ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — Gambling — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of criminal penalties, the collecting of bets without a licence or authorisation — Licence or authorisation refused in breach of Union law (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 7, operative part 1)

2. Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — Gambling — National legislation prohibiting the collecting of bets without a licence or police authorisation — Operator excluded from the call for tenders for the award of such licences, in breach of Union law (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 8, operative part 2)

3. Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Gambling — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of criminal penalties, the collecting of bets without a licence or authorisation — Conditions for the withdrawal of licences granted at the end of a tendering procedure (Art. 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 9, operative part 3)
Keywords



Keywords

Appeals — Grounds — Necessity of some specific criticism of a point in the General Court’s reasoning (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 41)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36, 53, first para., and 58) (see para. 65)
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-40/11 Lan Airlines and Lan Cargo 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.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 November 2012 — Augustus

(Case C‑627/11)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see paras 7-10, 14, operative part.)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 87) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1) — Cancellation and recovery, in the event of improper conduct, of Community funding granted under the SAPARD programme — Eligibility of expenditure — Cases of force majeure — Justification — Notions of ‘economic efficiency’ and ‘profitability’.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Inalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Secţia de contencios administrativ şi fiscal (Romania), by decision of 3 November 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 November 2012 — Augustus

(Case C‑627/11)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see paras 7-10, 14, operative part.)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 87) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1) — Cancellation and recovery, in the event of improper conduct, of Community funding granted under the SAPARD programme — Eligibility of expenditure — Cases of force majeure — Justification — Notions of ‘economic efficiency’ and ‘profitability’.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Inalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Secţia de contencios administrativ şi fiscal (Romania), by decision of 3 November 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 – Criminal proceedings against Asad Abdallah

(Case C‑144/11)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – No description of the factual context of the main proceedings – Manifest inadmissibility

Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Questions asked without giving details enough of the factual background – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 12-13, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Giudice di pace di Mestre – Direct applicability of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) – Interpretation of Article 2 of that directive – National legislation providing for a fine of between EUR 5 000 and EUR 10 000 to be imposed on a foreign national who unlawfully enters, or remains in, national territory, and also empowers the court to substitute for that fine deportation for a period of less than five years, in the case of a criminal conviction.

Re:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Giudice di pace di Mestre (Italy), by decision of 16 March 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 – Altner v Commission

(Case C-411/11 P)

Appeal – Action for annulment – Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings – Action for declaration of failure to act – Manifest inadmissibility – Right to an impartial court or tribunal

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings – Excluded (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 8)

2. Union law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Observance guaranteed by the Court – European Convention on Human Rights – Right to a fair trial – Implications (Art. 6(3) TEU) (see paras 13-15)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2011 in Case T‑190/11 Altner v Commission dismissing as manifestly inadmissible the applicant’s application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 November 2010 to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint seeking a declaration that European Union law had been infringed by the Czech legislation on legal protection of the right to vote, and for a declaration of failure to act in respect of the unlawful refusal to act following from that decision – Infringement of the right to a fair trial in respect of the lack of impartiality of the president of the formation of the court hearing the case.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2011 – Victoria Sánchez v Parliament and Commission

(Case C-52/11 P)

Appeal – Action for failure to act – Letter addressed to the Parliament and Commission – Response – Decision to take no further action – Appeal manifestly unfounded and manifestly inadmissible

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 20)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law – Failure of the Parliament and the Commission to examine a petition submitted by the appellant – Claims inconsistent with the body of the application brought before the General Court – No error (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU) (see paras 21-23)

3. 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 TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 30)

4. Actions for failure to act – Jurisdiction of the Union judicature – Directions issued to an institution – Not permissible (Art. 265 TFEU) (see para. 38)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2010 in Case T‑61/10 Victoria Sánchez v Parliament and Commission , by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking a declaration that the European Parliament and the European Commission had failed to act, in that they unlawfully abstained from replying to the letter of 6 October 2009 sent by the appellant, an application for the issue of directions and a request for protective measures.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 —

Fidelio v OHIM



(Case C-87/11 P)

Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c) — Word mark Hallux — Refusal to register — Absolute ground for refusal — 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 — Separate consideration of the pleas in law having regard to every one of the products or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Extent (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 73) (see para. 43)

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. 59)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Case T‑286/08 Fidelio v OHIM , by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 concerning registration of the word sign Hallux as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 10 and 25 (orthopaedic articles and footwear) — Distinctive character of a word sign meaning ‘big toe’ in Latin.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court 29 March 2012 —

Gollnisch v Parliament



(Case C‑570/11 P(R))

Appeal — Interim measures — Privileges and immunities — Waiving of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Interest in obtaining suspension

Application for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Request seeking suspension of the operation of a negative administrative decision — Decision of the European Parliament refusing a request for the defence of the immunity of one of its Members — Suspension incapable of altering the applicant’s situation — No legal interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 13-15)

Re:

Appeal brought against the Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 in Case T‑347/11 R Gollnisch v Parliament , dismissing as inadmissible the application for suspension of the operation of a measure.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 —

Deichmann v OHIM



(Case C-307/11 P)

Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines

1. 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)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T‑202/09 Deichmann SE v OHIM , by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2009 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision, which refused registration of the figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 10 and 25 — Distinctive character of the mark.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the President of the Court of 8 June 2012 —

Schenker v Air France and Commission

(Case C-589/11 P(I))

Appeals — Intervention — Interest in the result of the case

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)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2011 in Case T-63/11 Air France 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:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2012 –

Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission



(Case C-554/11 P)

Appeal – Access to documents – Refusal of full access to documents relating to contract LIEN 97-2011 – Action for annulment– Fresh examination in the course of proceedings – Bringing a separate annulment action

1. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Failure to identify the error of law relied on – Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112, paragraph 1(c); Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 50 and 55) (see paras 35-37)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea directed against the decision of the General Court on costs – Inadmissible where all the other grounds have been dismissed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, second para) (see paras 38, 39)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission , by which the General Court ordered that there was no longer any need to give a ruling on the applicant’s form of order seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 14 February 2005, rejecting its request for access to the file relating to contract LIEN 97-2011 – Procedural irregularities before the General Court – Failure to deal with Cases T-141/05 RENV and T-36/10 in a coordinated manner – Burden and amount of costs

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Particularly important principle of European Union social law

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 31(2); European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7(1))

2. Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Purpose

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7(1))

3. Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Entitlement to paid annual leave — National provisions or collective agreements under which it is not possible for a worker who is on sick leave during a period of annual leave to take that annual leave at another time — Incompatibility with Union law — Scheduling of leave, taking into account the workers’ interests

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7(1))

4. Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Interpretation of national legislation that permits the payment of an allowance in lieu of the period of annual leave which the worker was not able to take as a result of work incapacity — Incompatibility with Union law

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7)

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 16, 17, 24)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 18, 19)

3. Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of the national legislation according to which a worker who is on sick leave during a period of annual leave scheduled unilaterally in the annual leave planning schedule of the undertaking which employs him does not have the right, following the end of his sick leave, to take his annual leave at a time other than that originally scheduled, if necessary outside the corresponding reference period, for reasons connected with production or organisation of the undertaking.

If the interests of the undertaking preclude acceptance of the worker’s request for a new period of annual leave, the employer is obliged to grant the worker a different period of annual leave proposed by him which is compatible with those interests.

(see paras 21, 23, 25, operative part 1)

4. Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of the national legislation that permits, while the contract of employment is in force, the payment of an allowance in lieu of the period of annual leave which the worker was not able to take as a result of work incapacity.

(see para. 30, operative part 2)
In accordance with Article 256(1) TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, appeals must be limited to questions of law. The General Court has exclusive jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence. The appraisal of those facts and the assessment of that evidence thus do not, save where the facts or evidence are distorted, constitute points of law subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal.

The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark must, in relation to the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant elements. In particular, the Court has held that the assessment of the similarity between two marks cannot be confined to taking account of only one component of a complex mark and comparing it with another mark, but that a comparison must be carried out wherein each of the marks in question is examined as a whole. It is true that, in certain circumstances, the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a complex mark may be dominated by one or more of its components, such that, if all of the other components of the mark are negligible, the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on basis of the dominant element. However, it cannot be deduced from that case-law concerning exceptional situations that only the distinctive element of a mark composed of a descriptive element and a distinctive element is decisive when assessing whether there is a likelihood of confusion.

(see paras 42-44)