ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for damages – Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment – Action seeking the withdrawal of an individual decision that has become definitive – Inadmissibility (Art. 235 EC) (see para. 24)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (see paras 36-37)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2009 in Case T-166/08 Ivanov v Commission , by which that court dismissed the action brought by the appellant seeking compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered following a Commission decision refusing to recruit him as a local administrative and technical assistance employee at the Commission delegation in Sofia – Autonomous nature of the action for non-contractual liability in relation to the action for annulment – Reservation of abuse of process – Possible for the Court of First Instance to have raised that rule of its own motion.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Ivanov is ordered to pay the costs.
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 in Case T-365/06

Bateaux mouches

v

OHIM

by which the Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006, concerning proceedings for invalidity of the Community word mark ‘BATEAUX MOUCHES’ – Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) – Misinterpretation of the criteria laid down by the case-law of the Court of Justice – Absence of any distinctive character.
Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of agents, advisers or lawyers, are to be regarded as recoverable costs. Recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings, and, second, to those which were necessarily incurred.

The Courts of the European Union are authorised, not to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but to determine the amount up to which that remuneration may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. In ruling on the application for taxation of costs, those courts are not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers’ fees or any agreement in relation to fees concluded between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.

In the absence of any provisions of EU law laying down fee-scales or the length of time necessary for the work to be done, the Courts of the European Union must freely assess the details of the case, taking account of the subject-matter and the nature of the dispute, its importance from the point of view of EU law and also the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work which the contentious proceedings generated for the agents or counsel involved and the economic interests which the dispute presented for the parties.

(see paras 13-16)
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 – Hârsulescu v Romania

(Case C-374/09 P)

Appeal – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court to examine an action seeking annulment of decisions of national courts, compensation for damage caused by national authorities and a declaration that those authorities have failed to act – Appeal manifestly unfounded

Procedure – Action brought by a natural or legal person for annulment of decisions of national courts, compensation for damage caused by national authorities and a declaration that those authorities have failed to act – Community judicature manifestly lacking jurisdiction (Art. 225 EC et seq. and Art. 140a EA et seq.; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119) (see paras 7-9, 12)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 22 July 2009 in Case T-234/09 Hârsulescu v Romania in which the Court of First Instance held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s action for the annulment of two judgments given by national courts and for damages – Challenge to the method of calculating retirement pension rights – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2010 – Royal Appliance International v OHIM

(Case C‑448/09 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Earlier mark ‘sensixx’ – Word mark ‘Centrixx’ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Application for revocation of an earlier mark – Proceedings pending before the national courts – Request for a stay of the proceedings before the General Court

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Review of the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Annulment or alteration for reasons appearing after the judgment was delivered – Excluded (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 43-44)

2. 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) second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 77)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 September 2009 in Case T-446/09 Royal Appliance International v OHIM – BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007, rejecting the registration of the word mark ‘Centrixx’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 7, by granting the opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘sensixx’ – Failure to stay the proceedings while awaiting the resolution of the dispute pending before the national courts concerning the application for revocation of the earlier mark – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion between two marks.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 May 2010 – Goldman Management v Commission and Bulgaria

(Case C‑507/09 P)

Appeal – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Commission’s failure to bring infringement proceedings against the Republic of Bulgaria – Bulgarian Government’s failure to act in a dispute involving internal law – Compensation for the damage supposedly sustained by reason of those failures – Appeal clearly inadmissible

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)(c)) (see paras 11-13)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 November 2009 in Case T‑354/09 Goldman Management v Commission and Bulgaria , by which that court dismissed the action seeking, first, a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully failed to bring infringement proceedings against Bulgaria and that that Member State had itself unlawfully failed to act in response to requests made by the appellant in a purely internal dispute and, secondly, compensation for the damage it had allegedly sustained as a result of that twofold failure to act.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
3

By the judgment which the Court is asked to interpret, the Court: ‘1. Declare[d] that, by failing, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission of the European Communities on 1 February 2008 pursuant to Article 228 EC, to take all the measures needed to comply with the judgment of 1 April 2004 in Case C-99/02 Commission v Italy [[2004] ECR I-3353] concerning the recovery from the recipients of the aid which was found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 May 1999 concerning aid granted by Italy to promote employment [OJ 2000 L 42, p. 1], the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision and Article 228(1) EC; 2. Order[ed] the Italian Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the “European Union own resources” account, a penalty payment of an amount calculated by multiplying the basic amount of EUR 30 million by the percentage of the unlawful aid that has not yet been recovered, or not shown to have been recovered, at the end of the period concerned, compared to the total amount not yet recovered on the date of delivery of the present judgment, for every six months of delay in implementing the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of 1 April 2004 in Case C-99/02 Commission v Italy, from the present judgment until compliance with the judgment of 1 April 2004; 3. Order[ed] the Italian Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the “European Union own resources” account, a lump sum of EUR 30 million; …’
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 March 2011 – Estonia v Commission

(Case C-535/09 P)

Appeal – Sugar – Determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the new Member States

1. Appeals – Grounds – Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence – None – Plea manifestly unfounded (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 21-28)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(2)) (see paras 33-35)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Act of Accession 2003, Annex IV, para. 4(2); Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Commission Regulations No 60/2004 and No 832/2005) (see paras 44-49, 80-85, 92-95)

4. Appeals – Grounds – Breach of a rule of law – Plea manifestly unfounded (Art. 256 TFEU; Act of Accession 2003, Annex IV, para. 4(2); Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Commission Regulations No 60/2004 and No 832/2005) (see paras 53-57)

5. Appeals – Grounds – Breach of a rule of law – Plea manifestly unfounded (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Commission Regulation No 60/2004, Art. 6(1)(2)(c)) (see paras 61-63)

6. Appeals – Grounds – Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence – None – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 67-69)

7. Appeals – Grounds – Breach of principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Discretion of the institutions – Legislation adapted to changes in the economic situation – Not possible to claim protection of legitimate expectations – Plea manifestly unfounded (see paras 72-74)

8. Appeals – Grounds – Breach of the principle of legal certainty – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(2)) (see paras 75-76)

9. Appeals – Grounds – No breach of the principle audi alteram partem – (see paras 88-89)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 2 October 2009 in Case T‑324/05 Estonia v Commission dismissing the appellant’s action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2005 L 138, p. 3).

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Republic of Estonia is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

Grounds

–

Error of law relied on not identified

–

Clear inadmissibility (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 paras 14-16

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2010 in Case T-15/10 R II Noko Ngele v Commission , whereby that court dismissed as inadmissible the appellant’s application for interim relief seeking a declaration that the Commission minutes of 27 May 2009 ((2009) 1874 final) relating to the Commission’s decision to grant legal aid to one of its former members and to several of its agents are unlawful – Breach of the principles of good administration of justice and of the right to a fair hearing – Obvious conflict of interest.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Noko Ngele is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Conditions of employment – Definition – Seniority bonus – Included – Duty to apply the principle of non-discrimination (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4(1)) (see paras 32-34)

2. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Workers doing the same work – ‘Same work’ – Meaning – Workers in a similar situation – Criteria for assessment (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 3(2)) (see paragraphs 36-39)

3. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Objective reasons warranting different treatment – Meaning (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4(1)) (see paragraphs 34, 37, 40-43, 47, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana – Interpretation of clause 4(4) of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) – Contracts of employment as a university lecturer and researcher concluded with State universities – Exclusion of certain benefits from fixed-term contracts.

Operative part

Operative part:

Clause 4(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, without any objective justification, restricts the right to receive a seniority bonus to university lecturers on permanent contracts, excluding lecturers on fixed-term contracts when, as regards receipt of that bonus, those two categories of workers are in comparable situations.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

Grounds

–

Mistaken assessment of the facts

–

Inadmissibility

–

review by the Court of the assessment made of the evidence

–

Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see paras 36-38

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 – Case T-94/08 Centre de Coordination Carrefour v Commission , by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2008/283/EC of 13 November 2007 amending Decision 2003/757/EC on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ 2008 L 90, p. 7) – Conditions of admissibility of an action for annulment – Concept of interest in bringing proceedings – Res judicata.

Operative part

Operative Part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC is ordered to bear the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Internal taxation

–

Pollution tax levies on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory

–

Tax applicable to imported second-hand vehicles and without any equivalent for vehicles of the same age and the same condition present on the national market

–

Not permissible (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 22-23, 25, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Appel Timișoara – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax on motor vehicles on their first registration in a Member State – Compatibility of national legislation with Article 110 TFEU – Validity of the exemption from payment of the tax in respect of certain categories of vehicle.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from introducing a pollution tax on motor vehicles on first registration in that Member State if that fiscal measure is set up in such a way as to discourage the placing on the market in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of a similar age and condition on the national market.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary stage and stage involving the exchange of views and arguments – Compatibility of aid with the common market – Difficulties of assessment – Commission’s duty to open the inter partes procedure – Definition – Serious difficulties – Burden and extent of proof in the case of an action for annulment of the decision not to raise objections (Art. 88(2) and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 4(3)) (see paras 47-50, 52)

2. Appeals – Operative part of the judgment justified by ground stated ex abundanti cautela – Rejection (see paras 62-63)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Joined Cases T‑568/08 and T‑573/08 TF1 and M6 v Commission , by which that court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3506 final of 16 July 2008 relating to the proposed grant, by the French Republic, of capital funding of EUR 150 million to France Télévisions SA – Infringement of the rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence – Infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU – Concept of ‘service of general economic interest’ – No serious difficulties.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) is ordered to pay the costs.

3. Canal + and the French Republic are ordered to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Wilfer is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2012 — Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe v Torresan

(Case C-5/10 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 12-13, 20, 27)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Intervention of several lawyers — Inclusion — Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 24)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 in Case C-5/10 P Torresan v OHIM.

Operative part

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Mr Torresan to Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG is fixed at EUR 4 500.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2012 — Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe v Torresan

(Case C-5/10 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 12-13, 20, 27)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Intervention of several lawyers — Inclusion — Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 24)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 in Case C-5/10 P Torresan v OHIM.

Operative part

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Mr Torresan to Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG is fixed at EUR 4 500.