ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben v OHIM

(Case C‑412/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 34(1), 75 and 77(1) — Earlier national and international figurative marks MEDINET — Claiming seniority — Refusal’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 170(1)) (see para. 41)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 169(2)) (see paras 50, 52, 53)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Case T‑378/11 Langguth Erben v OHIM, in which that court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2011 (Case R 1598/2010 4) concerning a claim for seniority of earlier marks in the context of an application for registration of the figurative sign MEDINET as a Community trade mark — Infringement of Arts 34, 75 and 77 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben v OHIM

(Case C‑412/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 34(1), 75 and 77(1) — Earlier national and international figurative marks MEDINET — Claiming seniority — Refusal’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 170(1)) (see para. 41)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 169(2)) (see paras 50, 52, 53)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Case T‑378/11 Langguth Erben v OHIM, in which that court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2011 (Case R 1598/2010 4) concerning a claim for seniority of earlier marks in the context of an application for registration of the figurative sign MEDINET as a Community trade mark — Infringement of Arts 34, 75 and 77 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case C‑223/13)

‛Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 — Referral to the General Court of the European Union’

Judicial proceedings — Division of powers between the Court of Justice and the General Court — Action for annulment brought by a Member State against a Commission regulation — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court — Referral back to the General Court (Art. 256(1), first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 51 and 54, second para.) (see paras 3-8)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices (OJ 2013 L 33, p. 14).

Operative part

1. Case C‑223/13 is referred back to the General Court of the European Union.

2. Costs are reserved.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case C‑223/13)

‛Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 — Referral to the General Court of the European Union’

Judicial proceedings — Division of powers between the Court of Justice and the General Court — Action for annulment brought by a Member State against a Commission regulation — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court — Referral back to the General Court (Art. 256(1), first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 51 and 54, second para.) (see paras 3-8)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices (OJ 2013 L 33, p. 14).

Operative part

1. Case C‑223/13 is referred back to the General Court of the European Union.
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Scope — Obligation to prove matters within common knowledge — No such obligation — Dispute before the General Court — Submission of documents to support the accuracy of a matter of common knowledge (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 42)

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. 52)

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 May 2014 — Reber Holding v OHIM

(Case C‑414/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Word mark Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM — Opposition brought by the proprietor of earlier national figurative marks W. Amadeus Mozart’

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 31, 32)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 in Case T‑530/10 Reber v OHIM – Klusmeier in which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2010 (Case R 363/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG and Anna Klusmeier — Likelihood of confusion between the word mark ‘Wolfang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM’ and the earlier national word marks containing the word element ‘W. Amadeus Mozart’ registered for the goods and services in Classes 39 and 42 of the Nice Agreement — Infringement of Articles 15, 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 May 2014 — Reber Holding v OHIM

(Case C‑414/13 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Word mark Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM — Opposition brought by the proprietor of earlier national figurative marks W. Amadeus Mozart’

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 31, 32)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 in Case T‑530/10 Reber v OHIM – Klusmeier in which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2010 (Case R 363/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG and Anna Klusmeier — Likelihood of confusion between the word mark ‘Wolfang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM’ and the earlier national word marks containing the word element ‘W. Amadeus Mozart’ registered for the goods and services in Classes 39 and 42 of the Nice Agreement — Infringement of Articles 15, 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
3.

Approximation of laws — Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals — REACH Regulation — Substances of very high concern — Identification procedure — Substances with persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic properties or very persistent and very bioaccumulative properties — Classification on the basis of the properties of the constituents — No obligation to carry out a separate procedure with regard to the constituents (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Arts 57(d) and (e) and 59 and Annex XIII) (see para. 49)
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

—

Grounds

—

Heads of claim seeking a substitution of grounds

—

Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(1)) (see paras 32-34

)

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Cytochroma Development Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.
3

Recitals 4 to 10 in the preamble to Regulation No 469/2009 read as follows: ‘(4) At the moment, the period that elapses between the filing of an application for a patent for a new medicinal product and authorisation to place the medicinal product on the market [‘MA’] makes the period of effective protection under the patent insufficient to cover the investment put into the research. (5) This situation leads to a lack of protection which penalises pharmaceutical research. (6) There exists a risk of research centres situated in the Member States relocating to countries that offer greater protection. (7) A uniform solution at Community level should be provided for, thereby preventing the heterogeneous development of national laws leading to further disparities which would be likely to create obstacles to the free movement of medicinal products within the Community and thus directly affect the functioning of the internal market. (8) Therefore, the provision of an [SPC] granted, under the same conditions, by each of the Member States at the request of the holder of a national or European patent relating to a medicinal product for which [MA] has been granted is necessary. A regulation is therefore the most appropriate legal instrument. (9) The duration of the protection granted by the certificate should be such as to provide adequate effective protection. For this purpose, the holder of both a patent and a certificate should be able to enjoy an overall maximum of 15 years of exclusivity from the time the medicinal product in question first obtains authorisation to be placed on the market in the Community. (10) All the interests at stake, including those of public health, in a sector as complex and sensitive as the pharmaceutical sector should nevertheless be taken into account. For this purpose, the certificate cannot be granted for a period exceeding five years. The protection granted should furthermore be strictly confined to the product which obtained authorisation to be placed on the market as a medicinal product.’
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 January 2020 — Eulex Kosovo v Elitaliana

(Case C‑439/13 P-DEP)

(Taxation of costs)

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Meaning — Fees paid by a party to its lawyer — Included — Elements to be taken into consideration for the purposes of taxation

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b))

(see paras 12, 13)

Operative part

The total amount of the costs which Elitaliana Srl is to reimburse to Eulex Kosovo, in Case C‑439/13 P, is fixed at EUR 18000.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

9 July 2015 ( )

(Rectification of judgment)

In Case C‑585/13 P REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 19 November 2013,

Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors, H. Hohmann, Rechtsanwalt, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister,

applicant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

Council of the European Union, represented by F. Naert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by V. Kaye, acting as Agent, and by R. Palmer, Barrister,

European Commission,

interveners at first instance,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of T. von Danwitz, President of the Chamber, C. Vajda, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and D. Šváby, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Mengozzi,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 5 March 2015, the Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered its judgment in Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank v Council (C‑585/13 P, EU:C:2015:145).

2 That judgment contains errors which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify at the request of Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG pursuant to Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby orders:

1. Paragraph 114 of the judgment in Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank v Council (C‑585/13 P, EU:C:2015:145) shall be rectified as follows:

‘Since the Council has applied for costs and the appellant has been unsuccessful, the appellant must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council.’

2. Point 2 of the operative part of that judgment shall be rectified as follows:

‘Orders Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.’

3. The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified judgment. A note of this order shall be made in the margin of the original of the rectified judgment.

[Signatures]
The conditions governing suspension of the operation of a measure and other interim measures must be satisfied in the case of an application for interim measures brought by the successful party at first instance in the context of an appeal brought by another party against a judgment of the General Court annulling a regulation. If such an appeal is not to be deprived of the suspensive effect provided for in the second paragraph of Article 60 of the Statute of the Court, those requirements must apply in the situation where a judgment of the General Court has been given in favour of the applicant at first instance. However, when applying those conditions, as they have been interpreted in the Court’s case-law, the appellate court hearing an application for interim measures cannot disregard the fact that the court at first instance ruled in favour of that applicant. Therefore, it must apply those conditions mutatis mutandis.

With regard to the condition of establishing a prima facie case, it is satisfied where there is, at the stage of the interim proceedings, a major legal disagreement whose resolution is not immediately obvious. In the case of an application for interim measures made in the context of an appeal which has suspensive effect since it seeks to have set aside a judgment by which the General Court annulled a regulation, the application is made by the party which was successful at first instance. That being so, the court hearing the application for interim measures must determine whether the arguments of that party seeking to have the appeal dismissed are not without merit, in that they have a sufficient prospect of success. That means that the successful party at first instance must establish that, notwithstanding the grounds of appeal put forward by the other party, its own opposing arguments are sufficiently cogent that, prima facie, they are capable of succeeding and that, consequently, it is not obvious that the judgment under appeal must be set aside.

(see paras 21, 22, 24, 25)
Case C‑246/14

Vittoria De Bellis and Others

v

Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza per i Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (Inpdap)

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — National legislation providing for a reduction in pension entitlements with retroactive effect — Purely internal situation — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Summary — Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 15 October 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Purely internal situation — Interpretation sought because of a general renvoi made by a provision of national law to principles derived from the EU legal order — No such renvoi — Request not explaining why reference to the Court necessary — Manifest lack of jurisdiction

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts. 53(2), 94(a) and (c))

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 13-21, operative part)

Case C‑246/14

Vittoria De Bellis and Others

v

Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza per i Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (Inpdap)

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — National legislation providing for a reduction in pension entitlements with retroactive effect — Purely internal situation — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Summary — Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 15 October 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Purely internal situation — Interpretation sought because of a general renvoi made by a provision of national law to principles derived from the EU legal order — No such renvoi — Request not explaining why reference to the Court necessary — Manifest lack of jurisdiction

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts. 53(2), 94(a) and (c))

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 13-21, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Scope — Clause contained in a contract concluded before the Member State’s accession to the European Union — Not included

(Council Directive 93/13, Art. 10(1), second para.)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of a Community directive in proceedings antedating the accession of a Member State to the European Union — Not included

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question raised concerning a dispute confined within a single Member State — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 267 TFEU)

4. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the national dispute not having any connection with EU 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) and (2))

Summary

1. Since the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts provides that that directive is applicable only to contracts concluded after 31 December 1994, the date by which it was to have been implemented in national legislation, it is clear that Directive 93/13 does not apply to a contract concluded before the date on which the Member State in question acceded to the European Union. It is therefore necessary to take into consideration the date of the conclusion of the contract at issue in the main proceedings to determine the applicability of the directive to the contract; the period during which the contract produced effects is not relevant.

(see para. 28)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 27)

3. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 36, 37, 40)

4. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 44, 45)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 January 2015 —

ecaro Holding v OHIM

(Case C‑57/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 15(1) and 51(1)(a) — Word mark RECARO — Application for revocation — Partial refusal by the Board of Appeal of OHIM’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 57(2) and (3)) (see paras 24-28, 32, 33)

2. Appeals — Grounds — No distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Clearly unfounded ground of appeal (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 29-31)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Recaro Holding GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 January 2015 —

ecaro Holding v OHIM

(Case C‑57/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 15(1) and 51(1)(a) — Word mark RECARO — Application for revocation — Partial refusal by the Board of Appeal of OHIM’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 57(2) and (3)) (see paras 24-28, 32, 33)

2. Appeals — Grounds — No distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Clearly unfounded ground of appeal (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 29-31)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Recaro Holding GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 —

FTI Touristik v OHIM

(Case C‑253/14 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Marque verbale BigXtra — Absolute ground for refusal of registration — No distinctive character’

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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 26, 27)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. FTI Touristik GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 —

FTI Touristik v OHIM

(Case C‑253/14 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Marque verbale BigXtra — Absolute ground for refusal of registration — No distinctive character’

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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 26, 27)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.