ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 — Verenigde Douaneagenten v Commission

(Case C-173/12 P)

‛Appeal — Article 220(2) of the Customs Code — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Incorrect presentation of the facts — Import of raw cane sugar’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Erroneous 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(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 26, 27, 38, 39, 43, 44, 47, 48)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Ground lacking precision — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)) (see para. 33)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 February 2012 in Case T-32/11 Verenigde Douaneagenten v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed in part the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 6754 final of 1 October 2010 finding that there should be post clearance recovery of import duties and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (REC 02/09).

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Verenigde Douaneagenten BV is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 — Verenigde Douaneagenten v Commission

(Case C-173/12 P)

‛Appeal — Article 220(2) of the Customs Code — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Incorrect presentation of the facts — Import of raw cane sugar’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Erroneous 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(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 26, 27, 38, 39, 43, 44, 47, 48)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Ground lacking precision — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)) (see para. 33)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 February 2012 in Case T-32/11 Verenigde Douaneagenten v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed in part the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 6754 final of 1 October 2010 finding that there should be post clearance recovery of import duties and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (REC 02/09).

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Tam

(Case C-74/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Preliminary rulings — 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, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 5-7)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 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) and of Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a third-country national who has entered or stayed in the country illegally — Admissibility of the criminal offence of illegal stay — Possibility of substituting the fine with an order for expulsion with immediate effect for a period of at least five years or with a home detention (‘permanenza domiciliare’) sentence — Obligations of the Member States during the period prescribed for the transposition of a directive.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Tam

(Case C-74/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Preliminary rulings — 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, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 5-7)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 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) and of Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a third-country national who has entered or stayed in the country illegally — Admissibility of the criminal offence of illegal stay — Possibility of substituting the fine with an order for expulsion with immediate effect for a period of at least five years or with a home detention (‘permanenza domiciliare’) sentence — Obligations of the Member States during the period prescribed for the transposition of a directive.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Examination of the compatibility of national law with EU law — Not included — Providing the national court with full guidance on the interpretation of EU law — Included (Art. 267 TFEU) (para. 10)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the national dispute bearing no link to EU law — National legislation on legal expenses which provides that a lawyer’s fees are to be reduced by half where he accepts to represent clients who have been granted legal aid — Legislation which does not implement EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 12-16)

Subject of the case

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Legal aid — National legislation providing that consultancy fees are to be reduced by half where the client has been granted legal aid.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Rejection, at any time, by reasoned order without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 181) (see para. 16)

2. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Examination of the general characteristics of a State aid regime — Lawfulness — Obligation on the Member States to assess the individual situation of each undertaking concerned when recovering aid granted unlawfully (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 25-28)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 in Case T 264/00 Compagnia Generale delle Acque v Commission , by which that court dismissed an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws No 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) — Whether intra Community trade is affected — Impact on competition — Extent of control — Burden of proof — Duty to state reasons.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Arav v H.Eich and OHIM (Case C-379/12 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark H.EICH — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier figurative mark H- SILVIAN HEACH — Refusal of registration’

1. 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. 41)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite trade mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 44)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2012 in Case T-557/10 H.Eich v OHIM — Arav, by which the General Court annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Arav Holding Srl and H.Eich Srl (Case R 1411/2009-1) — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect appraisal of the similarity of the marks at issue — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Arav Holding Srl is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Arav v H.Eich and OHIM (Case C-379/12 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark H.EICH — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier figurative mark H- SILVIAN HEACH — Refusal of registration’

1. 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. 41)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite trade mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 44)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2012 in Case T-557/10 H.Eich v OHIM — Arav, by which the General Court annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Arav Holding Srl and H.Eich Srl (Case R 1411/2009-1) — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect appraisal of the similarity of the marks at issue — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 — Nagy and Others

(Joined Cases C‑488/12 to C‑491/12 and C‑526/12)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Failure to implement EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the national dispute bearing no link to EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 15-18)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Debreceni munkaügyi bíróság — Interpretation of Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without reasons being given — Official of a public administrative body dismissed on the basis of a provision of national legislation on the status of officials.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Debreceni munkaügyi bíróság (Hungary).

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 — Nagy and Others

(Joined Cases C‑488/12 to C‑491/12 and C‑526/12)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Failure to implement EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the national dispute bearing no link to EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 15-18)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Debreceni munkaügyi bíróság — Interpretation of Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without reasons being given — Official of a public administrative body dismissed on the basis of a provision of national legislation on the status of officials.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Debreceni munkaügyi bíróság (Hungary).
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 —

Tam



(Case C-74/12)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility

Preliminary rulings — 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, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 5-7)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 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) and of Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a third-country national who has entered or stayed in the country illegally — Admissibility of the criminal offence of illegal stay — Possibility of substituting the fine with an order for expulsion with immediate effect for a period of at least five years or with a home detention (‘permanenza domiciliare’) sentence — Obligations of the Member States during the period prescribed for the transposition of a directive.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.
2.

That amount shall bear a rate of interest equal to that applied by the European Central Bank to its own main refinancing operations as in force on the first day of the month in which payment becomes due, which shall be the date on which this Order is served, increased by three and a half percentage points, and this from that date and until the total amount of the costs has been paid.
Order of the President of the Court of 25 October 2012 — Hassan v Council



(Case C-168/12 P(R))

Appeal – Application for interim measures – Restrictive measures against Syria – Freezing of funds and economic resources – Application for suspension of operation and interim measures – Lack of any urgency

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests at issue – Order of priority of examination and method of verification – Assessment to be made by the court hearing an application for interim measures (Art. 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83, second para; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Article 104, second para) (see paras 22-25)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Harm caused by the measures freezing funds and economic resources – Evidence capable of proving such harm (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 27, 28, 33, 38-40, 60)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Unrepairable nature of the harm – Assessment solely on the basis of the uncertainty of obtaining compensation for pecuniary damage if an action for damages is brought — Not permissible (Art. 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83, second para) (see paras 77-81)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2012 in Case T-572/11 R Hassan v Council , rejecting the application for interim measures, in particular an application for suspension of the implementation of Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 20), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1), in so far as they concern the appellant.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
15

Article 698 of the Civil Procedure Code states: ‘1. Any application made by a debtor, third-party holder or other interested party, which is not covered by the preceding articles, including applications concerning nullity of title, maturity, certainty, extinguishment or the amount of the debt, shall be settled by an appropriate judgment, without ever having the effect of staying or terminating the judicial enforcement proceedings provided for in the present chapter. … 2. Upon submission of the application referred to in the preceding paragraph or in the course of the subsequent proceedings, and in order to secure the effectiveness of the decision to be taken in those proceedings, retention of all or part of the amount to be paid to the creditor in accordance with the procedure laid down in the present chapter may be requested. The court shall order such retention on the basis of the documents submitted if it considers the grounds asserted to be sufficient. If the party seeking retention clearly lacks adequate funds, the court may first require him to provide a sufficient security in respect of default interest and any compensation for other damage the creditor may suffer. 3. If the creditor provides a reasonable security for the amount ordered to be retained as a result of the proceedings referred to in the first paragraph, the retention shall be revoked.’
Case C‑258/13

Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio Lda

v

Instituto da Segurança Social IP

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the 5a Vara Cível de Lisboa)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy — Legal persons pursuing a commercial objective — Legal aid — No link with EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Summary — Order of the Court (Second Chamber), 28 November 2013

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 — Object of the dispute not presenting any link to EU law — National legislation preventing legal persons pursuing a commercial objective from accessing legal aid — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47 and 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2); Council Directive 2003/8)

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 18-23)

Case C‑258/13

Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio Lda

v

Instituto da Segurança Social IP

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the 5a Vara Cível de Lisboa)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy — Legal persons pursuing a commercial objective — Legal aid — No link with EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Summary — Order of the Court (Second Chamber), 28 November 2013

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 — Object of the dispute not presenting any link to EU law — National legislation preventing legal persons pursuing a commercial objective from accessing legal aid — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47 and 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2); Council Directive 2003/8)

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 18-23)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

—

Jurisdiction of the Court

—

Limits

—

Subject-matter of the national dispute bearing no link to EU law

—

Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51) (see paras 23-33, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 21(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 67 TFEU and 72 TFEU and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 45(1) of the Charter — Citizenship of the European Union — Free movement of persons — Derogations — National rules permitting a person to be detained by the police in order to establish his identity when that person refuses or is unable to prove his identity — Detention of a maximum of 24 hours — Check not justified on grounds of public order, prevention of criminal activity or domestic security — Discretionary power of the police — Lack of obligation to assess the need to establish the person’s identity.

Operative part

Operative part:

It is clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) by decision of 17 December 2012 (Case C-14/13).