ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 February 2006 in Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05

TEA-CEGOS and Others

v

Commission

dismissing the application for annulment, first, of the Commission’s decisions of 12 October 2005 rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicants in the context of the procedure for the call for tenders bearing the reference ‘EuropeAid/119860/C/SV/multi-Lot 7’ and, second, of any other decision taken by the Commission in the context of the same call for tenders following the decisions of 12 October 2005.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2007 – Koval’ský v Mesto Prešov and Dopravný podnik Mesta Prešov

(Case C‑302/06)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protocol to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – Property law – Electrical installations on private land without compensation for the owners – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 15-22)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Krajský súd v Prešove – Interpretation of Article 6 EU and Article 1 of the Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Paris on 20 March 1952 – Property law – National legislation under which electrical installations may be placed on private land without the owners being entitled to compensation.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Krajský súd v Prešove V by decisions of 2 May and 21 July 2006.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2007 – Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova v Euricom

(Case C‑505/06)

First paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Community Customs Code – Inward processing – Association Agreement – Prior export of rice to a non‑member country bound by a preferential customs agreement – Article 216 of the Customs Code

Customs union – Customs debt arising where preferential tariff treatment obtained in a non-member country (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 115(1)(b) and 216) (see para. 26, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova – Interpretation of Article 114, Article 115(1) and (3) and Article 216 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) – Rice exported under inward processing arrangements to a third country with which there is an agreement for preferential customs treatment.

Operative part

Article 216 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, is applicable to the inward processing operations referred to in Article 115(1)(b) of that regulation in which compensating products have been exported from the Community before importation of the import goods.
INFORMATION ON UNPUBLISHED DECISIONS 
Re: 
FAILURE of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the 
period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/49/EC of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the 
Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of 
railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway 
infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway 
infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) (OJ 2004 L 164, 
p. 44). 
Operative part 
1. By failing to bring into force all the laws, regulations and administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/49/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the 
Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the 
licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the 
allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for 
the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety 
Directive), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations 
under that directive; 
2. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs. 
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2007 — 
Lavagnoli v Commission 
(Case C-74/07 P) 
Appeal — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Annulment of the list of 
promoted officials — Award of priority points 
I - 160* 
INFORMATION ON UNPUBLISHED DECISIONS 
Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art 
225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the 
Court, Art 112(1)(c)) (see paras 20-29) 
Re: 
APPEAL brought against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2006 by the 
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) (T-422/04) Lavagnoli v Commission, in 
which the Court of First Instance dismissed the present appellant's action for 
annulment of the list of officials promoted in 2003, on the ground that his name was 
not included on that list, and the annulment of preparatory documents relating to 
that decision, and in the alternative, annulment of the decision allocating promotion 
points in the context of those promotions, with regard to the appellant. 
Operative part 
1. Appeal dismissed; 
2. Mr Lavagnoli is ordered to pay the costs. 
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2007 — 
Commission v Spain 
(Case C-59/07) 
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/109/EC — Status of 
third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Failure to transpose within 
the prescribed period 
1. Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by Member States 
(Art 249, third para., EC) (see para. 19) 
I - 161*
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Time-limit for instituting proceedings

–

Claim barred by lapse of time

–

Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, para. 2; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 37(6) and 81(2)) (see paras 7, 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2007, Sellier v Commission (T-276/06), whereby the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action by the applicant for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 14 July 2006 to take no action on his complaint alleging that French legislation concerning the deposit of funds held by notaries with certain banking establishments was contrary to Community law.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Mr Sellier ordered to bear his own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Turnover taxes

–

Common system of value added tax

–

Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(d)(3)) (see paras 22, 24-25, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Cour d’appel de Bruxelles – Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(3) 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) – Exemptions in relation to transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts and payments – Bets, lotteries and other games of chance or forms of gambling – Supply of services by intermediaries responsible for collecting the bets on behalf of a principal and, where appropriate, for paying out winnings to bettors – Whether eligible for the exemption provided for in Article 13(B)(d)(3)?

Operative part

Operative part

The terms ‘transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts and payments’ used in Article 13B(d)(3) 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 are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not refer to the supply of services by an agent acting on behalf of a client which carries out the activity of accepting bets on horse races and other sporting events, consisting of acceptance by the agent of bets on behalf of the client, registration thereof, confirmation to the client, by presentation of the betting slip, that a bet was made, collection of funds, payment of winnings, the sole assumption of liability as regards the client for the management of the funds collected and for thefts and/or losses of money and where the agent receives remuneration in the form of commission from the client in return for that activity.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons

–

Workers

–

Right of members of the family to take paid employment

–

Community legislation

–

Inapplicable in a situation which is purely internal to a Member State (European Parliament and Council Directive No 2004/38, Art. 23) (see paras 15, 19-20

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal administratif de Paris – Interpretation of Article 23 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the rights of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and corrigenda OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35, and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34) – Mutual recognition of diplomas and freedom of establishment – Obligation to take account of all the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications and of the relevant experience of the person concerned – Situation of a national of a non-member State, the holder of a degree in medicine issued by that non-member State and recognised by a Member State, wishing to obtain authorisation to practise her profession as a doctor in another Member State where she resides lawfully with her spouse, a Community national.

Operative part

Operative part:

Article 23 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the rights of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC does not preclude a Member State from refusing to allow a national of a non-Member State, who is married to a Community national who has not exercised his right to freedom of movement, to rely on the Community rules relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas and to the freedom of establishment, and does not require the competent authorities of the Member State, from which authorisation to practise a regulated profession is sought, to take into consideration all the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, even if they were obtained outside the European Union, unless they have been recognised in another Member State, and the relevant experience of the person concerned, by comparing the specialised knowledge and abilities certified by those diplomas and that experience with the knowledge and qualifications required by the national rules.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Admissibility

–

Questions referred without sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context (Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 14-18

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Preliminary ruling – Tribunale civile di Genova – Interpretation of Article 86(2) EC – Concept of aid – Fee imposed on all owners of televisual appliances for the purpose of financing the public television broadcasting service – Validity of Commission Decision C(2005) 1164 final of 20 April 2005 declaring that fee to be compatible with the common market.

Operative part

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling brought by the Tribunale ordinario di Genova by decision of 16 June 2007 is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 September 2012 — TDK Kabushiki Kaisha v Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001

(Case C-197/07 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Notion — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Scope (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 12)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 15-16)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2008, in Case C-197/07 P, Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v OHIM - TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.).

Operative part

The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 to TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.) in Case C-197/07 P is fixed at GBP 6000.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 September 2012 — TDK Kabushiki Kaisha v Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001

(Case C-197/07 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Notion — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Scope (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 12)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 15-16)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2008, in Case C-197/07 P, Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v OHIM - TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.).

Operative part

The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 to TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.) in Case C-197/07 P is fixed at GBP 6000.
Case C-132/07

Beecham Group plc and Others

v

Andacon NV

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel)

‛Removal from the register’

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 8 April 2008 I ‐ 1776

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court, 12 March 2009 I ‐ 1792
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

9 November 2007

Case C-74/07 P

Luciano Lavagnoli

v

Commission of the European Communities





(Appeals – Promotion – 2003 promotion procedure – Annulment of the list of promoted officials – Award of priority points)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2006 in Case T-422/04 Lavagnoli v Commission (not published in the ECR) in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the present appellant’s action for annulment of the list of officials promoted in 2003, on the ground that his name was not included on that list, and the annulment of preparatory documents relating to that decision, and in the alternative, annulment of the decision allocating promotion points in the context of those promotions, with regard to the appellant.

Held: Appeal dismissed. Mr Lavagnoli is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Appeals – Ground– Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility

(Art. 225 EC; Statuteof the Court ofJustice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court,Art. 112(1)(c))
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 April 2008 – Club Náutico de Gran Canaria v Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias

(Case C‑186/07)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Services connected with the practice of sport or physical education – Application to the Canary Islands – Purely internal situation – Referral – Manifest inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Sixth Directive – Territorial scope (Council Directive 77/388) (see para. 18)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias – Interpretation of the judgment of the Court in Case C‑124/96 which found that national legislation placing restrictions on exemption from VAT of certain services closely connected with the practice of sport or physical education is incompatible with Article 13A(1)(m) 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) – Application to the Canary Islands.

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias by decision of 26 November 2006 is inadmissible.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

28 November 2008

Case C-526/07 P

Philippe Combescot

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Officials – Appointment to the post of Head of Delegation in Colombia – Exclusion from competition – Application for damages – Determination of the extent of compensation – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-250/04 Combescot v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000 by which that Court dismissed the appellant’s application for recognition that the decision excluding him from the competition for appointment to the post of Head of Delegation in Colombia was unlawful, dismissed the application for annulment of the procedure of that competition and of the decision making the appointment to the post concerned, and held that there was only non-material damage, rejecting the claim for compensation for the other heads of damage raised by the appellant.

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

Summary

1. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

2. Appeals –Grounds– Inadequate statement of reasons
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Provisions of the Treaty – Inapplicable in a situation which is purely internal to a Member State (Arts 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) (see paras 19-24, operative part 1)

2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 27-28)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich – Interpretation of the fundamental principles of the EC and EU Treaties and the fundamental freedoms thereunder, as well as Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National legislation establishing a permit system for establishing, operating and managing a driving school and establishing a diploma requirement – Discrimination against own nationals as compared to nationals of other Member States who avail themselves of their rights under Community law and who do not necessarily have to satisfy the diploma requirement.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Articles 23 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State which, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, refuses to recognise professional qualifications acquired by a national of that Member State as equivalent to the possession of the diploma required by that legislation for the purposes of operating a driving school as an independent operator in that Member State.

2. The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the second and third questions referred by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

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. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 November 2007 in Case T-459/05 MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM ( manufacturing score card ), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 October 2005, which rejected the appeal against the decision of the examiner refusing registration of the word mark ‘manufacturing score card’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 – Distinctive character of a word mark consisting of words each of which is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods or services concerned.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. MPDV Mikrolab GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 February 2009 — Giannini v Commission

(Case C-231/08 P)

‛Appeal — Community civil service — Right to a fair hearing — Infringement of Articles 4, 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations — Principle of non-discrimination — Interest of the service and duty of care — Distortion of the evidence and rules on evidence — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part’

1. Procedure — Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance — Reasonable time — Criteria for assessment — Consequences (see para. 30)

2. 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)(c)) (see paras 43-45)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken 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 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 62, 63, 68)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2008 in Case T-100/04 Gianniani v Commission in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the appellant’s application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/A/9/01, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators in the fields of economics and statistics, not to include his name on the competition reserve list and for damages to be awarded — Infringement of the right to a fair hearing by reason of the excessive length of the procedure — Infringement of Articles 4, 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations and the concepts of interest of the service and duty of care — Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and the rules on evidence.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.