ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Directive on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community

–

Action brought by a supplier of those systems (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/52) (see paras 36-42

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2008 in Case T-298/04 Efkon v Parliament and Council , by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 124) – Requirement that the contested measure should be of individual concern – Right to a fair hearing – Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Efkon AG is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Conditions of admissibility

–

Main action dismissed as inadmissible (Art. 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(1) (see paras 3-4

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Absolute bar to proceeding (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 21)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 26, 28-30)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 14 July 2008 in Case T-345/06 Complejo Agrícola v Commission , in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the application for partial annulment of Article 1 of Annex 1 of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Acebuchales de la Campiña sur de Cádiz’, which includes a farm belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Complejo Agrícola SA is ordered to bear its own costs.

3. The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Srinivasan shall bear his own costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

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

2. Messer Group GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

3. The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – 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. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 37-38)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility – Rejection (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 para. 44)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeals brought against the orders of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2008 in Case T‑373/06 Rath v OHIM and Grandel and Case T‑374/06 Rath v OHIM and Grandel by which that court dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law the actions for annulment of the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 dismissing in part the actions brought against the decisions of the Opposition Division which, by upholding the opposition of the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘EPIGRAN’, refused to register the word marks ‘EPICAN’ and ‘EPICAN FORTE’ for goods and services in class 5 – Likelihood of confusion of the two marks.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Mr Rath to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2008 – Raulin v France

(Case C‑49/08)

Action brought by a natural person against a Member State and seeking the annulment of a decision given by a national court and a declaration that the Member State concerned has infringed Community law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

1. Actions for annulment – Measures adopted by the national authorities – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 7-8)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of action reserved to the Commission and the Member States – Action brought by a natural or legal person – Inadmissible (Arts 226 EC and 227 EC) (see paras 9-10)

Re:

Actions for annulment – Infringement, by a Member State, of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32) – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court.

Operative part

1. The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the present case.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs

–

Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 14

)
ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)

3 March 2009

Case C-268/08 P

Christos Michail

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations – Psychological harassment – Duty to provide assistance – Distortion of facts – Errors in the legal assessment of the facts)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 April 2008 in Case T‑486/04 Michail v Commission by which that court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of the Commission’s implied rejection of 20 March 2004 of the appellant’s application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. Infringement of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations. Psychological harassment. Distortion of the facts. Errors in the legal classification of the facts

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

Summary

Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissible

(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))
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2008 – Enercon v OHIM

(Case C‑20/08 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Three-dimensional mark made up of the shape of the product – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1) – Distinctive character of the mark – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73, 1st sentence) (see paras 28-29)

2. 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) (see paras 52-54)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2007 in Case T‑71/06 Enercon v OHIM , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2005 rejecting the application for annulment of the examiner’s decision refusing to register a three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the outer casing of the nacelle of a wind turbine for goods in Class 7 – Distinctive character of a three-dimensional mark made up of the shape of the product.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2008 in Case T-298/04

Efkon

v

Parliament and Council

, by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 124) – Requirement that the contested measure should be of individual concern – Right to a fair hearing – Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2009 – Ayyanarsamy v Commission and Germany

(Case C‑251/08 P-R)

Application for interim measures – Inadmissibility of the main action

Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Main action dismissed as inadmissible (Art. 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(1) (see paras 3-4)

Re:

Application for interim measures – Application for interim measures seeking to obtain, first, suspension of the operation of the letter of the Commission of 18 September 2007 informing the appellant that it could not intervene in his favour before the German courts and, secondly, payment of provisional compensation.

Operative part:

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2009 – Município de Gondomar v Commission

(Case C-501/08 P)

Appeal – Cohesion fund – Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 – Cancellation of Community financial assistance – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Measures of direct and individual concern to the applicant)

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Commission decision addressed to a Member State, cancelling financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 25-32)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see paras 33-35)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Necessary for natural or legal persons to proceed by way of a preliminary ruling on validity – National courts obliged to apply national procedural rules in such a way as to make it possible to challenge the legality of acts of the institutions (Arts 10 EC, 230, fourth para., EC and 234 EC) (see paras 37-39)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 in Case T-324/06 Município de Gondomar v Commission by which that court declared inadmissible the action for annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities C(2006) 3782 of 16 August 2006 on the cancellation of the financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/10/61/07 – Redevelopment of Greater Oporto/South – Gondomar subsystem (Portugal).

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Município de Gondomar is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2010 – Sáez Sánchez and Rueda Vargas v Junta de Andalucia and Others

(Case C‑563/08)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Public health – Pharmacies – Proximity – Provision of medicinal products to the public – Operating licence – Territorial distribution of pharmacies – Establishment of limits based on population density – Minimum distance between pharmacies

Freedom of establishment – Restrictions – National legislation requiring an administrative licence to be obtained before new pharmacies may be opened in a particular area (Art. 49 TFEU) (see paras. 14-34, operative part.)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Granada – Interpretation of Article 43 EC – Legislation laying down the conditions for the opening of new pharmacies – Limits according to the number of inhabitants and the need to maintain a minimum distance between the pharmacies.

Operative part:

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that imposes restrictions on the issue of licences for the opening of new pharmacies, by providing that:

– in each pharmaceutical area, a single pharmacy may be opened, as a general rule, per unit of 2 800 inhabitants;

– a supplementary pharmacy may not be opened until that threshold has been crossed, that pharmacy being established for the fraction above 2 000 inhabitants; and

– each pharmacy must be a minimum distance away from existing pharmacies, that distance being, as a general rule, 250 metres.

Nevertheless, Article 49 TFEU precludes such national legislation in so far as the basic ‘2 800 inhabitants’ and ‘250 metres’ rules prevent, in any geographical area which has special demographic features, the establishment of a sufficient number of pharmacies to ensure adequate pharmaceutical services, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 – Prana Haus v OHIM

(Case C-494/08 P)

Appeal – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure – Community trade mark – Word mark PRANAHAUS – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications to designate a product’s characteristics (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 29-31)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice 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 para. 36)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2008 in Case T-226/07 Prana Haus v OHIM , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action seeking annulment of the decision of 18 April 2007 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision to refuse registration of the word mark PRANAHAUS for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 35 – Descriptive character of the mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl and Magan Italia Srl shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Admissibility

–

Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context (Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20) (see paras 8-11

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) – Interpretation of Article 5(3)(b) and (c), 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) – Concepts of import and export of goods bearing a trade mark – Original goods or counterfeit goods?

Operative part

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad made by decision 13 April 2009 is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1), Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 7-10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 20 October 2009 in Case T-249/09 Ségaud v Commission , by which that court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and as quite unfounded in law the appellant’s action, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 May 2009 refusing to bring infringement proceedings against the French Republic pursuant to Article 226 EC and, secondly, for compensation for the damage allegedly sustained as a result of that refusal.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Ségaud to bear his own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Action brought by a natural or legal person for annulment of decisions of national courts, compensation for damage caused by national authorities and a declaration that those authorities have failed to act

–

Community judicature manifestly lacking jurisdiction (Art. 225 EC et seq. and Art. 140a EA et seq.; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119) (see paras 7-9, 12

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 22 July 2009 in Case T-234/09 Hârsulescu v Romania in which the Court of First Instance held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s action for the annulment of two judgments given by national courts and for damages – Challenge to the method of calculating retirement pension rights – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Hârsulescu is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC – Concept

(Art. 234 EC)

Summary

A national court may refer a question to the Court only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature. Thus, when it makes an administrative decision without being required to decide a legal dispute, the referring body cannot be regarded as exercising a judicial function. Such is the case of a municipal committee such as the Miljö- och hälsoskyddsnämnden (the environmental and heath committee for the Municipality of Mora, Sweden).

First, the Miljö- och hälsoskyddsnämnden is responsible for surveillance in the field of health and environmental protection and has the task of adopting necessary corrective measures. Second, it is not the duty of the Miljö- och hälsoskyddsnämnden to review the legality of a decision but to adopt a position, for the first time, on the complaint received from a resident of the municipality, it is not called upon to rule upon a dispute. That finding is not called into question by the fact that natural or legal persons may make representations before it, as such a possibility does not affect the nature of the activity performed. Consequently, that committee acts in a non-judicial capacity.

(see paras 18-19, 21, 23-25)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the appellant to pay the costs.

Luxembourg, 31 August 2010.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 – Iride and Iride Energia v Commission

(Case C‑150/09 P)

Appeal – State aid – Aid declared compatible with the common market on condition that its recipient repays earlier aid declared unlawful – Compatibility with Article 87(1) EC – Errors of law – Distortion of the appellants’ arguments – Failure to state grounds – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Extent – Decision taken in a context known to the addressee (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 21-24)

2. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Ground put forward for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (see para. 32)

3. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 42)

4. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law made by the Court of First Instance – Admissibility (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 65-67)

5. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Commission’s discretion – Commission decision making authorisation of payment of aid subject to the condition of prior repayment by the undertaking concerned of unlawful aid previously received (see paras 70-71)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 11 February 2009 in Case T-25/07 Iride and Iride Energia v Commission , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/941/EC of 8 November 2006 on State aid C 11/06 (ex N 127/05) which Italy is planning to implement for AEM Torino (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 62), in the form of subsidies intended to reimburse ‘stranded’ costs in the energy sector, in so far as, first, the conclusion of that decision is that the aid constitutes State aid and/or, secondly, that decision makes the compatibility of the aid with the common market subject to the condition that AEM Torino repay the unlawful aid previously granted under the regime for undertakings known as ‘municipalizzate’ [local administrative bodies].

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2010 – Calestani and Lunardi v Agenzia delle Entrate – Ufficio di Parma

(Joined Cases C‑292/09 and C-293/09)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility

1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Jurisdiction of the national court – Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute – Need to make an order for reference and relevance of the questions referred – Assessment by the national court (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 18-19)

2. Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context (Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 20-29)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma – Interpretation of Article 13B(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Exemption of supplies of goods used wholly for an exempted activity or excluded from the right to deduction – National legislation precluding the exemption.

Operative part

The references for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy), by decisions of 9 and 17 June 2009, are manifestly inadmissible.