filed against the application to register a figurative mark including the word elements ‘SELEZIONE ORO’ and ‘Barilla’ for goods in Class 30 – Similarity of marks – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part:

The appeal is dismissed.
Case C-175/06

Alessandro Tedesco

v

Tomasoni Fittings Srl

and

RWO Marine Equipment Ltd

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Genova)

(Removal from the register)

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 18 July 2007

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court, 27 September 2007

Summary of the Order

Preliminary rulings – Withdrawal by the national court of questions referred to the Court of Justice – Removal from the register

(Art. 234 EC)

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT

OF THE FOURTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT

27 September 2007 ( )

(Removal from the register)

In Case C-175/06,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale civile di Genova (Italy), made by decision of 14 March 2006, received at the Court on 24 March 2006, in the proceedings

Alessandro Tedesco

v

Tomasoni Fittings Srl,

RWO Marine Equipment Ltd,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBER

OF THE COURT,

after hearing the Advocate General, J. Kokott,

makes the following

Order

1 By decision of 26 March 2007, received at the Court Registry on 21 September 2007, the Tribunale civile di Genova (Civil District Court, Genoa) held that the case before it had been terminated, and that the questions referred for a preliminary ruling had thus become devoid of purpose.

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

3 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.

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

Case C-175/06 is removed from the Register of the Court.

Luxembourg, 27 September 2007.

R. Grass K. Lenaerts
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – National court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC – Meaning

(Art. 234 EC)

Summary

In order to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC, which is a question governed by Community law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent

As regards, more specifically, the independence of the body making a reference, that condition presumes that the body is protected against external intervention or pressure liable to jeopardise the independent judgment of its members as regards proceedings before them. Those guarantees of independence and impartiality require rules, particularly as regards the composition of the body and the appointment, length of service and the grounds for abstention, rejection and dismissal of its members, in order to dismiss any reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the imperviousness of that body to external factors and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it. In that regard, in order to consider the condition regarding the independence of the body making the reference as met, the case-law requires, inter alia, that dismissals of members of that body should be determined by express legislative provisions.

The Prud’homie de pêche de Martigues (France) cannot be regarded as meeting the condition as to the independence of the body making a reference and, therefore, it is not a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC. First, the members of the Industrial Tribunals are subject, at least for some of their activities, to supervision by the administration. Second, it does not appear that the process of dismissing a Member of the Industrial Tribunals is subject to specific guarantees which remove any reasonable doubt as to the imperviousness of that body to external factors.

(see paras 22-25, 28, 30-31)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Obligation of the Court of First Instance to open the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility – None (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 111 to 114) (see paras 24-28)

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.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119) (see paras 30-32)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2007 in Case T-183/04 Tokai Europe v Commission , by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21) – Requirement to be individually concerned by the contested regulation – Right to a fair hearing.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Tokai Europe GmbH to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. AGC Flat Glass Europe SA shall pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Coats Holdings Ltd and J & P Coats Ltd are ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2008 – France v Council

(Case C‑479/07 R)

Applications for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Fisheries policy – Regulation No 809/2007 – Concept of ‘drift-net’ – Whether ‘thonaille’ nets included – Urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Art. 242 EC) (see paras 16-17)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 242 EC) (see paras 18-19)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of operation of Regulation No 809/2007 containing a definition of the concept of ‘drift-net’ capable of requiring an effective cessation of fishing with ‘thonaille’ nets – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Art. 242 EC; Council Regulation No 809/2007) (see paras 24-25, 28-31)

Re:

Action for annulment – Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (OJ 2007 L 182, p. 1) – Concept of ‘drift nets’ – Inclusion in that concept of stabilised nets such as the ‘thonaille’ – Infringement of the obligation to provide reasons and of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rejects the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2008 – Criminal proceedings against Möginger

(Case C‑225/07)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 91/439/EEC – Mutual recognition of driving licences – Withdrawal of driving licence – Temporary ban on the issuing of a new licence – Validity of a licence obtained in another Member State during the period of the ban

Transport – Road transport – Driving licences – Directive 91/439 (Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Arts 1(2) and 8(2) and (4)) (see para. 45, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Amtsgericht Landau/Isar – Interpretation of Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) – Non-recognition by the Member State of residence, on its territory, of a driving licence obtained in another Member State during the period of a temporary ban on applying for a new licence in the Member State of residence.

Operative part

Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State where the holder of that licence was, on the date on which the licence was issued, subject to a temporary ban on obtaining a new driving licence in the first Member State. The fact that the question of validity arose after the date that marked the end of the period of the ban is irrelevant.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2008 – Hospital Consulting and Others v Esaote and Others

(Case C‑386/07)

Rules of procedure – Articles 92(1) and 104(3) – Community competition rules – National rules concerning lawyers’ fees – Setting of professional scales of charges – Partial inadmissibility – Answers to questions which may be deduced from the case-law of the Court

1. Competition – Community rules – Obligations of the Member States – Legislation intended to reinforce the effects of pre-existing agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Meaning (Arts 10 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 18-27, operative part 1)

2. Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Questions referred without sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context – Questions referred in a context making a useful answer impossible – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 29-35, operative part 2)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consiglio di Stato – Interpretation of Articles 10 and 81(1) EC and Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) – Fixing by a national professional organisation of mandatory tariffs for lawyers’ services subject to ministerial approval – National rules prohibiting judges in decisions on costs from derogating from the set minimum fees.

Operative part

1. Articles 10 EC and 81 EC do not preclude a national law which in principle prohibits derogation from minimum fees approved by ministerial decree, on the basis of a draft drawn up by a professional body of lawyers such as the Consiglia nazionale forense, and which also prohibits the court, when it decides the amount of costs that the unsuccessful party must pay to the other party, from derogating from those minimum fees.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Appeals (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 37(6) and 81(2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(2)) (see paras 8 to 12)

2. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Force majeure – Meaning (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45) (see paras 14 to 15)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 2007 in Joined Cases T-3/00 and T-337/04 Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB , which annulled the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 21 October 1999 refusing access to certain documents concerning the Basle/Nyborg Agreement, dismissed the claim seeking annulment of the Council’s decision of 30 July 1999 refusing the applicant access to such documents and dismissed the action for compensation in respect of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the decisions of the Council and the ECB refusing him access to certain documents concerning the Basle/Nyborg Agreement (1987) which he had requested for the purpose of preparing his doctoral thesis.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Pitsiorlas to pay his own costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Cheminova A/S, Cheminova Agro Italia Srl, Cheminova Bulgaria EOOD, Agrodan SA and Lodi SAS shall pay the costs.

3. European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) shall bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions

(Arts 43 EC and 49 EC)

Summary

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation of one Member State under which a self-employed person residing in that Member State is required to register there a vehicle leased from a company established in another Member State, when it is not intended that that vehicle should be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis and it is not, in fact, used in that manner.

A Member State may impose an obligation to register a motor vehicle leased by a worker residing in that Member State from a company established in another Member State where that vehicle is intended to be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis or where it is, in fact, used in that manner.

On the other hand, if those conditions are not satisfied, the connection with one Member State of the vehicle registered in another Member State is weaker, so that another justification for the restriction in question is necessary. In that regard, since those conditions do not apply to the use of his vehicle by the worker, the fact that he is self-employed in a Member State other than that in which he is resident as a natural person who owns a fixed establishment there and not as a director or manager of a company established there, or the fact that he has leased a vehicle from a company of that Member State himself and not through an employer who then made a vehicle available to him, cannot justify an obligation to register the vehicle in that worker’s Member State of residence.

(see paras 32-36, operative part)