ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 November 2010 – Selipar – Sociedade Unipessoal v Fazenda Pública

(Case C‑199/10)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Articles 56 EC and 58 EC – Taxation of dividends – Deduction at source – National fiscal legislation which provides for an exemption of dividends paid to resident companies

1. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality – Relation of Article 12 EC to Articles 43 EC and 56 EC (Arts 12 EC, 43 EC and 56 EC) (see paras 23-24)

2. Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Fiscal legislation – Corporation tax – Taxation of dividends (Arts 56 EC and 58 EC) (see paras 36-38, 40-41, 43, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Supremo Tribunal Administrativo –Compatibility with Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 56 EC, 58(3) EC (now Articles 18, 49, 63 and 65(3) TFEU) and with Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) of national fiscal legislation on the taxation of dividends distributed by a resident company to a non‑resident company having a holding in the company paying the dividends of less than 25% – Taxation by deduction at source at the rate of 15% provided for by the double taxation agreement concluded between the two Member States at issue ‑ Exemption of dividends paid to resident companies.

Operative part:

Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding a tax scheme under a double-taxation agreement concluded between two Member States, which provides for a withholding tax of 15 % on the dividends distributed by a company established in one Member State to a company established in another Member State, whereas the national legislation of the first Member State exempts from that tax dividends paid to a resident company. It would be otherwise only if the tax withheld at source might be set off against the tax payable in the second Member State in the full amount of the difference in treatment. It is for the court making the reference to determine whether such a neutralisation of the difference in treatment has been effected by the application of all the provisions of the convention for the avoidance of double taxation and prevention of the avoidance or evasion of taxes with respect to taxes on income, concluded on 26 October 1993 between the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Spain.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2011 – Transportes y Excavaciones J. Asensi v Spain

(Case C-540/10)

Action brought by a natural or legal person against a Member State – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

Procedure – Action brought by a natural or legal person against a Member State seeking a declaration that the latter has failed to fulfil its obligations under Union law, for an order that that Member State should amend its domestic legislation or for suspension of the operation of a decision made by one of its courts or tribunals – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Union judicature – Inadmissibility (Art. 13(2) TEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 92(1)) (see paras 5-6)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Incorrect transposition by the Kingdom of Spain of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) – Action brought by an individual.

Operative part

1. It is clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this application.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 – Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM

(Case C-56/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Figurative marks 100 and 300 – Refusal of registration – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) – Distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 38(2) – Disclaimer of any exclusive right to a non-distinctive element of a trade mark applied for

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Overlapping of the fields of application of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 29)

2. Community trade mark – Effects of the Community trade mark – Limitations – Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94 – Purpose – No decisive effect on the interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) and (c)) of that regulation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 12(b)) (see para. 58)

3. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 65)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T‑425/07 and T‑426/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM , by which that court dismissed two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2006 (Cases R 1274/2006-4 and R 1275/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the word marks 100 and 300 as Community trade marks – Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 38(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) – Descriptive character of marks composed exclusively of figures.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 – Torresan v OHIM

(Case C-5/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Word mark CANNABIS – Invalidity proceedings – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1)(c)

1. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 45-50)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (see paras 85-86)

Re

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Case T-234/06 Torresan v OHIM , by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 (Case R 517/2005-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG and Giampietro Torresan.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2011 – Köppl v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-590/10)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 91/439/EEC – Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) – Article 7(1) – Mutual recognition of driving licences – Withdrawal of national driving authorisation – Category B driving licence issued by another Member State – Failure to have regard to the condition of residence – Subsequent issue, by the same Member State, of a Category C driving licence – Observance of the condition of residence – Obligation to hold a valid licence for Category B vehicles when the licence for Category C vehicles is issued

Transport – Road transport – Driving licences – Directive 91/439 – Mutual recognition of driving licences – Withdrawal of a Category B driving licence in one Member State – Subsequent issue of a Category B driving licence in another Member State, in breach of the condition of residence, and then of a Category C licence – Category C licence not showing any failure to observe the condition of residence – Refusal of the first Member State to recognise the validity of those new licences – Lawfulness (Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Directive 2000/56, Arts 1(2) and 8(2) and (4)) (see paras 32-33, 47-51, 54, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof – Interpretation, in the light of Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) – Category B driving licence issued by a Member State, without regard to the condition of residence, to a national of another Member State after his national licence had been withdrawn and after the period had expired in which an application for a new licence is prohibited – Subsequent issue, by the same Member State, of a Category C driving licence observing the condition of residence – Whether the Member State of residence can refuse to recognise the validity of those licences.

Operative part

Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2000/56/EC of 14 September 2000, do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise authorisations to drive Category B and C vehicles issued by another Member State to an individual in respect of whom the first Member State has adopted measures under Article 8(2) of that directive, when the authorisation to drive Category B vehicles was issued in the second Member State without regard, as is apparent from the particulars given in the driving licence issued in respect of that authorisation, to the normal condition of residence laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive and when the authorisation to drive Category C vehicles was issued on the basis of the first authorisation and the failure to observe that condition of normal residence is not apparent in the new driving licence issued in respect of that authorisation to drive Category C vehicles.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 September 2011 – Quinta do Portal v OHIM

(Case C-541/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8(1)(b) – Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE – Earlier national word mark VISTA ALEGRE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Declaration of invalidity of the mark

Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para. (c)) (see para. 41)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2010 in Case T-369/09 Quinta do Portal v OHIM – Vallegre , by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 1012/2008-1) relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto SA and Sociedade Quinta do Portal, SA.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements

–

Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer

–

Putting in order by means of a later application

–

Not permissible

–

No breach of the right to an effective remedy, of the right to access to an impartial tribunal or of the right to have the case fairly heard (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third para., and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 37(1), first para., and 38(3)) (see paras 7-9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 March 2011 in Case T-429/09 Campailla v Commission by which that court dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages seeking to have made good the damage supposedly sustained in consequence of the Commission’s refusal to take action in a dispute between the applicant and the Cameroonian State – Admissibility – Essential procedural requirements – Compulsory representation of natural or legal persons by a lawyer authorised to practise before the courts or tribunals of a Member State.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Mr Campailla’s appeal is inadmissible.

2. The case is removed from the register of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Keywords



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Interpretation — Recourse to classification opinions of the World Customs Organisation — Recourse to the Combined Nomenclature — Limits — Opinion incapable of providing grounds for the invalidity of a classification regulation — Goods imported before that opinion was adopted (see paras 40, 43)

2. Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Active network analysers — Classification in subheading 9030 40 90 or in subheading 9030 40 00 of the Combined Nomenclature — Condition (Commission Regulations No 1810/2004 and No 1719/2005) (see para 53 and operative part)
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlapping ambits of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 46-48)

2. 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. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 58)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (see para. 65)
Case C–433/11

SKP k.s.

v

Kveta Polhošová

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack of adequate information on the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Questions submitted in a context which precludes any useful answer — Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility’

Summary — Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 8 November 2012

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of a Community directive in proceedings antedating the accession of a Member State to the European Union — Not included (Art. 267 TFEU)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 22-30, 34) See the text of the decision. (see para. 36)

Case C–433/11

SKP k.s.

v

Kveta Polhošová

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack of adequate information on the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Questions submitted in a context which precludes any useful answer — Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility’

Summary — Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 8 November 2012

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of a Community directive in proceedings antedating the accession of a Member State to the European Union — Not included (Art. 267 TFEU)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings

—

Intervention

—

Conditions of admissibility

—

Interest in the result of the case

—

Meaning

—

Need for a direct and existing interest

—

Dispute concerning the lawfulness of a Commission decision finding there to be a cartel and imposing a fine

—

Lack of direct interest of the customers of undertakings participating in the cartel

—

Ability of a customer to seek compensation for harm caused by the cartel

—

Customer who has made an application for access to the documents of the administrative procedure concerning the cartel

—

Lack of relevance (Art. 101 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 10, 12-16, 23-25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2011 in Case T-46/11 Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission , by which the General Court rejected the application for leave to intervene made by Schenker AG — Interest in the result of the case — Dispute relating to an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Rejection (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 119) (see paras 17-36)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-31)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-99/10 Meica v OHIM — TofuTown.com ( TOFUKING ), in which the General Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2010 (Case R 63/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and TofuTown.com GmbH — Likelihood of confusion.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. TofuTown.com GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG.

3. The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2012 — Rügen Fisch v OHIM

(Case C-582/11 P)

‛Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1) and (2) — Community trade mark — Word mark SCOMBER MIX — Absolute ground for invalidity — Descriptive character’

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. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (para. 46)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-201/09 Rügen Fisch v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 230/2007-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rügen Fisch AG and Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH — Infringment of Articles 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Descriptive character of the word sign SCOMBER MIX.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Rügen Fisch AG is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2012 — Rügen Fisch v OHIM

(Case C-582/11 P)

‛Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1) and (2) — Community trade mark — Word mark SCOMBER MIX — Absolute ground for invalidity — Descriptive character’

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. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (para. 46)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-201/09 Rügen Fisch v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 230/2007-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rügen Fisch AG and Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH — Infringment of Articles 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Descriptive character of the word sign SCOMBER MIX.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
12

It notes, first, a difference between the Czech version of that provision and Paragraph 89 of the Law on VAT which transposed the provision into national law. While Article 306 refers to services supplied to travellers, Paragraph 89 covers those supplied to customers of travel agents, an expression which comprehends not only travellers but also other persons. The court points out, however, that there are also differences between the language versions of Article 306 of the VAT Directive and those of Article 26 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1, ‘the Sixth Directive’), which applied before the entry into force of the VAT Directive, with some versions using the term ‘customer’ and others the term ‘traveller’. It states that actions for failure to fulfil obligations have moreover been brought against several Member States, including the Czech Republic, by the European Commission for using the term ‘customer’ and thus referring, in the Commission’s view, to too broad a class of persons.