ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Pre-litigation procedure - Letters of formal notice - Detailed opinion delivered under Directive 83/189 - No proper formal notice - Action inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC); Council Directive 83/189, Art. 9(1))

Summary

$$It follows from the function assigned to the pre-litigation stage of proceedings for failure of a State to fulfil its obligations that the purpose of the letter of formal notice is, first, to delimit the subject-matter of the dispute and to indicate to the Member State, which is invited to submit its observations, the factors enabling it to prepare its defence and, second, to enable the Member State to comply before proceedings are brought before the Court. In addition, in order for a letter of formal notice to be issued, a prior failure by the Member State concerned to fulfil an obligation owed by it must be alleged.

However, at the time when a detailed opinion is delivered under Article 9(1) of Directive 83/189 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, the Member State to which it is addressed cannot have infringed Community law, since the measure exists only in draft form. The contrary view would result in the detailed opinion constituting a conditional formal notice whose existence would be dependent on the action taken by the Member State concerned in relation to the opinion. The requirements of legal certainty, which are inherent in any procedure capable of becoming contentious, preclude such incertitude.

Since a detailed opinion of that kind does not constitute a formal notice meeting the requirements of Article 169 of the Treaty (now Article 226 EC), the action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission is inadmissible.

( see paras 17-21 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Action out of time - Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 42, second para.)

Summary

No derogation from the application of the Community rules on procedural time-limits may be made save where the circumstances are quite exceptional, in the sense of being unforeseeable or amounting to force majeure, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 42 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since the strict application of those rules serves the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice.

An exceptional malfunctioning of the postal services resulting in an application for annulment being out of time does not constitute such circumstances when the applicant only sent the application, albeit by express mail, the day before the expiry of the time-limit laid down, when it had a period of 10 days on account of distance calculated on the basis of the normal period for postal delivery taking into account any problems in the postal service.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 1998. - Glasoltherm SARL, en liquidation v Commission des Communautés européennes, Electricité de France and HLM "Colomiers Habitat SA". - Inadmissibility of the application. - Case C-399/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-04521



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Actions brought by a natural or legal person against other natural or legal persons or for annulment of a purely national decision - Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 3b and 4)

Summary

Under Articles 3b and 4 of the Treaty, the Court, like the other institutions of the Community, has jurisdiction to act only within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty. Neither the jurisdiction to take cognisance of actions brought by natural or legal persons against other natural or legal persons, nor the jurisdiction to take cognisance of actions for annulment of purely national decisions falls within those powers. Accordingly, such actions are manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community law - Principles - Fundamental rights - Observance ensured by the Court - European Convention on Human Rights taken into consideration - Right of all persons to a fair hearing - Refusal by the Court of a request to submit observations in response to the Opinion of the Advocate General - Whether in breach of that fundamental right - No such breach

(Art. 222 EC; Art. 6(2) EU; European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 6(1); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 18; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 59 and 61)

Summary

$$Fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law, the observance of which the Court ensures. For that purpose, the Court draws inspiration from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and from the guidelines supplied by international treaties for the protection of human rights on which the Member States have cooperated or of which they are signatories. The European Convention on Human Rights - referred to, moreover, in Article 6(2) EU - has special significance in that respect.

Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right of all persons, in adversarial proceedings, to a fair hearing does not preclude the Court from refusing a request for leave to submit written observations in response to the Opinion of the Advocate General.

First, within the judicial system established by the Treaty and by the Statute of the Court of Justice, as set out in detail in the Court's Rules of Procedure, the Opinion of the Advocate General - by contrast with an opinion addressed to the judges or to the parties which stems from an authority outside the Court or which derives its authority from that of, say, a Procureur General's department [or French ministère public] - constitutes the individual reasoned opinion, expressed in open court, of a Member of the Court of Justice itself, who takes part, publicly and individually, in the process by which the Court reaches its judgment, and therefore in carrying out the judicial function entrusted to the Court.

Secondly, with a view to the very purpose of adversarial procedure, which is to prevent the Court from being influenced by arguments which the parties have been unable to discuss, the Court may of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General or at the request of the parties, reopen the oral procedure, in accordance with Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure, if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties.

( see paras 8-10, 14-15, 18, 20 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility of questions - Questions not providing sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context - Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful reply

(EC Treaty, Art. 177 (now Art. 234 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based.

In this respect, the information provided and the questions raised in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but also such as to give the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court. It is the Court's duty to ensure that the opportunity to submit observations is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.
Order of the Court of 2 March 1999. - Colonia Versicherung AG Zweigniederlassung München and Others v Belgian State. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles - Belgium. - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility. - Case C-422/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-01279



Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility - Questions unaccompanied by sufficient information as to their factual and legislative context - Questions referred in a context where no useful answer is possible

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based. The information provided in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but must also make it possible for the governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice. Furthermore, given that, pursuant to that provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties, the fact that the national court refers to the observations submitted by the parties to the main proceedings - which, moreover, are likely to contain differing accounts of the dispute - is not sufficient to safeguard the right of each party under the above provision to submit observations.

Consequently, an order for reference which does not describe the factual background to the dispute, its findings of fact, the national legislative context or the precise reasons for which it is uncertain as to the interpretation of Community law and considers it necessary to refer a question to the Court is manifestly inadmissible in that it makes it impossible for the Court to provide a useful interpretation of Community law.
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case - Serious and irreparable damage - Balancing of all the interests at stake - Discretion of the court hearing applications for interim measures

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 EC); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Factors to be taken into consideration — (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 74)

2. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Meaning — Factors to be taken into consideration — Necessary expenses relating to the taxation procedure — Included — (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 69(1) and 74)

Summary

1. In relation to taxation of costs as regards lawyers ' fees, Community law has no rules relating to payment on a fixed fee basis or in relation to the number of hours requiring to be worked in any particular case. The Court should therefore make a general assessment of the circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature and purpose of the case, its importance in the field of Community law, and the difficulties of the case, the amount of work the procedure before the Court may have given rise to on the part of agents or counsel instructed in it, and the financial importance of the dispute for the parties.

see para. 18

2. As regards the expenses relating to the taxation procedure, by contrast with Article 69(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which provides that a decision as to costs is to be given in the final judgment or in the order which closes the proceedings, no such provision appears in Article 74 of the said Rules. This is because, when determining the recoverable costs, the Court takes into account all the circumstances of the case until the order for taxation of the costs is pronounced. Accordingly, it is, first, unnecessary to decide separately on the costs incurred for the purposes of that procedure. Secondly, this means that the necessary expenses incurred in relation to that procedure are recoverable.

see para. 24
Keywords



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings Questions to which the answer may be clearly deduced from the Court's existing case-law Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(3))

2. Tax provisions Harmonisation of laws Indirect taxes on the raising of capital Directive 69/335 Capital duty and tax having the same characteristics as such a duty Definition Tax on companies' net assets Excluded Tax levied also on the part of the net assets consisting solely of a company's capital as disclosed annually in the balance sheet Irrelevant

(Council Directive 69/335, Arts 4 and 10)
Keywords



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Answer which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law - Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(3))

2. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Taxation for the purposes of Directive 69/335 - Meaning - Charges, in respect of a transaction covered by the Directive, collected by notaries employed by the State and paid to the State - Covered

(Council Directive 69/335)

3. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Notarially attested act recording the formation of a capital company - Essential formality - Levying of charges - Not permissible

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 10(c))

4. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Notarially attested act recording the formation of a capital company - Charges by way of fees or dues - Meaning - Charges in direct proportion to the share capital subscribed - Not covered - Charges subject to an upper limit - Effect

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 12(1)(e))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Variation or cancellation - Condition - Change in circumstances - Meaning

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 108)

2. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Res judicata - Limits

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 108)

3. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Variation or cancellation - Order made in interim relief proceedings not challenged within the time-limit - No effect as regards the right to make an application under Article 108 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 108)

Summary

1. The term change in circumstances in Article 108 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance is to be interpreted as covering the occurrence of any factual or legal matter such as to call into question the assessment by the judge who heard the application with regard to the conditions which are to be met if the operation of an act is to be suspended or other interim relief is to be granted. The scope of that term cannot be limited to the coming to light of circumstances of a factual nature or of new facts.

( see paras 63-64 )

2. The Court of First Instance errs in law when, in interim relief proceedings, it accords to an interim order the binding force of a judgment or an order disposing of an action, for the very reason that it may be asked at any time, pursuant to Article 108 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, to vary or cancel its order on account of a change in the circumstances which prevailed when it was made.

( see paras 66, 70 )

3. The Court of First Instance errs in law when, in interim relief proceedings, it holds that to allow a party to apply for cancellation of an order against which it has knowingly decided not to bring an appeal would undermine the principle of legal certainty. There cannot be a risk of an application made under Article 108 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance replacing an appeal since those two legal remedies can be distinguished by their purpose, by their effects and by the conditions governing their application.

( see paras 67-69 )
Case C-326/01 P





Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)





«(Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Absolute ground for refusal to register – Distinctive character – Marks consisting exclusively of descriptive signs or indications – Word marks Universaltelefonbuch and Universalkommunikationsverzeichnis)»

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 5 February 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods or services – Aim – Requirement of free availability

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

2.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods or services – Definition

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

3.. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of Justice of the appraisal of the facts submitted to the Court of First Instance – Excluded – Word marks for which registration as Community trade marks is sought

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

1.

2.

3.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public supply contracts — Directive 93/36 — Withdrawal of the invitation to tender — Condition — Compliance with the fundamental rules of Community law on public contracts — (Council Directives 92/50, 93/36 and 93/37)

Summary

Directive 93/36 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts must be interpreted, in accordance with the Court's case-law with respect to Directives 92/50 and 93/37, as meaning that a contracting authority which has commenced a procedure for the award of a contract on the basis of the lowest price may discontinue the procedure, without awarding a contract, when it discovers after examining and comparing the tenders that, because of errors committed by itself in its preliminary assessment, the content of the invitation to tender makes it impossible for it to accept the most economically advantageous tender, provided that, when it adopts such a decision, it complies with the fundamental rules of Community law on public procurement such as the principle of equal treatment.

see para 36, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements — EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement — Moroccan workers employed in a Member State — Social security — Equal treatment — Refusal to grant to an unemployed Moroccan worker, on account of the lack of an international agreement providing that account is to be taken of work carried out in another Member State, a seniority supplement intended to increase unemployment benefit — Not permissible — (EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement, Art. 41(1))

Summary

On its proper construction, Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between the EEC and Morocco precludes a host Member State from refusing to grant a worker of Moroccan nationality resident in its territory the benefit of a seniority supplement increasing the basic amount of unemployment benefit on the sole ground that there is no international agreement providing that account is to be taken of work carried out by that worker in another Member State, even though no such condition is imposed on workers who are nationals of that host Member State.

Article 41(1), which has direct effect enabling the persons to whom it applies to rely on it in proceedings before national courts, lays down the principle of freedom from any discrimination based on nationality in the field of social security against Moroccan migrant workers and members of their family living with them in relation to nationals of the Member States in which they are or have been employed. That principle requires that persons falling within the scope of that article of the Agreement may claim social security benefits under the same conditions as nationals of the host Member State without its being possible for the legislation of that Member State to impose upon those persons more or stricter conditions than those applicable to its nationals. Accordingly, the imposition on persons covered by Article 41(1) not only of the requirement that they must be nationals of the Member State concerned but also of any other condition which is not required in respect of nationals, such as a condition, laid down in national legislation on seniority supplements increasing the basic amount of unemployment benefit, which makes the taking into account of work carried out abroad subject to the existence of an international agreement only in respect of foreign or stateless workers, must be regarded as incompatible with that principle.

see paras 22, 30-33, 41, operative part
Case C-399/02 P(R)





Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – Order of the President of the Court of First Instance made in interlocutory proceedings – Reassignment of a post and of its holder from the Commission's delegation in Luanda (Angola) to its seat in Brussels – Suspension of operation)»

Order of the President of the Court, 12 February 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order

1.. Appeals – Pleas in law – Pleas directed against a ground of the judgment or order not necessary to support the operative part – Plea inoperative

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56, first para.)

2.. Appeals – Pleas in law – Erroneous assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

3.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Causal link between the damage alleged and the contested act

(Art. 242 EC)

4.. Applications for interim measures – Court's obligation to give reasons – Scope

5.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Prima facie case – Dismissal of the application on the ground of lack of urgency alone – Consequences in the context of an appeal

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks devoid of any distinctive character – Various categories of trade mark – Distinctive character – Assessment by the same criteria – Relevant public’s perception – Perception may differ

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

Whilst the criteria for assessing distinctiveness within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark are the same for the various categories of trade mark, it may become apparent, when applying those criteria, that the relevant public’s perception is not necessarily the same in relation to each of those categories and that, therefore, it may prove more difficult to establish the distinctiveness of the marks in certain categories than of those in other categories.

(see para. 23)