ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Measures of general scope — Need for natural or legal persons to have recourse to a plea of illegality or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity — Obligation of national courts to apply the national procedural rules in such a way as to permit the legality of European Union acts of general application to be challenged (Art. 19(1), second para., TEU; Arts 263 TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU) (see paras. 50-52)
Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, by which the consumer, as a mortgage debtor against whom enforcement proceedings have been brought, may bring an appeal against the decision rejecting his objection to the enforcement only when the court of first instance has not upheld an objection based on the unfairness of the contractual term upon which the enforcement is based even though the sellers or suppliers may, by contrast, appeal against any decision terminating proceedings regardless of the ground of objection on which that decision is based.

First, the amended national procedural rules regarding mortgage enforcement, taken as a whole, no longer expose the consumer to the risk of final and irreversible loss of their dwelling in a forced sale before a court has even been able to assess the unfairness of the contractual term upon which the seller or supplier bases his application for mortgage enforcement. Furthermore, those procedural rules effectively reinforce review by the courts in that regard, in providing that an appeal court may, at second instance, review whether the assessment of such a term carried out at first instance by the court responsible for enforcement was well founded.

Similarly, as regards, second, compliance with the principle of equality of arms against the use of unfair terms falling within the scope of Directive 93/13, in national mortgage enforcement proceedings, following the amendment of the provision at issue, those national procedural rules do indeed provide the consumer with a reasonable opportunity to take legal action based on rights deriving from that directive in conditions that no longer place him in a clearly less advantageous position than the seller or supplier, namely the creditor seeking enforcement.

(see paras 47, 48, 50, operative part)
1.

Appeals — 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 31, 32)
Judicial proceedings—Costs—Taxation—Recoverable costs—Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties—Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer—Included

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para., Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b))

(see paras 11, 12)
1.

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation on the entry of certain names in the Register of protected designation of origin and protected geographical indications — Protection of geographical indication ‘Gouda Holland’ — Action by a group of manufacturers and distributors of Gouda — Members of the group themselves not having locus standi (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 510/2006, Art. 13(1); Commission Regulation No 1122/2010) (see paras 21, 22)
5

The referring court states that, although Spanish civil procedure allows appeals to be made against the decision which, while upholding the objection raised by a debtor, brings the enforcement proceedings to an end, it does not, however, allow the debtor whose objection was dismissed to appeal against the decision at first instance ordering the continuation of the enforcement proceedings. The referring court expresses doubts as to the compatibility of that national legislation with the objective of consumer protection pursued by Directive 93/13 and with the right to an effective remedy as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The referring court also notes that allowing the debtors to appeal could prove so decisive that some of the terms of the loan contract at issue in the main proceedings could be considered ‘abusive’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13.
Case C‑463/15 PPU

Openbaar Ministerie

v

A.

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary-ruling procedure — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Articles 2(4) and 4.1 — Conditions of execution — National criminal law making the execution of a European arrest warrant subject to, in addition to double criminality, the condition that the criminal act is punishable by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months under the law of the executing Member State’

Summary — Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 25 September 2015

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions of execution — National legislation making the execution of a European arrest warrant subject to, in addition to double criminality, the condition that the criminal act is punishable by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months under the law of the executing Member State — Not permissible

(Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Arts 2(4) and 4.1)

Articles 2(4) and 4.1 of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as precluding a situation in which surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant is subject, in the executing Member State, not only to the condition that the act for which the arrest warrant was issued constitutes an offence under the law of that Member State, but also to the condition that it is, under that same law, punishable by a custodial sentence of a maximum of at least twelve months.

As is clear from the first two paragraphs of Article 2, that Framework Decision focuses, with regard to offences in respect of which a European arrest warrant may be issued, on the level of punishment applicable in the issuing Member State. The reason for this is that criminal prosecutions or the execution of a custodial sentence or detention order for which such a warrant is issued are conducted in accordance with the rules of that Member State.

In contrast to the extradition regime which it removed and replaced by a system of surrender between judicial authorities, Framework Decision 2002/584 no longer takes account of the levels of punishments applicable in the executing Member States. This corresponds to the primary objective of the Framework Decision, referred to in recital 5 in its preamble, of ensuring free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, within an area of freedom, security and justice.

(see paras 27, 29-31, operative part)
3.

Actions for annulment — Time limits — Point from which time starts to run — Measure entailing restrictive measures against a person or body — Measure published and notified to the addressees — Address of the person concerned known at the time the measure was adopted — Time limit starting to run as from the date of individual communication (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 267/2012, Art. 46(3); Council Decision 2010/413/ CFSP, Art. 24(3)) (see paras 47-49)
In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, any person may intervene before the Courts of the European Union if such a person can establish an interest in the result of a case submitted to one of those courts.

The concept of ‘an interest in the result of the case’, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined in the light of the precise subject-matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward or the arguments raised. The expression ‘result’ is to be understood as meaning the operative part of the final judgment which the parties ask the Court to deliver.

In that regard, it needs to be established, inter alia, that the applicant seeking leave to intervene is directly concerned by the contested measure and that it has a definite interest in the result of the case. In principle, an interest in the result of the case can be regarded as sufficiently direct only in so far as that result is such as to change the legal position of the applicant seeking leave to intervene.

In the context of an action for annulment brought against a Commission decision on State aid –– adopted without the formal examination procedure having been opened ––, since an interested party within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU may seek the annulment of a decision adopted by the Commission regarding State aid, if that party seeks, by bringing an action for the annulment of that decision, to safeguard its procedural rights under that provision, another interested party within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU which seeks to intervene in such an action for annulment in support of the form of order sought by the applicant has an interest in the result of a case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The final decision sought, as it would be embodied in the operative part of the judgment to be delivered, is liable to alter the legal position of such an applicant for intervention in that, first, it implies an obligation on the Commission to open, or, as the case may be, re-open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and, second, it confers a right on the same applicant, as an interested party, to participate in that formal investigation procedure.

(see paras 4-6, 10, 11)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 — Baudinet and Others

(Case C‑194/15) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Direct taxation — Imposition of dividends — Bilateral agreement on double taxation — Judicial double taxation’

1. Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Provisions of the Treaty — Scope — Tax credit — National legislation limiting that credit tax for dividends paid to resident tax payers by a company established in another Member State — National legislation applicable irrespective of the size of the shareholding held in that company — Applicability of the provisions of the Treaty governing the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital (Arts 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU) (see paras 25-28)

2. Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Taxation of dividends — Dividends paid to resident taxpayers by a company established in another Member State — Judicial double taxation — Tax credit — National legislation laying down a limit on the taxation of that credit tax for such dividends — No distinction between dividends paid by a resident company and those paid by a company established in another Member State — Tax disadvantage resulting from the parallel exercise, by the Member State at the source of those dividends and the Member State of residence, of their fiscal sovereignty — Admissibility (Arts 49 TFEU, 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU) (see paras 35, 37, operative part)

Operative part

Articles 49 TFEU, 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which, when a resident of that Member State, a shareholder in a company established in another Member State, receives from that company dividends taxed in both States, that double taxation is not remedied by the grant in the shareholder’s State of residence of a tax credit at least equal to the amount of tax paid in the State of the source of those dividends.

( 1 ) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
2.

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)) (see para. 44)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — Târșia

(Case C‑328/15)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Equal treatment and non-discrimination — Article 6(1) TEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 20, 21(1) and 52 — Directives 76/207/EEC and 2006/54/EC — National legislation providing for the grant of a salary increment only to university lecturers who obtained their academic title of doctor prior to the entry into force of that legislation’

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 — National legislation not constituting a measure implementing EU law and not having any other connection with EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1) and (2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 18-27, operative part)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Regional Court, Sibiu, Romania) by decision of 8 June 2015 (Case C‑328/15).
3.

Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Price undertaking — Regulation amending the regulation imposing a provisional anti‑dumping duty so as to take account of the decision accepting an offer of an undertaking — Regulation which is not confirmatory in nature (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 8(1); Commission Regulation No 748/2013) (see paras 30-32)
4.

Appeal — Grounds — 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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 41)
1.

Appeals — Grounds — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Assessments relating to the similarity of the marks at issue — Assessments relating to the similarity of the goods or services (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 14-16, 28, 31)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 —

Sá Machado & Filhos

(Case C‑214/15) ( 1 )

‛Preliminary ruling — Public works contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 55 — Contract notice — Tender not accompanied by justification for abnormally low prices — Determination criteria — Article 7(c) — Value of the contract — Threshold not reached — Certain cross-border interest — Lack of information — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — General or hypothetical questions — Abstract and purely hypothetical question with respect to the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings — Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) (para. 28)

2. Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2004/18 — Scope — Contract with a value below the threshold for application laid down by the directive — Not included — Application of the fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty — Condition — Contract having a certain cross-border interest — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1251/2011, Art. 7) (see paras 29, 35, 36)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Scope of the obligation in the field of public procurement (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see paras 37-39)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal), by decision of 9 April 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
1.

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 29-31, 39)
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2017 –

Fondul Proprietatea

(Joined Cases C‑556/15 and C‑22/16) ( 1 )

(References for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Participation of a company with a majority public shareholding in an increase in the share capital of a company in which the State is the sole shareholder or in the capital formation for a State-owned commercial company — Questions of a hypothetical nature — Insufficient information regarding the factual context — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Jurisdiction of the Court—Limits—General or hypothetical questions—Determination by the Court of its own jurisdiction—Question referred for a preliminary ruling of a hypothetical nature—Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 20, 21, 28, 29)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context—Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see paras 34-37, 39, 40)

Operative part

The requests for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Court of Appeal, Craiova, Romania), by decision of 13 October 2015, and by the Tribunalul București (District Court, Bucharest, Romania), by decision of 3 July 2015, are manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 —

Velikova

(Case C‑228/15) ( *1 )

‛Preliminary ruling — Right of Union citizens to move and reside within the territory of the European Union — Lack of relevance of the request for a preliminary ruling to settle the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see paras 17-20, 36)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question manifestly without relevance (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 35)

Operative part:

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale de Catania (Catania District Court), made by decision of 7 January 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

( *1 ) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings — Included

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b))

(see paras 27-29)
ORDER OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber)

12 September 2016 ( )

(Rectification of an order)

In Case C‑142/15 P-REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 24 March 2015,

SolarWorld AG, established in Bonn (Germany), represented by L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor,

appellant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

Brandoni solare SpA, established in Castelfidardo (Italy),

Global Sun Ltd, established in Sliema (Malta),

Silicio Solar, SAU, established in Madrid (Spain),

Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, established in Puertollano (Spain),

represented by L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor,

applicants at first instance,

European Commission, represented by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of C. Lycourgos, President of the Chamber, C. Vajda and K. Jürimäe (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: P. Mengozzi,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 10 March 2016, the Court (Ninth Chamber) made the order in Solar World v Commission (C‑142/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:163).

2 The English version of that order contains a clerical mistake 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, which applies to the appeal procedure pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules.

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

1. Paragraph 31 of the order of 10 March 2016, SolarWorld v Commission (C‑142/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:163), shall be rectified as follows:

‘The decision at issue and Regulation No 748/2013 are two measures of a fundamentally different nature. As appears from Article 1 of the decision at issue, that decision concerns companies that offered an undertaking, on the basis of Article 8 of Regulation No 1225/2009, and is intended to accept such an offer. By contrast, Regulation No 748/2013 is a measure of general application which is intended to amend the provisional regulation in order to exempt imports of the product concerned where those imports concern products invoiced by the companies from which undertakings have been accepted by the Commission. Regulation No 748/2013 cannot therefore be regarded as containing no new factor as compared with the decision at issue, as required by the case-law set out in paragraph 30 above.’

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

[Signatures]
1.

The first sentence of paragraph 111 of the judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige and Watson and Others (C‑203/15 and C‑698/15, EU:C:2016:970), in the English-language version, shall be rectified as follows: ‘As regards the setting of limits on such a measure with respect to the public and the situations that may potentially be affected, the national legislation must be based on objective evidence which makes it possible to identify a public whose data is likely to reveal a link, at least an indirect one, with serious criminal offences, to contribute in one way or another to fighting serious crime or to prevent a serious risk to public security.’
Appeal—Grounds—Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

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

(see paras 4, 5)
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; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 11-26, operative part)