ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Intervention – Interested persons – Proceedings relating to the annulment of a Council decision on the processing and transfer of personal data by air carriers – European Data Protection Supervisor – Admissibility – Conditions

(Art. 286(2) EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 45/2001, Art. 47(1)(i))

Summary

Article 47(1)(i) of Regulation No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data confers on the European Data Supervisor a right to intervene in actions brought before the Court of Justice, which is circumscribed within the limits of the task entrusted to him.

Under Article 41(2) of Regulation No 45/2001, that task is advisory in nature and concerns the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and also the duties provided for in Article 46 of that regulation and the power conferred on the Data Protection Supervisor by Article 47 of the regulation.

Accordingly, the intervention of the European Supervisor in a case having as its subject‑matter a Council measure concerning the processing of personal data by air carriers must be considered admissible, in so far as it relates to a situation coming within his task.

(see paras 14-18)
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 2006 – Deutsche Post and DHL Express (formerly DHL International) v Commission

(Case C-367/04 P)

Appeal – Aid granted by the Italian authorities to Poste Italiane)

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 87(1) EC, 88(2) EC, and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 37-38, 40-42, 50-51)

2. Appeals – Grounds – 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) (see para. 43)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 27 May 2004 in Case T-358/02 Deutsche Post and DHL International v Commission dismissing as inadmissible the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/782/EC of 12 March 2002 on the aid granted by Italy to Poste Italiane SpA (formerly Ente Poste Italiane) (OJ 2002 L 282, p. 29)

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Deutsche Post AG and DHL Express (Italy) Srl, formerly DHL International Srl, to pay the costs;
Case C-318/04

European Parliament

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Intervention)

Order of the Court (Grand Chamber), 17 March 2005.

Summary of the order

Procedure – Intervention – Interested persons – Proceedings relating to the annulment of a Council decision on the processing and transfer of personal data by air carriers – European Data Protection Supervisor – Admissibility – Conditions

(Art. 286(2) EC; European Council and Parliament Regulation No 45/2001, Art. 47(1)(i))

Article 47(1)(i) of Regulation No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data confers on the European Data Supervisor a right to intervene in actions brought before the Court of Justice, which is circumscribed within the limits of the task entrusted to him.

Under Article 41(2) of Regulation No 45/2001, that task is advisory in nature and concerns the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and also the duties provided for in Article 46 of that regulation and the power conferred on the Data Protection Supervisor by Article 47 of the regulation.

Accordingly, the intervention of the European Supervisor in a case having as its subject‑matter a Council measure concerning the processing of personal data by air carriers must be considered admissible, in so far as it relates to a situation coming within his task.

(see paras 14-18)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Obligation on the Court of First Instance to initiate the oral procedure before giving a ruling on a plea of inadmissibility – None (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114(4)) (see para. 26)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Ground having no connection to the pleas raised before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 42(2)) (see para. 36)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para.,, EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/15) (see paras 37, 56)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2004 in Case T-196/03 EFfCI v European Parliament and Council – Admissibility of an action for partial annulment of Article 1 of Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 2003 L 66, p. 26) – Person directly and individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 40)

2. Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts by the Court of First Instance – Possible only when the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 45)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2004 in Case T-8/03 El Corte Inglés v OHIM – Pucci , dismissing an action for the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 3 October 2002, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division partially rejecting the opposition brought against the application for registration of the figurative Community trade mark ‘EMILIO PUCCI’ for goods in Classes 3, 18, 24 and 25.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay 80% of the costs;

3. Orders OHIM to pay 20% of the costs.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2007 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case C-373/05 P)

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2007 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case C-373/05 P)

‛Appeal — Officials — Decision not to promote an official to Grade LA 5 — Previous complaint — Identity of subject-matter and legal basis — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

Officials — Action — Previous administrative complaint — None — Inadmissible (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(2) (see paras 24-27)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case T-377/04 Nijs v Court of Auditors, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors not to promote the appellant to the post of translator-reviser (LA 5) in the 2003 promotion exercise.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Nijs to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2007 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case C-373/05 P)

‛Appeal — Officials — Decision not to promote an official to Grade LA 5 — Previous complaint — Identity of subject-matter and legal basis — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

Officials — Action — Previous administrative complaint — None — Inadmissible (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(2) (see paras 24-27)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case T-377/04 Nijs v Court of Auditors, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors not to promote the appellant to the post of translator-reviser (LA 5) in the 2003 promotion exercise.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Free movement of goods

–

Community transit

–

External Community transit (Council Regulations No 222/77, Art. 36(3), and No 2726/90, Art. 34; Commission Regulations No 1062/87, Art. 11a, and No 1214/92, Art. 49) (see paras 21-26, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Hof van Cassatie van België – Interpretation of Art. 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1), inserted by Art. 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 (OJ 1990 L 137, p. 1), Art. 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2726/90 of 17 September 1990 on Community transit (OJ 1990 L 262, p. 1) and Art. 49 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1992 L 132, p. 1) – Recovery of import duties – Notification addressed, by the office of departure, to the principal inviting him to furnish proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place of the offence – Failure to notify time-limit – Consequences in terms of the validity of the notification and the recovery of the customs debt.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 36(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 222/77 of 13 December 1976 on Community transit, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 474/90 of 22 February 1990, with a view to abolishing lodgement of the transit advice note on crossing an internal frontier of the Community, read in conjunction with Article 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990, and Article 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2726/90 of 17 September 1990 on Community transit, read in conjunction with Article 49 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure, must be interpreted as meaning that the office of departure must notify to the declarer the period of three months in which proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or the irregularity was actually committed may be furnished to that office, to the satisfaction of the competent authorities, so that the competent authority can proceed with recovery only after having expressly indicated to the declarer that the latter has three months in which to furnish that proof, and that that proof has not been furnished within that period.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 September 2006.

Operative part

Operative part

The total amount of the costs which El Corte Inglés SA must reimburse to Emilio Pucci Srl is fixed at EUR 5 600.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2006 – Schmidt-Brown v Commission

(Case C-365/05 P)

Appeal – Officials – Duty to provide assistance – Rejection of request for financial assistance in defamation proceedings brought before the United Kingdom courts

Appeal – Grounds – Clearly inadmissible or clearly unfounded pleas (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 119; Staff Regulations, Art. 24) (see paras 61, 68, 78-82)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 July 2005 in Case T-387/02 Schmidt-Brown v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 April 2002 rejecting the applicant’s request for financial assistance from the Commission in a defamation action brought by the applicant against a company before the High Court of Justice (England and Wales).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2006 – Criminal proceedings against Stefan Kremer

(Case C-340/05)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 91/439/EEC – Mutual recognition of driving licences – Withdrawal of licence in one Member State – Licence issued in another Member State – Refusal to recognise the right to drive in the first Member State – Requirement of compliance with national conditions for obtaining a new licence following a withdrawal

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Driving licences – Directive 91/439 (Council Directive 91/439, Arts 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) (see para. 38 and operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Oberlandsgericht München – Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) – Refusal to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State, raised against a holder whose national licence was withdrawn without a prohibition period due to repeated offences under the highway code – Obligation to provide beforehand a medical-psychological opinion attesting to aptitude to drive.

Operative part

The combined provisions of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997, preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise, on its territory, the right to drive resulting from a driving licence issued in another Member State and, accordingly, the validity of that licence so long as the holder of that licence, whose previous licence in the territory of the first Member State was withdrawn without a measure prohibiting the holder from obtaining a new licence for a given period, has not complied with the conditions required under the laws of that first Member State for the issuing of a new licence following that withdrawal, including a driving test designed to establish that the reasons for that withdrawal have ceased.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 October 2007 – Olsen v Commission

(Case C‑320/05 P)

Appeal – State aid – Maritime transport – Maritime cabotage – Existing aid – New aid – Aid that may be declared compatible with the common market – Service of general economic interest – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. 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(1), EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 47, 69-70)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law made by the Court of First Instance – Whether admissible (Art. 225(1), EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 48-50)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of refusal by the Court of First Instance to order measures of inquiry – Scope (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 66(1)) (see paras 63-64)

4. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reason – Whether admissible (see para. 111)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 June 2005 in Case T-17/02 Olsen v Commission , in which the Court rejected the action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001 relating to State aid file NN 48/2001 – Spain – Aid for the Transmediterránea shipping company (OJ 2002 C 96, p. 4).

Operative part:

The appeal is dismissed.

Fred Olsen SA is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 – Meister v OHIM

(Case C‑12/05 P)

Appeal – Employment – Reassignment of a head of service as legal adviser to the Vice-President for Legal Affairs – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible –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; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 39-41)

2. Officials – Organisation des services – Assignment of staff (Staff Regulations, Art. 7(1)) (see paras 45-48, 54-57, 75, 78)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Insufficient reasoning (see paras 82-84)

4. Appeal – Grounds – Error of law pleaded not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 95-96)

5. Officials – Measure of internal organisation taken in the interests of the service and not affecting either the position of the official under the Staff Regulations or the principle that grade and post should correspond (Staff Regulations, Art. 25) (see para. 104)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case T‑76/03 Meister v OHIM , in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of OHIM’s decision of 22 April 2002 appointing the appellant, in the interest of the service, with his post, as legal adviser to the Vice‑President for Legal Affairs.

Operative part

The Court:

1. The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed;

2. Mr Meister is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Intervention – Conditions as to admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, para. 2) (see paras 8-9)

2. Procedure – Intervention – Persons establishing an interest (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, para. 2) (see para. 11)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2006 in Case T‑493/04 Deutsche Post AG v Commission dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to intervene.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders An Post to pay the costs of these proceedings. However, Deutsche Post shall bear its own 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 – Balancing of the interests involved (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 109) (see para. 23)

2. 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) (see paras 31-32)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2006 in Case T-420/05 R II Vischim v Commission dismissing a second application for suspension of enforcement in connection with an application for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2005/53/EC of 16 September 2005 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include chlorothalonil, chlorotoluron, cypermethrin, daminozide and thiophanate-methyl as active substances (OJ 2005 L 241, p. 51) – New facts not capable of calling into question the assessments on which the dismissal of the first application was founded.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Vischim Srl is ordered to pay the costs.
I-B-2  - 3ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)
26 January 2007
Case C-57/06  P
Elisabetta Righini
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Appeal — Officials — Temporary staff — Classification by grade and step — 
Classification in a higher career bracket — Distortion of the facts — Defective 
statement of reasons — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part 
manifestly unfounded)
Full text in French   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . II-B-2 - 15
Appeal:  against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth 
Chamber) of 15  November 2005 in Case T-145/04 Ri ghini  v 
Commission [2005] ECR-SC I-A-349 and II-1547 dismissing the 
action for annulment of the Commission’s decisions to classify 
the applicant on her entry into service in Grade A7/3 and, in so 
far as may be necessary, annulment of the decision of 21 January 2004 rejecting the applicant’s complaint
.
Held:  The appeal is dismissed . Mrs Righini is ordered to pay the costs .
I-B-2  - 4SUMMARY – CASE C-57/06 P
Summary
1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissible — Review by 
the Court of the assessment of the evidence — Possible only where the clear sense f the 
e
vidence has been distorted
(
Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
2. Officials  — Actions  — Grounds  — Burden of proof proving a fact alleged by the 
applicant resting with the applicant
3. Appeals — Grounds — Insufficient statement of reasons — Mere drafting error
4. Appeals — Grounds — Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary to 
support its operative part — Plea inoperative
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Answer clearly able to be deduced from case-law – Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 104(3)) (see paras 9-10)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope (Arts 43 EC and 56 EC) (see paras 14, 16, 18-19 and operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Preliminary ruling – Bundesfinanzhof – Interpretation of Articles 56 EC, 57(1) EC and 58 EC – Deduction from the taxable profits of a German company of losses resulting from the activity of a permanent establishment in a non-member country – Deduction refused on the basis of a bilateral double taxation convention concluded with that non-member country.

Operative part

Operative part:

A national system of taxation under which a company having its head office in a Member State, when determining its results, cannot deduct losses incurred by an establishment in a non-Member State fundamentally affects the exercise of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 43 EC to 48 EC. Those provisions cannot be relied upon in a situation involving such an establishment in a non-Member State.