ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 September 2007 in Case T‑176/07

S.A.BA.R.

v

Commission

by which that Court dismissed the application for annulment of the Commission decision of 5 June 2002 declaring incompatible with the common market the aid scheme (C‑27/99 ex NN 69/98) provided for under Italian legislation in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Flax and hemp (Council Regulation No 1782/2003, recital 27 and Art. 52) (see paras 24-32, operative part 1)

2. Community law – Direct effect – Primacy – Community legislation governing the cultivation of hemp grown for fibre (Art. 10 EC) (see paras 34-36, operative part 2)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Panevėžio apygardos teismas – Compatibility with the law of the European Union of national legislation providing for criminal liability for cultivating any type of hemp – Power of a court to apply national legislation when the hemp content of active substances does not exceed a certain threshold.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which has the effect of prohibiting the cultivation and possession of hemp grown for fibre covered by that regulation.

2. Community law precludes the court of a Member State from applying national legislation which, contrary to Regulation No 1782/2003, has the effect of prohibiting the cultivation and possession of hemp grown for fibre covered by that regulation.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Interest in bringing proceedings

–

Commission decision refusing European Social Fund support to an innovative measure under Article 6 of Regulation No 1784/1999

–

Not possible to comply with the judgment annulling the measure

–

No effect (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1784/1999, Art. 6) (see paras 19, 26, 30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 in Case T-351/05 Provincia di Imperia v Commission , by which that Court declared admissible (but unfounded) the action brought by the appellant for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2005 to refuse to grant it a subsidy in the context of a call for proposals concerning innovative measures under the European Social Fund – Infringement of the conditions governing the admissibility of an action for annulment – Meaning of an ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ – No benefit for the applicant arising from a possible annulment of the contested act.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

2. The Commission of the European Communities shall bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Commission letter rejecting a request for the terminological rectification of Article 234 EC in the Portuguese-language version – Commission incompetent to amend the provisions of the Treaty – Action manifestly unfounded (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 14-15)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21 and 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 18-22)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 9 April 2008 in Case T-38/08 Corriea de Matos v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for the annulment of the Commission’s letter of 23 October 2007, sent to the applicant in response to his application for the word ‘prejudicial’, in the Portuguese‑language version of Article 234 EC, to be replaced by the word ‘pré‑judicial’.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Correia de Matos is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Conditions governing admissibility (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(1)) (see paras 3-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPEAL against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 in Case T-18/07 Kronberger v Parliament , by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 28 April 2005 rejecting as unfounded the applicant’s challenge relating to the election of Mr Andreas Mölzer as a Member of the European Parliament, submitted in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the representatives of the Parliament by direct universal suffrage.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Kronberger to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Atlantic Dawn Ltd, Antarctic Fishing Co. Ltd, Atlantean Ltd, Killybegs Fishing Enterprises Ltd, Doyle Fishing Co. Ltd, Western Seaboard Fishing Co. Ltd, O’Shea Fishing Co. Ltd, Aine Fishing Co. Ltd, Brendelen Ltd, Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd, Ocean Trawlers Ltd, Eileen Oglesby, Noel McGing, Mullglen Ltd, Bradan Fishing Co. Ltd, Larry Murphy, Pauric Conneely, Thomas Flaherty, Carmarose Trawling Co. Ltd and Colmcille Fishing Ltd to pay their own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice 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.)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications to designate a product or service’s characteristics – Exception – Distinctive character acquired through use

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c), (2) and (3))

3. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of absolute nullity – Exception – Distinctive character acquired through use

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 51(1) and (2))

Summary

1. It is clear from Article 225 EC and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that an appeal lies on points of law only. The General Court therefore has sole jurisdiction to find and assess the relevant facts and evidence. The appraisal of the facts and evidence thus does not constitute, save where they have been distorted, a point of law subject to review by the Court.

(see para. 49)

2. According to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, read in combination with Article 7(2), registration of a trade mark must be refused if it consists exclusively of signs or indications which give it a descriptive character in part of the Community.

In addition, under Article 7(3) of the same regulation, Article 7(1)(c) thereof does not apply if the trade mark has become distinctive in relation to the goods or services for which registration is requested in consequence of the use which has been made of it.

It follows that a mark can be registered under Article 7(3) of that regulation only if evidence is provided that it has acquired, through the use which has been made of it, distinctive character in the part of the Community in which it had such character, ab initio, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c).

(see paras 58-60)

3. The respective scopes of Article 51(1) and (2) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark are different. Thus, Article 51(1) does not permit an action for the invalidation of a trade mark which has become distinctive in consequence of the use which has been made of it prior to the filing of the application for its registration since such a trade mark was not registered in breach of the provisions of Article 7 of the regulation. Article 51(2), on the other hand, merely refers to trade marks which have acquired distinctive character through the use which has been made of them after registration even though registration was made in breach of Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of the regulation and should therefore have been invalidated on that ground.

(see para. 91)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Legal classification of the facts – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC) (see paras 36-37)

2. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Conditions – Requirement that the institution should examine the documents specifically and individually (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(7)) (see paras 56-60)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 2008 in Case T-443/07 Nuova Agricast v Commission by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 October 2007 rejecting a request made by the appellant for review of that institution’s earlier refusal to allow it access to certain documents.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Nuova Agricast Srl is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Interpretation of a judgment

–

Conditions for the admissibility thereof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43) (see para. 6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for interpretation of the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 January 2008, in Case T-375/07 R Rosario Maria Pellegrini v Commission , rejecting the application for interim measures requesting that the Commission be ordered to pay compensation, on a provisional basis, for the financial damage allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the Commission’s failure to ensure full application and correct interpretation of the provisions of Community law governing the activities of financial intermediaries.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interpretation;

2. Orders Mr Pellegrini to bear his own costs.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Appeal – 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. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)
Order of the president of the Court of 17 July 2008 – Pellegrini v Commission

(Case C‑114/08 P(R))

Appeals – Applications for interim measures – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Commission’s failure to act – Payment on a provisional basis of the amount claimed in the main proceedings – No prima facie case

1. Actions for damages – Subject-matter – Action for damages alleging that a decision taken by a national body on implementing Community legislation was unlawful – Jurisdiction of the Court – Conditions – Whether the alleged unlawful conduct can be attributed to a Community institution (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 17-19)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Fact that the Commission did not initiate infringement proceedings – Not unlawful (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 20-22)

Re:

Appeal brought against order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 January 2008 in Case T-375/07 R Rosario Maria Pellegrini v Commission rejecting the application for interim measures requesting that the Commission be ordered to pay compensation, on a provisional basis, for the financial damage allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the Commission’s failure to ensure full application and correct interpretation of the provisions of Community law governing the activities of financial intermediaries.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 March 2009 – Commission v Provincia di Imperia

(Case C‑183/08 P)

Appeal – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure – Conditions governing the admissibility of an action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Call for proposals regarding the financing of innovative actions under the European Social Fund – Decision to reject – Benefit for the applicant arising from a possible annulment of the contested act

Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Commission decision refusing European Social Fund support to an innovative measure under Article 6 of Regulation No 1784/1999 – Not possible to comply with the judgment annulling the measure – No effect (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1784/1999, Art. 6) (see paras 19, 26, 30)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 in Case T-351/05 Provincia di Imperia v Commission , by which that Court declared admissible (but unfounded) the action brought by the appellant for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2005 to refuse to grant it a subsidy in the context of a call for proposals concerning innovative measures under the European Social Fund – Infringement of the conditions governing the admissibility of an action for annulment – Meaning of an ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ – No benefit for the applicant arising from a possible annulment of the contested act.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)

3 February 2009

Case C-231/08 P

Massimo Giannini

v

Commission of the European Communities

(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)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 March 2008 in Case T-100/04 Giannani v Commission in which the Court dismissed the appellant’s application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/A/9/01 with a view to constituting 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 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.

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

Summary

1. Procedure – Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance – Reasonable time – Criteria for assessment – Consequences

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))

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)
5.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted to mean that, where the domestic legal order of the Member State concerned contains, in the sector under consideration, other measures which are effective to avoid and, when appropriate, penalise the abuse of successive fixed‑term employment contracts within the meaning of clause 5(1), it is not precluded that a rule of national law may impose an absolute prohibition, in the public sector alone, on conversion into a contract of indefinite duration of a succession of fixed‑term employment contracts which, when intended to cover fixed and permanent needs of the employer, must be regarded as an abuse. It is however for the referring court to assess the extent to which the conditions for the application and actual implementation of the relevant provisions of domestic law constitute adequate measures to prevent and, when appropriate, penalise the abuse by the public authorities of successive fixed‑term employment contracts.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 June 2009 – Cofra v Commission

(Case C‑295/08 P)

Appeal – Public access to documents of the institutions – Documents originating from a Member State – Objection of the Member State to disclosure of the documents – Refusal to access – New application – Confirmatory measure

1. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Legal classification of the facts – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC) (see paras 33-34)

2. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Conditions – Requirement that the institution should examine the documents specifically and individually (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(7)) (see paras 52-56)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2008 in Case T-478/07 Cofra v Commission by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 October 2007 rejecting a request made by the appellant for review of that institution’s earlier refusal to allow it access to certain documents.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 – Grisoli v Regione Lombardia

(Case C‑315/08)

Article 104(3), first paragraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Public health – Pharmacies – Proximity – Supply of medicinal products to the population – Operating authorisation – Territorial distribution of pharmacies – Minimum distance between pharmacies

Freedom of establishment – Restrictions – National legislation requiring prior authorisation for the opening of new pharmacies in a given region – Conditions for grant linked to demographic density and to the minimum distance between pharmacies – Whether permissible – Conditions – To be determined by the national court (Art. 49 TFEU) (see paras 21-38, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consiglio di Stato – Interpretation of Articles 152 and 153 EC – Opening of new pharmacies – National legislation fixing limits on the basis of the number of inhabitants and laying down the conditions for authorising the opening of a new pharmacy.

Operative part

Article 49 TFEU does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the establishment of new pharmacies by providing that

– in towns with a population of fewer than 4 000 inhabitants, one pharmacy only may be set up and

– in towns with more than 4 000 inhabitants, the establishment of a new pharmacy is subject to conditions, such as the exceeding by at least 50% of the number of inhabitants needed for a pharmacy and a minimum distance from already existing pharmacies,

on condition that such legislation permits, by way of derogation from its basic rules, the establishment of a sufficient number of pharmacies to guarantee an appropriate pharmaceutical service in areas with special demographic or geographical characteristics, something which it is for the national court to ascertain.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

9 December 2009

Case C-528/08 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal – Officials – Social security – Implied refusal of a request for 100% reimbursement of certain medical costs incurred by an official – Order of declining jurisdiction from the Civil Service Tribunal – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-144/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of the decision to refuse the appellant’s request for 100% reimbursement of certain medical expenses, and seeking an order that the Commission pay the appellant the amount of EUR 89.56 as a supplementary reimbursement of his medical expenses or as compensation for loss.

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

Summary

Appeal – 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. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders The Wellcome Foundation Ltd to pay the costs.