ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Conditions of employment — Meaning — Continuing education increment — Included — Duty to apply the principle of non-discrimination (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4(1)) (see paras 38-40)

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’ — Definition — Workers in a comparable situation — Criteria for assessment — Nature of the work, training requirements and working conditions — Discretion of the national court (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 3(2)) (see paras 42-46)

3. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Objective reasons justifying different treatment — Meaning — Only justification for different treatment being the provision of national law providing for it — Not permissible (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4(1)) (see paras 40, 47-50, 54, operative part)
Keywords



Keywords

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. 36)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 43)
Keywords



Keywords

Appeals

—

Grounds

—

Mistaken assessment of the facts

—

Inadmissibility

—

Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the Court of First Instance

—

Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 33

)
Recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose.

Under Article 144(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, applicable, in accordance with Article 184(1) of those rules, to procedures on appeal, ‘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.

Concerning the costs in connection with that action which the intervener would like to have taxed, although they might possibly be the subject of a separate application before the General Court in the circumstances provided for in Articles 87 to 92 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court and without prejudice to Article 85 of those rules, such costs cannot however form the subject-matter of an application before the Court.

Since the judgment of the General Court, including its ruling on costs, has not been set aside, it is for the General Court to determine the amounts recoverable following the proceedings before it which culminated in the judgment under appeal.

In fixing the recoverable costs, the Court takes account of all the circumstances of the case up to the making of the order on taxation of costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred in relation to the taxation of costs proceedings. 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 the absence of any provisions of EU law relating to tariffs or to the necessary working time, the Court 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 litigation generated for the agents or counsel involved and the economic interests which the dispute presented for the parties. Therefore, when fixing the amount of the recoverable costs, it is necessary to take account of the total number of hours’ work corresponding to the services provided and considered objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings concerned, irrespective of the number of lawyers who carried out that work.

In that regard, first, in the context of an appeal, those proceedings are limited to questions of law and do not concern themselves with findings of fact. Second, regarding the economic interests at issue, in the light of the significance of trade marks in trade, an applicant clearly has an interest in the judgment under appeal — by which the General Court dismissed an action against a contested decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), which upheld an application, brought by the applicant, for a declaration of partial invalidity of a Community trade mark — being upheld on appeal.

(see paras 22-25, 27, 28)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings — Reference to the Court — Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred — Assessment by the national court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 10, 11)

2. Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 12, 13)

3. Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Questions relating to national law bearing no relation to the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings — Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 14-17 and operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Benevento — Interpretation of Articles 10(c) and 12(e) of Council Directive No 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Imposition of an annual fee for entry in the register of companies kept by the local chambers of commerce — Whether permissible.

Operative part

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Benevento (Italy), by decision of 22 September 2010, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the President of the Court on 19 July 2012 — Omnicare v OHIM

(Joined Cases C-587/11 P-R and C-588/11 P-R)

‛Interim relief — Appeals — Application for interim measures — Community trade mark’

Interim relief — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof (Art. 279 TFEU) (see point 30)

Re:

Appeals brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-289/09 Omnicare, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the applicant for word marks ‘OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH’ and ‘OMNICARE’ for services in Class 42, for the annulment of Decisions R 401/2008-4 and R 402/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 14 May 2009 annulling the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Notion of genuine use of an earlier mark — Mark used for services provided free of charge.

Operative part

1. The applications for interim measures are dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the Court on 19 July 2012 — Omnicare v OHIM

(Joined Cases C-587/11 P-R and C-588/11 P-R)

‛Interim relief — Appeals — Application for interim measures — Community trade mark’

Interim relief — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof (Art. 279 TFEU) (see point 30)

Re:

Appeals brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-289/09 Omnicare, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the applicant for word marks ‘OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH’ and ‘OMNICARE’ for services in Class 42, for the annulment of Decisions R 401/2008-4 and R 402/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 14 May 2009 annulling the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Notion of genuine use of an earlier mark — Mark used for services provided free of charge.

Operative part

1. The applications for interim measures are dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2012 — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb v Yorma’s

(Case C-191/11 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 17)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2012 in Case C-191/11 P Yorma’s v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (Yorma’s)

Operative part

Yorma’s AG is ordered to repay Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG a total amount of costs of EUR 3 080.91.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2012 — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb v Yorma’s

(Case C-191/11 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 17)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2012 in Case C-191/11 P Yorma’s v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (Yorma’s)

Operative part

Yorma’s AG is ordered to repay Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG a total amount of costs of EUR 3 080.91.
Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2011 in Case T-487/10

Ruipérez Aguirre and ATC Petition

v

Commission,

by which that court dismissed an action for the annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 27 July and 11 August 2010, refusing to initiate infringement proceedings against the Kingdom of Spain under Article 258 TFEU.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 – Boncea and Others v Statul român

(Joined Cases C-483/11 and C-484/11)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 43, 92(1) and 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Compensation payable to persons sentenced in political trials under the Communist regime – Right to compensation for non-material harm suffered – Failure to implement European Union law – Court clearly lacking jurisdiction

References for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union – National legislation not amounting to a measure giving effect to Union law – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1)) (see paras 28, 30-35, operative part)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling – Tribunalul Argeş – Interpretation of Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Compensation of individuals who were the subject of politically-motivated convictions under the Communist regime – Whether national legislation reducing the right to compensation for the non-material damage suffered is permissible.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Tribunalul Argeş (Romania) by decisions of 4 April and 4 July 2011.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 – Longevity Health Products v OHIM

(Case C‑222/11 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1)(d) – Word sign ‘5 HTP’ – Application for a declaration of invalidity – Appeal manifestly unfounded

1. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para., (c)) (see para. 24)

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) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 29)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2011 in Case T-190/09 Longevity Health Products v OHIM – Performing Science (5 HTP) relating to an action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2009 (Case R 595/2008-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Performing Science LLC and Longevity Health Products, Inc. – Distinctive character of the word sign 5 HTP.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the President of the Court of 29 March 2012 —

Gollnisch v Parliament



(Case C-569/11 P(R))

Appeal — Application for interim measures — Privileges and immunities — Waiving of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of the operation of a measure — Urgency

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance — 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 18, 19)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of the operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Whether the risk materialises dependent on uncertain, future events — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see para. 27)

Re:

Appeal against the Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 in Case T‑346/11 R Gollnisch v Parliament .

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2012 —

Longevity Health Products v OHIM



(Case C-81/11 P)

Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for Community word mark RESVEROL — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier international word mark LESTEROL — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Rights of the defence

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action brought before the Union judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Leave to lodge a reply — Discretion of the General Court (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(2)) (see para. 19)

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), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 27)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09 Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Gruppo Lepetit , by which that court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for word mark ‘RESVEROL’, for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35, against decision R 1204/2008‑2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 9 July 2009, dismissing the appeal lodged against the Opposition Division’s decision which refused in part registration of that mark in the context of the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national word marks ‘LESTEROL’, for goods in Class 5.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 May 2012 —

Sepracor Pharmaceuticals v Commission



(Case C‑477/11 P)

Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 — Medicinal products for human use — Active substance ‘eszopiclone’ — Marketing authorisation — Procedure — Statement of position by the Commission — Status of ‘new active substance’ — Concept of ‘actionable measure’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Letter from the Commission setting out its position as to the steps to be taken in response to the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004, Art. 10(2)) (see paras 51-58, 60, 61)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2011 in Case T‑275/09 P Sepracor Pharmaceuticals v Commission , dismissing as inadmissible an application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2009 finding, in the context of the procedure for granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal product ‘Lunivia’, produced by the appellant, that the active substance ‘eszopiclone’, which it contains, does not constitute a new active substance within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) — Concept of actionable measure.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 —

Power-One Italy v Commission

(Case C-372/11 P)

Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Project co-funded by the financial instrument ‘LIFE’ — Development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony (‘Pneuma’ project) — Commission decision to end the project and to recover the advance paid — Compensation for the loss allegedly sustained

1. Appeals — Grounds — Order of the General Court dismissing an action for annulment as manifestly inadmissible — Grounds raised in support of the appeal concerning substantive issues — Manifestly unfounded (Art. 256 TFEU) (see paras 29-38, 47-49)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Order of the General Court dismissing an action for annulment as manifestly inadmissible — Order containing a proper statement of reasons — Unfounded ground (Art. 256 TFEU) (see paras 40-42)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Erroneous assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the findings of fact — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Plea alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 56-58)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2011 in Case T-489/08 Power-One Italy v Commission by which that court dismissed an action for compensation for the loss allegedly sustained by the appellant following the Commission’s decision to end the Pneuma project (LIFE04 ENV/IT/000595) intended to co-fund development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony — Legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2012 – Pelckmans Turnhout



(Case C-559/11)

Articles 92(1) and 103(1), and first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 2005/29/EC – Unfair commercial practices – National legislation prohibiting the opening of an establishment seven days a week

1. Approximation of laws – Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices – Directive 2005/29 – Scope – National legislation prohibiting the opening of an establishment seven days a week – Legislation which does not pursue objectives related to consumer protection – Not included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29) (see paras 20-24, operative part)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Reference which does not set out the reasons justifying a referral to the Court of Justice – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92 and 103(1)) (see paras 28-31)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Articles 34 TFEU, 35 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) – Concept of business-to-consumer commercial practices – Opening of an establishment seven days a week and advertising of that practice.

Operative part

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not pursue objectives related to consumer protection.