ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 20 October 2009 in Case T-249/09

Ségaud

v

Commission

, by which that court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and as quite unfounded in law the appellant’s action, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 May 2009 refusing to bring infringement proceedings against the French Republic pursuant to Article 226 EC and, secondly, for compensation for the damage allegedly sustained as a result of that refusal.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

–

Admissibility

–

Questions asked without enough detail given of the facts

–

Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 9-12, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Apel Secţia Bacău Secţia Comercială, Contencios Administrativ şi Fiscal – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax on vehicles on their first registration in a Member State – Compatibility of the national rules with Article 110 TFEU – Discrimination in relation to second-hand vehicles already registered in the territory of that Member State and not subject to that tax on a subsequent sale or new registration.

Operative part

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Curtea de Apel Bacău by decision of 1 September 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Almamet GmbH Handel mit Spänen und Pulvern aus Metall shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Weighing up all the interests involved – Order of assessment and method of verification – Discretion of the court dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice Art. 83(2)) (see paras 19-21)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 30-31)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Judgment of the General Court against which an appeal has been brought – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – No administrative proceedings brought relating to the application of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents (Art. 278 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see para. 32)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2010 in Case T-237/05 Éditions Jacob v Commission , by which that court annulled the Commission’s decision of 7 April 2005 (D(2005)3286), to the extent that it refuses the appellant access to the documents concerning merger control proceedings COMP/M.2978 Lagardère/Natexis/VUP – Documents relating to merger control procedures – Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations – Duty of the institution concerned to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the application for access.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. EMC Development AB shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union – National decision not constituting a measure implementing Union law or demonstrating that it is connected in any other way to the latter – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 15-16, 19)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Examination of the compatibility of national law with Union law – Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 24-31)

Subject of the case

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal de première instance de Namur – Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 6(1) TEU and of Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Whether national legislation permitting the production, import, promotion and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco, recognised to be seriously harmful, is compatible with the object of protecting human health – Whether the provisions of national law authorising the levying of excise duty on tobacco products are valid in the light of the [EU] rules cited.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union is manifestly incompetent to reply to the questions referred by the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) by decisions of 24 March 2010.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Uniform legislation – Industrial and commercial property – Patent law – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Conditions for granting – Product covered by a basic patent in force

(European Parliament and Council Directive 469/2009, Art. 3(a))

Summary

Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as precluding the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate where the active ingredient specified in the application for such a certificate, even though identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent as an active ingredient forming part of a combination in conjunction with another active ingredient, is not the subject of any claim relating to that active ingredient alone.

(see para. 39, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

–

Designs

–

Directive 98/71

–

Principle of the cumulation of the protection of designs with the protection of copyright

–

National legislation excluding entirely, or within the limits of prior use, from protection by copyright, designs that entered the public domain before that legislation entered into force, with regard to third parties having manufactured and marketed products made following those designs

–

Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Directive 98/71, Art. 17) (see paras 24-28, 32-34, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Corte d’appello di Milano – Interpretation of Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs – National legislation transposing the directive into national law by introducing copyright protection for designs – Right of a Member State to extend the conditions for the grant of such protection.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 17 of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which excludes, either entirely or within the limits of prior use, from protection by the law of copyright of that Member State designs which entered the public domain before that legislation entered into force, with regard to all third parties who have previously manufactured or marketed in the national territory products based on those designs before that date.
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 (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 9, operative part 3)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 May 2010 – Hansen v Commission

(Case C‑26/10 P)

Appeal – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure – Application seeking to have the Commission bring infringement proceedings – Application for directions addressed to the Commission – Adoption of measures intended to ensure equal treatment for handicapped persons in the sphere of employment – Clear inadmissibility of the appeal

Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(1)(c)) (see paras 7-11)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 17 November 2009 in Case T‑295/09 Hansen v Commission , by which that court dismissed as manifestly inadmissble an action seeking a declaration of failure to act by the Commission in that the latter had failed to bring proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC against the Kingdom of Sweden, and seeking an order that the Commission exercise its right of initiative, adopt measures and support initiatives intended to promote the right of handicapped persons to equal treatment and non-discrimination in their professional lives.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2010 – Ioan Anghel v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Bacău and Administraţia Finanţelor Publice Bacău

(Case C-441/10)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Failure to provide a factual description – Inadmissibility

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions asked without enough detail given of the facts – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 9-12, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Apel Secţia Bacău Secţia Comercială, Contencios Administrativ şi Fiscal – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax on vehicles on their first registration in a Member State – Compatibility of the national rules with Article 110 TFEU – Discrimination in relation to second-hand vehicles already registered in the territory of that Member State and not subject to that tax on a subsequent sale or new registration.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Curtea de Apel Bacău by decision of 1 September 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2011 – Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob

(Case C-404/10 P-R)

Application for interim measures – Access to documents of the institutions – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to a procedure concerning a merger between undertakings – Commission decision – Access to documents refused – Judgment of the General Court – Annulment of the Commission decision – Application for suspension of operation of the General Court’s judgment – Urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Weighing up all the interests involved – Order of assessment and method of verification – Discretion of the court dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice Art. 83(2)) (see paras 19-21)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 30-31)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Judgment of the General Court against which an appeal has been brought – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – No administrative proceedings brought relating to the application of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents (Art. 278 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see para. 32)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2010 in Case T-237/05 Éditions Jacob v Commission , by which that court annulled the Commission’s decision of 7 April 2005 (D(2005)3286), to the extent that it refuses the appellant access to the documents concerning merger control proceedings COMP/M.2978 Lagardère/Natexis/VUP – Documents relating to merger control procedures – Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations – Duty of the institution concerned to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the application for access.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2010 in Case T-233/08

MPDV Mikrolab

v

OHIM

, by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision to refuse registration of the word sign ‘ROI ANALYZER’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 – Distinctive character of the mark.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2011 – Rossius and Collard v État belge

(Joined Cases C-267/10 and C-268/10)

Article 6(1) TEU – Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Possession and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco – National legislation authorising the levying of excise – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union – National decision not constituting a measure implementing Union law or demonstrating that it is connected in any other way to the latter – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 15-16, 19)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Examination of the compatibility of national law with Union law – Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 24-31)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal de première instance de Namur – Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 6(1) TEU and of Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Whether national legislation permitting the production, import, promotion and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco, recognised to be seriously harmful, is compatible with the object of protecting human health – Whether the provisions of national law authorising the levying of excise duty on tobacco products are valid in the light of the [EU] rules cited.

Operative part
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2011 – Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA

(Case C-626/10 P)

Appeal – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Article 4(1)(b) and (2), first indent – Protection of private life and integrity of the individual – Protection of commercial interests – Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 – Executive agencies – Competence to handle confirmatory requests regarding applications for access to documents – Principle of transparency – ‘Overriding public interest’ – Errors of law

1. Appeals – Pleas in law – Necessity of a specific challenge to a point in the General Court’s reasoning (Art. 256 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. 60)

2. Procedure – Statement of reasons for judgments – Scope (see para. 87)

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – 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 para. 107)

4. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Measure not notified to the applicant – Duty to request the whole text of the decision within a reasonable time once aware of its existence (Art. 230, fifth para, EC) (see paras 127, 131)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 October 2010 in Case T‑439/08 Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA , by which that court dismissed the action brought by the applicant seeking annulment, first, of the decision of EACEA of 1 August 2008 relating to an application for access to documents concerning the allocation of a Jean Monnet centre of excellence to the University of Cyprus and, second, of Commission Decision C(2007) 3749 of 8 August 2007 relating to an individual decision to allocate subsidies in the context of the lifelong learning programme, a Jean Monnet sub-programme – Infringement of the right of access to documents and of the principle of transparency – Errors of law.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2011 – Wilfer v OHIM

(Case C-546/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Figurative sign representing the headstock of a guitar – Refusal to register – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctiveness – Examination of the facts ex officio – Articles 7(1)(b) and 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Admissibility of evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court – Equality of treatment

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action brought before the Union judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – General Court taking into consideration evidence relating to matters not previously submitted to the bodies of the Office – Excluded (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 63 and 74(1)) (see para. 41)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Figurative mark consisting of the two-dimensional representation of a product – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 58-59)

3. 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 paras 62, 64)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2010 in Case T‑458/08 Wilfer 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 25 July 2008, dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing in part registration of the figurative sign representing the headstock of a guitar coloured silver, grey and brown as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 9 to 15 – Distinctiveness of a figurative sign consisting of the two-dimensional representation of part of the product.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

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.

Operative part

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.
Keywords



Keywords

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)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Victoria Sánchez is ordered to pay the costs.