ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
7.

Article 3 of the Directive concerns the rights of consumers in relation to contracts for the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees. It states: ‘1. The seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered. 2. In the case of a lack of conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the goods brought into conformity free of charge by repair or replacement, in accordance with paragraph 3, or to have an appropriate reduction made in the price or the contract rescinded with regard to those goods, in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6. 3. In the first place, the consumer may require the seller to repair the goods or he may require the seller to replace them, in either case free of charge, unless this is impossible or disproportionate. A remedy shall be deemed to be disproportionate if it imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison with the alternative remedy, are unreasonable, taking into account: – the value the goods would have if there were no lack of conformity, – the significance of the lack of conformity, and – whether the alternative remedy could be completed without significant inconvenience to the consumer. Any repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required the goods. 4. The terms “free of charge” in paragraphs 2 and 3 refer to the necessary costs incurred to bring the goods into conformity, particularly the cost of postage, labour and materials. 5. The consumer may require an appropriate reduction of the price or have the contract rescinded: – if the consumer is entitled to neither repair nor replacement, or – if the seller has not completed the remedy within a reasonable time, or – if the seller has not completed the remedy without significant inconvenience to the consumer. 6. The consumer is not entitled to have the contract rescinded if the lack of conformity is minor.’
27.

In that context, the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg, Germany) had doubts about the relationship between the Customs Code and Implementing Regulation No 1238/2013 and Implementing Regulation No 1239/2013. It decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does Article 212a of the Customs Code encompass the exemption from an anti-dumping and countervailing duty pursuant to Article 3(1) of Implementing Regulation No 1238/2013 or Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation No 1239/2013? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: In the application of Article 212a of the Customs Code to the case of the incurrence of a customs debt pursuant to Article 204(1) of the Customs Code for exceeding the time limit under Article 49(1) of the Customs Code, are the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation No 1238/2013 and Article 2(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation No 1239/2013 fulfilled when the company, which is affiliated with the company listed in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2013/707, which manufactured, consigned and invoiced the goods concerned, but did not act as the importer of the goods concerned and also did not ensure the release of the goods into free circulation, but had the intention to do so and was the company to which the goods were actually delivered? (3) If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative: When Article 212a of the Customs Code is applied to a case where a customs debt arises under Article 204(1) of the Customs Code, by failure to comply with the time limit pursuant to Article 49(1) of the Customs Code, may an undertaking invoice and an export undertaking certificate within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Implementing Regulation No 1238/2013 and Article 2(1)(b) and (c) of Implementing Regulation No 1239/2013 also be submitted within a time limit set by the customs authorities pursuant to Article 53(1) of the Customs Code? (4) If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative: Does an undertaking invoice pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of Implementing Regulation No 1238/2013 and Article 2(1)(b) of Implementing Regulation No 1239/2013, which refers to Decision 2013/423 instead of to Implementing Decision 2013/707, under the conditions of the case in the main proceedings and in consideration of general legal principles, satisfy the conditions in paragraph 9 of Annex III to Implementing Regulation No 1238/2013 and paragraph 9 of Annex 2 to Implementing Regulation No 1239/2013? (5) If the answer to the fourth question is in the negative: In the application of Article 212a of the Customs Code to the case when a customs debt arises under Article 204(1) of the Customs Code due to the failure to comply with the time limit pursuant to Article 49(1) of the Customs Code, may an undertaking invoice within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Implementing Regulation No 1238/2013 and Article 2(1)(b) of Implementing Regulation No 1239/2013 also still be submitted in the appeal proceedings brought against the determination of customs debt?’
5.

At the relevant time, Article 21 of the IPCF code of ethics, which had been approved by Royal Decree of 22 October 2013 (‘the IPCF code of ethics’), read as follows: ‘1. The profession of external IPCF accountant is incompatible with any artisanal, agricultural or commercial activity, whether exercised directly or indirectly, individually or through a partnership, association or company, as sole trader or as manager, director, executive officer or active shareholder or partner. 2. Save as regards the activities mentioned in paragraph 3, the Chambers may derogate from this rule at the request of an external IPCF accountant, made in advance and in writing, provided that the independence and impartiality of the member are not jeopardised and that the activity in question is ancillary. Such a decision is always capable of being revoked by the chambers. Furthermore, the Council may always make provision concerning derogations by way of a general directive, in relation to specified activities in the artisanal, agricultural or commercial sector, outside the particular areas referred to in paragraph 3. The Council may also adopt directives under which incompatibilities are temporarily disregarded in cases of business transfer. The external IPCF accountant, who will be subject to Council directives, must inform the Chamber in writing. 3. The following professional activities are always regarded as jeopardising the independence and impartiality of the external accountant: those of an insurance broker or agent; those of an estate agent (other than that of a managing agent), and all banking and financial services activities requiring registration with the Autorité des Services et Marchés Financiers (Financial markets and services authority; ‘FSMA’).’
16.

The appellant’s preliminary administrative appeal against the tax assessment notice was dismissed by decision of 22 August 2017. The administrative appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Tribunalul Timiș (Regional Court, Timiș, Romania) by judgment of 26 March 2018. The appellant brought an appeal against that judgment before the referring court. The Curtea de Apel Timişoara (Court of Appeal, Timişoara, Romania) stayed the proceedings and referred the following three questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU: ‘(1) In circumstances such as those here at issue, in which a natural person carries on an economic activity by practising several liberal professions and by letting out immovable property and thereby obtaining income of a continuous nature, do the provisions of Article 288 [first paragraph] point 4 of the VAT Directive require the identification of a particular professional activity as being the principal activity in order to verify whether the letting can be classified as an ancillary transaction thereto and, if so, on the basis of what criteria is that principal activity to be identified, or must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that all of the professional activities by which the economic activity of that natural person is carried on constitute the ‘principal activity’? (2) In the event that the immovable property let by a natural person to a third party is not intended and used for the performance of the remainder of his economic activity, so that it is not possible to establish any connection between that letting and the practice of the various professions of that person, do the provisions of Article 288 [first paragraph] point (4) of the VAT Directive permit the classification of the letting as an ‘ancillary transaction’, with the consequence that it is excluded from the calculation of the turnover which serves as a reference for the purpose of applying the special exemption scheme for small undertakings? (3) In the situation described in the second question, is it relevant to the classification of the letting transaction as ‘ancillary’ that it is for the benefit of a third party — a legal person of which the natural person is a shareholder and director — established in the property let and carrying on professional activities of the same kind as those of the natural person in question?’
47.

According to Article 1 of Regulation No 178/2002, its purpose is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and consumers’ interest in relation to food. Therefore, the definition of the term ‘foodstuff’ for the purposes of that regulation covers all products and substances ‘intended to be, or reasonably expected to be, ingested by humans’, as all products and substances which may be reasonably expected to be ingested by humans may also have an effect (including an adverse effect) on human health irrespective of the purpose for which they are consumed. The only exceptions in this regard are products subject to other regulations that ensure their safety for human health, such as medicinal products. By contrast, the definition in the regulation does not cover products which do not have a direct effect on human health because they are not normally consumed by humans, such as animal feed, live animals or plants prior to harvesting. ( 11 )
L’articolo 15 («Impianti non utilizzati») stabilisce quanto segue:

«1. Gli impianti di servizio di cui all’allegato II, punto 2, della direttiva 2012/34/UE che non sono utilizzati da almeno due anni consecutivi sono oggetto di manifestazione di interesse e locazione o leasing. Informazioni sugli impianti non utilizzati sono pubblicate conformemente all’articolo 5.

2. Il periodo di due anni di cui al paragrafo 1 inizia a decorrere dal giorno successivo al giorno in cui un servizio ferroviario è stato prestato per l’ultima volta nell’impianto di servizio in questione.

3. Un richiedente interessato a utilizzare un impianto di servizio di cui all’allegato II, punto 2, della direttiva 2012/34/UE che non è utilizzato da almeno due anni consecutivi manifesta il proprio interesse per iscritto all’operatore dell’impianto in questione e informa il relativo organismo di regolamentazione. In detta manifestazione di interesse sono comprovate le esigenze dell’impresa ferroviaria in questione. L’operatore dell’impianto di servizio può decidere di riprendere l’attività in modo tale da soddisfare le comprovate esigenze dell’impresa ferroviaria.

4. Se il proprietario di un impianto di servizio non gestisce detto impianto, l’operatore dell’impianto informa il proprietario della manifestazione di interesse entro 10 giorni dal suo ricevimento. Il proprietario dell’impianto rende pubblico che l’impianto è, in tutto o in parte, disponibile per la locazione o il leasing a meno che l’operatore dell’impianto di servizio abbia deciso di riprendere l’attività dopo la manifestazione d’interesse.

5. Prima che si proceda a tale pubblicazione, il proprietario dell’impianto di servizio può autorizzare l’operatore dell’impianto di servizio a presentare le sue osservazioni in merito a tale pubblicazione entro quattro settimane. L’operatore può opporsi a tale pubblicazione presentando i documenti attestanti che è in corso un processo di riconversione, avviato prima della manifestazione di interesse.

6. L’organismo di regolamentazione è informato del processo di riconversione dal proprietario e può chiedere all’operatore documenti al fine di valutarne la plausibilità.

Se la valutazione non è soddisfacente, l’organismo di regolamentazione richiede la pubblicazione dell’esercizio, in tutto o in parte, dell’impianto in locazione o in leasing.

(...)».
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Privileges and immunities of the European Communities – Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on an institution – Need for the Court’s authorisation – Refusal of authorisation – Unlawful and disproportionate interference with the exercise of human rights – None

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Art. 1)

Summary

Article 1 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, under which the property and assets of the Communities may not be made the subject of any administrative or legal measure of constraint without the authorisation of the Court of Justice, is intended to ensure that there is no interference with the functioning and independence of the Communities. Such a construction complies with the rules of general international law applicable in the area of the immunity of States and international organisations.

It follows that a decision of the Court refusing to authorise a measure of constraint, such as a garnishee order, and adopted in accordance with that construction cannot be regarded as an unlawful or disproportionate interference with the exercise of the human rights protected by the various international treaties and, more particularly, the right to property or the right of access to a court which is an integral part of the right to a fair hearing.

(see paras 10, 12-13)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - THIRD PARTY PROCEEDINGS - CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY - FAILURE OF THIRD PARTY TO TAKE PART IN THE ORIGINAL CASE - RULES OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 97 ( 1 ) ( C ) - SCOPE OF THIS PROVISION

( PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE ANNEXED TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, ARTICLES 34 AND 36; RULES OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 93 )

2 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION - SUBJECT MATTER OF AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPLICATION - PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL - PURPOSE OF SUCH PUBLICATION

( RULES OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 15 ( 6 ))

Summary

1 . ARTICLE 97 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT . BY STIPULATING THAT THE THIRD PARTY MUST INDICATE IN HIS APPLICATION THE REASONS WHY HE 'WAS UNABLE TO TAKE PART IN THE ORIGINAL CASE', ARTICLE 97 ( 1 ) ( C ) IMPLIES THAT ANY PARTY WHO COULD HAVE BEEN OR WHO COULD HAVE TAKEN PART IN THE ORIGINAL CASE IS UNABLE TO INSTITUTE THIRD PARTY PROCEEDINGS . THIS PROVISION THEREFORE MAKES THIS PROCEDURE AVAILABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO A THIRD PARTY WHO, THOUGH CALLED UPON TO TAKE PART IN THE ORIGINAL CASE, WAS UNABLE TO DO SO FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS, AND SECONDLY TO ANY PARTY WHO WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO INTERVENE IN THE ORIGINAL CASE UNDER ARTICLE 34 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT AND ARTICLE 93 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .

2 . PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AND OF THE CONCLUSIONS IN AN APPLICATION IS INTENDED TO GIVE THIRD PARTIES THE OPPORTUNITY OF INFORMING THEMSELVES OF ACTIONS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. AMENDMENT OF THE TREATY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 - LIMITS.

2. AMENDMENT OF THE TREATY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 - AMENDMENT OF THE CONDITIONS FOR THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS - PERMISSIBILITY. 3. AMENDMENT OF THE TREATY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 - AMENDMENT TO THE TREATY LIMITED IN TIME - NOT PERMISSIBLE - UNLAWFUL EXTENSION OF THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.

4. AMENDMENT OF THE TREATY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 - AMENDMENT APPLICABLE TO ONLY ONE BRANCH OF THE ECSC INDUSTRIES - UNLAWFULNESS.

5. AMENDMENT OF THE TREATY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 - AMENDMENT OF THE TREATY LIMITED IN TIME - NOT PERMISSIBLE - BALANCE OF POWERS BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS OF THE ECSC

Summary

1. IT FOLLOWS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 TAKEN AS A WHOLE THAT DEROGATION FROM THE PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT OF THE TREATY REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 95 THEREOF IS PERMISSIBLE ONLY WHERE IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE TREATY OR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE MEMBER STATES, PARTICULARLY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE POWERS TRANSFERRED TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE MEMBER STATES.

2. THE DEFINITION OF THE BASIC CONDITIONS TO WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S EXERCISE OF A POWER IS SUBJECT MAY BE AMENDED PURSUANT TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 95 IF THAT AMENDMENT RELATES INTER ALIA TO " FUNDAMENTAL ECONOMIC OR TECHNICAL CHANGES DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE COMMON MARKET IN COAL AND STEEL ". IN THAT CASE, SUCH AN AMENDMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF AN ADAPTATION OF THE RULES FOR THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S EXERCISE OF AN EXISTING POWER TO THE NEEDS OF THE NEW SITUATION.

3. LIMITATIONS OF THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW ARTICLE TO A PERIOD EXPIRING BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TREATY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE STRUCTURE OF THE TREATY, THE AUTHORS OF WHICH WERE CONCERNED TO DISTINGUISH CAREFULLY BETWEEN THE DEFINITIVE PROVISIONS, WHICH WERE INTENDED TO REMAIN IN FORCE FOR 50 YEARS, AND THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS. SINCE AMENDMENT UNDER ARTICLE 95 IS APPLICABLE ONLY AFTER THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, ANY AMENDMENT TO THE TREATY HAVING THE EFFECT OF AMENDING RULES RELATING TO THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD IS EXCLUDED.

4. IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 2, 3 AND 4 OF THE ECSC TREATY TO PROVIDE FOR AN AMENDMENT, IN THEIR ENTIRETY, OF THE RULES GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY ARTICLE 56 OF THE SAID TREATY, WITH REGARD TO THE COAL INDUSTRY ALONE, EVEN IF AT PRESENT THE NEED FOR AN AMENDMENT IS ONLY BEING FELT IN THAT INDUSTRY.

5. THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE JEOPARDIZED IF A NEW PROVISION WERE INSERTED IN THE TREATY, HAVING A PERIOD OF VALIDITY LESS THAN THAT OF THE TREATY
5

Thus, it follows from the proposal for review made by the First Advocate General that the formal conditions under Article 62 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which must be satisfied in order for the Reviewing Chamber to be able to rule on whether that judgment of the General Court poses a serious risk that the unity or consistency of EU law may be affected and, therefore, on whether that judgment should be reviewed, are not met in the present case.
2

Where a trader in the course of trade uses (particularly in a comparison list) a well known registered trade mark for the purpose of indicating a characteristic of his own product (particularly its smell) in such a way that: a) it does not cause any likelihood of confusion of any sort; and b) it does not affect the sale of the products under the well-known registered mark: and c) it does not jeopardize the essential function of the registered trade mark as a guarantee of origin and does not harm the reputation of that mark whether by tarnishment of its image, or dilution or in any other way; and d) it plays a significant role in the promotion of the trader's product does that use fall within Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/32

Appeal brought on 21 November 2007 by Cain Cellars, Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-304/05 Cain Cellars, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-508/07 P)

(2008/C 22/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Cain Cellars, Inc. (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 in Case T-304/05;

— Declare that the ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(b) CTR does not preclude registration of the trade mark sought;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, before the Court of First Instance and of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Summary of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in the appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 September 2007 in Case T-304/05

First ground of appeal

Breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94:

The appellant complains that in its examination of the facts material to the assessment of the distinctiveness of the device of a pentagon as a trade mark, the Court of First Instance did not have regard to essential circumstances and the relevant legal viewpoints and principles, in that it assessed the appellant's device of a pentagon on a purely theoretical and abstract basis and ignored the factually-oriented bases of assessment of the question of the distinctiveness of the representation of a pentagon, in particular its uniqueness in the extensive wine sector. The Court classified the sign as a simple ‘geometric shape’ and inferred a priori and in an abstract manner the lack of any distinctiveness of this category of simple signs.

Second ground of appeal

Breach of Article 67(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance:

(a) Under Article 67(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Court takes into consideration only documents which have been made available to the lawyers and agents of the parties and on which they have been given an opportunity of expressing their views. In paragraph 34, the judgment under appeal refers to documents which were submitted by OHIM for the first time with its response and on which the applicant had no opportunity of expressing its views (the written procedure was closed after submission of the response). The judgment is thus based on inadmissible evidence. The appellant's lack of opportunity of giving its views constitutes a breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing.
1.

Is Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted to be interpreted as offering protection only in a situation on which Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, also has a bearing, or does Article 15(c), in comparison with Article 3 of the Convention, offer supplementary or other protection?
1.

First, the Court of First Instance erroneously interpreted Article 4(2) 2nd indent of the Regulation (the ‘court proceedings exception’) when it held that the Commission need not carry out a concrete assessment as to whether to give access to its written pleadings before the oral hearing. This interpretation (i) is contrary to well-established principles for interpreting the court proceedings exception that are recognised elsewhere in the Judgment; (ii) is premised on a non-existent right by the Commission to defend its interests ‘free from all external influences’; (iii) relies on manifestly incorrect legal arguments when invoking the ‘equality of arms principle’; (iv) erroneously dismisses the significance of other jurisdictions' rules that allow access to pleadings before the hearing; and (v) wrongly relies on the need to protect the effet utile of the Community courts' in camera procedures.