ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

20 December 2017 ( *1 )

(Rectification of judgment)

In Joined Cases C‑8/15 P-REC to C‑10/15 P-REC,

THREE APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, lodged on 9 January 2015,

Ledra Advertising Ltd, established in Nicosia (Cyprus) (C‑8/15 P),

Andreas Eleftheriou, residing in Limassol (Cyprus) (C‑9/15 P),

Eleni Eleftheriou, residing in Limassol (C‑9/15 P),

Lilia Papachristofi, residing in Limassol (C‑9/15 P),

Christos Theophilou, residing in Nicosia (C‑10/15 P),

Eleni Theophilou, residing in Nicosia (C‑10/15 P),

represented by A. Paschalides, dikigoros, A.M. Paschalidou, Barrister, and A. Riza QC, instructed by C. Paschalides, Solicitor,

appellants,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Commission, represented by J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

European Central Bank (ECB), represented by G. Várhelyi, K. Laurinavičius and O. Heinz, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt,

defendants at first instance,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, President, A. Tizzano, Vice-President, R. Silva de Lapuerta, T. von Danwitz, J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, A. Rosas and C.G. Fernlund, Presidents of Chambers, E. Juhász, A. Arabadjiev (Rapporteur), D. Šváby, M. Berger, A. Prechal, E. Jarašiūnas, M. Vilaras and E. Regan, Judges,

Advocate General: N. Wahl,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 20 September 2016, the Court (Grand Chamber) delivered the judgment in Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB (C‑8/15 P to C‑10/15 P, EU:C:2016:701).

2 That judgment contains, in the version in the language of the case, an inaccuracy which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify of its own motion pursuant to Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies to the procedure on appeal in accordance with Article 190(1) of those rules.

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

1. In the introductory part of the judgment of 20 September 2016, Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB (C‑8/15 P to C‑10/15 P, EU:C:2016:701), the reference to the representatives of the European Central Bank (ECB) shall be rectified as follows: ‘European Central Bank (ECB), represented by G. Várhelyi, K. Laurinavičius and O. Heinz, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt,’.

2. The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified judgment. A note of this order shall be made in the margin of the original of the rectified judgment.

Luxembourg, 20 December 2017. A. Calot Escobar Registrar K. Lenaerts President

( *1 ) Language of the case: English.
Appeal—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. 8)
Actions for failure to act—Natural or legal persons—Actionable omissions—Failure to initiate the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations—Inadmissibility

(Arts 258 TFEU, 263, first para., TFEU and 265, third para., TFEU)

(see paras 20-25)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 —

Tsujimoto v Kenzo

(Case C‑87/16 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community word mark — Word mark KENZO ESTATE — Earlier Community word mark KENZO — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) — Partial rejection of the opposition’

Appeal — 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. 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 June 2016 —

Liu v EUIPO

(Case C‑41/16 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community designs — Article 7(2) — Registered Community design representing a case for a portable computer — Disclosure of earlier designs prior to the priority date — Application for a declaration of invalidity’

Appeal — 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 paras 5, 6)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 —

Tayto Group v EUIPO

(Case C‑272/16 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative mark REAL HAND COOKED — Rejection of the application for registration’

1. Appeal — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Ground lacking precision — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 5, 6)

2. Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 5, 6)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeals—Grounds—Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal—Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 5)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context—Extent of the obligation in the sphere of competition—Insufficient information regarding that context—Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 13-15, 21-23)
1)

The combined provisions of Article 161(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and of Article 788 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 430/2010 of 20 May 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a seller established in the customs territory of the European Union is considered to be an exporter, within the meaning of the former provision, in the event that, following the conclusion of a contract for the sale of the goods in question, the ownership of those goods is transferred to a purchaser established outside that customs territory.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 November 2017 —

Air Serbia and Kondić

(Case C‑476/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Whether the body making a reference is a ‘court or tribunal’ — Independence — Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Reference to the Court—‘National court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU—Definition—Ministarstvo pomorstva, prometa i infrastrukture—Uprava zračnog prometa, elektroničkih komunikacija i pošte (Croatian Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and Infrastructure—Directorate for Air Transport, Electronic Communications and Postal Services)—Not included

(Art. 267, second para., TFEU)

(see paras 14-26)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Ministarstvo pomorstva, prometa i infrastrukture — Uprava zračnog prometa, elektroničkih komunikacija i pošte (Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and Infrastructure — Directorate for Air Transport, Electronic Communications and Postal Services, Croatia), by decision of 26 August 2016, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
Judicial proceedings—Plea of inadmissibility—Subject matter—No obligation on the party raising the plea to set out in its pleadings its arguments on the substance of the case

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 151; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 130)

(see paras 28-33)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and regulatory context or the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred—Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(a) and (c))
25

The Court has held, in paragraph 30 of the order of 16 July 2015 in P (C‑507/14, not published, EU:C:2015:512), that that article contains an autonomous definition of the time when a court is deemed to be seised. The EU legislature adopted a uniform concept of the time when a court is seised, which is determined by the performance of a single act, namely, depending on the procedural system under consideration, the lodging of the document instituting the proceedings or the service of that document, but which nevertheless takes into consideration whether the second act was in fact subsequently performed. Thus, pursuant to Article 16(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003, the time when the court is seised is the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court, provided that the applicant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the respondent (order of 16 July 2015 in P, C‑507/14, not published, EU:C:2015:512, paragraph 32).
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

7 June 2018 ( )

(Removal from the Register)

In Case C‑675/16 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 29 December 2016,

Guccio Gucci SpA, established in Florence (Italy), represented by P.L. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, avvocati,

appellant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Union Intellectual Property Office(EUIPO), represented by S. Hanne, acting as Agent,

defendant at first instance,

Guess ? IP Holder LP, established in Los Angeles (United States of America), represented by D. McFarland, Barrister,

intervener at first instance,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,

after hearing the Advocate General, P. Mengozzi,

makes the following

Order

1 By a document lodged via e-Curia on 16 May 2018, Guccio Gucci SpA and Guess ? IP Holder LP informed the Court that they had reached an agreement on the amicable settlement of the dispute giving rise to the present case, in which it had been agreed that each party would bear its own costs and, therefore, that it was no longer necessary to rule on the appeal of Guccio Gucci SpA. That letter must be interpreted as including a request on the part of Guccio Gucci SpA to discontinue the proceedings, submitted in accordance with Article 148 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeals by virtue of Article 190(1) of those rules, which that party’s representative confirmed in a subsequent communication.

2 By a document lodged via e-Curia on 23 May 2018, the European Union Intellectual Property Office informed the Court that it had no objections to the proceedings being brought to an end, while requesting the Court not to order it to pay the costs.

3 Under Article 141(1) of the Rules of Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 184(1) thereof, a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the other party’s observations on the discontinuance. In addition, Article 141(3) of those rules provides that, where the parties have come to an agreement on costs, the decision as to costs is to be in accordance with that agreement.

4 Since the European Union Intellectual Property Office confined itself, in its observations, to requesting the Court not to order it to pay the costs and no other party has sought that that party be ordered to pay the costs, it must be held that the European Union Intellectual Property Office is to bear its own costs.

5 In accordance with the agreement reached between Guccio Gucci SpA and Guess ? IP Holder LP, both those parties are to bear their own costs.

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

1. Case C‑675/16 P is removed from the Register of the Court.

2. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Luxembourg, 7 June 2018.

A. Calot Escobar K. Lenaerts
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

3 September 2021 ( )

(Rectification of judgment)

In Case C‑614/16 P‑REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 28 November 2016,

Merck KGaA, established in Darmstadt (Germany), represented by B. Bär-Bouyssière and S. Smith, Solicitors, and by R. Kreisberger QC and D. Mackersie, Barrister,

applicant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Commission, represented by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by S. Kingston, Senior Counsel,

defendant at first instance,

supported by:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented initially by D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes QC, and subsequently by D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and by J. Holmes QC,

intervener in the appeal,

Generics (UK) Ltd,

intervener at first instance,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of M. Vilaras, President of the Chamber, D. Šváby (Rapporteur), S. Rodin, K. Jürimäe and P.G. Xuereb, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Kokott,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 25 March 2021, the Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered the judgment in Merck v Commission (C‑614/16 P, not published, EU:C:2021:246).

2 The introductory part of that judgment contains errors which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify at the request of the European Commission, pursuant to Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules.

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

1. In the introductory part of the judgment of 25 March 2021, Merck v Commission (C‑614/16 P, not published, EU:C:2021:246) the reference to the European Commission’s representatives shall be rectified as follows:

‘European Commission, represented by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by S. Kingston, Senior Counsel,’

2. The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified judgment. A note of this order shall be made in the margin of the original of the rectified judgment.

Luxembourg, 3 September 2021.

A. Calot Escobar M. Vilaras
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 —

Ukraine v Yanukovych

(Case C‑549/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal relating solely to the amount of the costs set at first instance — Manifest inadmissibility)

Appeal—Grounds—Plea directed against the decision of the General Court on costs—Inadmissible if the sole plea

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paras 4-7)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 October 2017 —

Mladenova v Parliament

(Case C‑405/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Essential procedural requirements — Representation by a lawyer — Manifest inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer—Applicant with the status of lawyer authorised to practise before a national court—Irrelevant—Manifest inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third and fourth paras, and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 57(1) and 119)

(see paras 12, 14, 15)

Operative part

1. Ms Krassimira Georgieva Mladenova’s appeal is inadmissible.
Appeal—Grounds—Mistaken assessment of the facts—Inadmissibility—Application to appeals directed against an order for interim measures

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 57, second para., and 58)

(see para. 31)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 — Cunha Martins

(Case C‑131/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial — Question which does not concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Jurisdiction of the Court—Limits—Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union—Subject matter of the national dispute not having any connection with EU law—Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 51(1); Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

(see paras 9-20)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Court of Appeal, Porto, Portugal).

( 1 ) OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 March 2018 — Vadillo González

(Case C‑252/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying why an answer to the questions referred is necessary — 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; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 21, 22, 27, 28, 31-36))

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Cádiz (Social Court No 2, Cádiz, Spain), by decision of 8 May 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 256 of 7.8.2017.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2018 — NF and Others v European Council

(Joined Cases C‑208/17 P to C‑210/17 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU-Turkey statement of the European Council of 18 March 2016 — Application for annulment)

1. Appeal—Grounds—Error of law relied on not identified—Ground lacking precision—Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169) (see paras 12-14)

2. Procedure—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169) (see para. 15)

3. Appeal—Grounds—Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court—Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 22)

4. Appeal—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(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 26, 27)

Operative part

1. The appeals are dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

2. NF, NG and NM shall pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Appeal—Grounds—Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded—Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paras 13, 14, 47)
Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 10 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits the issue of an order for payment, based on a bank ledger excerpt, as evidence of the existence of a debt arising from a consumer credit agreement where the court dealing with an application for an order for payment does not have the power to examine whether the terms of that agreement are unfair or to ensure, in the course of that examination, that the information referred to in Article 10 is made available if the detailed rules for exercising the right to lodge an objection against such an order do not enable observance of the rights which the consumer derives from that directive to be ensured.
Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based—General reference to documents annexed to the application—Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see paras 4, 5)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — Idroenergia

(Case C‑166/18)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — 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; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 11-27)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale per la Campania (Regional tax commission for the Campania region, Italy), by decision of 1 February 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.