ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 September 2006 – El Corte Inglés v OHIM and Pucci

(Case C-104/05 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion – Figurative mark ‘EMILIO PUCCI’ – Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative marks ‘EMIDIO TUCCI’ – Similarity between the goods

1. Appeal – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 40)

2. Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts by the Court of First Instance – Possible only when the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 45)

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2004 in Case T-8/03 El Corte Inglés v OHIM – Pucci , dismissing an action for the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 3 October 2002, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division partially rejecting the opposition brought against the application for registration of the figurative Community trade mark ‘EMILIO PUCCI’ for goods in Classes 3, 18, 24 and 25.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay 80% of the costs;
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 January 2008 – Pucci v El Corte Inglés

(Case C‑104/05 P-DEP)

Taxation of costs

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 10)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 September 2006.

Operative part

The total amount of the costs which El Corte Inglés SA must reimburse to Emilio Pucci Srl is fixed at EUR 5 600.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

22 January 2007

Case C-373/05 P

Bart Nijs

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Appeal – Officials – Decision not to promote an official to Grade LA 5 – Previous complaint – Identity of subject-matter and legal basis – Appeal manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case T-377/04 Nijs v Court of Auditors, not published in the ECR, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors not to promote the appellant to the post of translator-reviser (LA 5) in the 2003 promotion exercise.

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

Summary

Officials – Actions – Previous administrative complaint – None – Inadmissible

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(2))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Capsules containing primarily melatonin

Summary

On a proper interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, tariff heading 3004 covers capsules containing primarily melatonin which, since they principally constitute a treatment for insomnia and the effects of jetlag through their stabilising effect on the human nervous system, have a clearly defined therapeutic or prophylactic purpose and are sold in the form of capsules which each correspond to a daily dose.

(see paras 25-26, 30, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities’ public procurement

–

Tendering procedure (see paras 29-31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 February 2006 in Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05 TEA-CEGOS and Others v Commission dismissing the application for annulment, first, of the Commission’s decisions of 12 October 2005 rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicants in the context of the procedure for the call for tenders bearing the reference ‘EuropeAid/119860/C/SV/multi-Lot 7’ and, second, of any other decision taken by the Commission in the context of the same call for tenders following the decisions of 12 October 2005.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders TEA-CEGOS SA and Services techniques globaux (STG) SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Provisional measures

–

Conditions for granting

–

Prima facie case

–

Serious and irreparable damage

–

Balancing of the interests involved

–

Interest in the sound administration of justice (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 84(2); Council Directive 79/409) (see paras 14-20

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations – Adoption and application by the Region of Liguria of legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds failing to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders the Italian Republic to suspend application of Regional Law No 36/2006 of the Region of Liguria, of 31 October 2006, implementing the derogation provided for in Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC concerning the conservation of wild birds, for the hunting season of 2006/07, until delivery of the order terminating the present interim proceedings;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Lack of distinctiveness of sign (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 26, 41

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2006 in Case T-302/03, PTV v OHIM (map & guide), dismissing the action for annulment of the decision which refused the application for registration of the word mark ‘map & guide’ in respect of certain goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42 – Distinctiveness of the mark.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Whether admissible

–

Questions not providing sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 6-11

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Sozialgericht Würzburg – Interpretation of Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) – Calculation of the unemployment benefits of a boatman on the Rhine (‘Rheinschiffer’) who was resident, during his last period of employment, on the territory of a Member State other than the State of employment and returned, in accordance with his contract of employment, only every second week to his place of residence – Classification of that worker as ‘a frontier worker’ or ‘a worker, other than a frontier worker’.

Operative part

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Sozialgericht Würzburg by decision of 28 September 2006 is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Interpretation of a judgment

–

Application for the interpretation of an order

–

Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 102) (see paras 6-8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for the interpretation of the order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 November 2007 in Case C-502/06 P Carlos Correia de Matos v European Parliament .

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly does not have jurisdiction to provide a reply to the application for interpretation made by Mr Correia de Matos;

2. Orders Mr Correia de Matos to bear his own costs.
Order of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 4 October 2007 – Finland v Commission

(Case C‑457/06 P)

Appeal – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility – Measure not having binding legal effects – European Communities’ own resources – Infringement procedure – Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 – Interest for late payment – Negotiations for an agreement on a conditional payment – Refusal letter

1. European Communities’ own resources – Establishment and making available by the Member States (Arts 10 EC and 226 EC; Council Regulation No 1150/2000) (see paras 34, 36, 38-40, 42-43)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 1150/2000) (see paras 36, 45, 54, 59-60)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2006 in Case T‑350/05 Finland v Commission dismissing as inadmissible an application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 8 July 2005 refusing to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Finland on the possibility of paying provisionally the customs duties on defence equipment claimed by the Commission in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations – Acts against which an action may be brought.

Operative part:

The appeal is dismissed.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Apache Footwear Ltd, Apache II Footwear Ltd (Qingxin), the Provincia di Ascoli Piceno and the Comune di Monte Urano shall bear their own costs.

Luxembourg, 25 January 2008.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Jurisdiction of the national Court (Art. 234 EC) (see para. 16)

2. Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Questions referred without sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context (Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 17-19)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for preliminary ruling – Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias – Interpretation of Article 43 EC – Regulations laying down conditions required to open new pharmacies.

Operative part

Operative part:

The references for preliminary rulings made by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias, by decisions of 30 November 2006 and 29 January 2007, are manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Community rules – Obligations of the Member States – Legislation intended to reinforce the effects of pre-existing agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Meaning (Arts 10 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 18-27, operative part 1)

2. Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Questions referred without sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context – Questions referred in a context making a useful answer impossible – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 29-35, operative part 2)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consiglio di Stato – Interpretation of Articles 10 and 81(1) EC and Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) – Fixing by a national professional organisation of mandatory tariffs for lawyers’ services subject to ministerial approval – National rules prohibiting judges in decisions on costs from derogating from the set minimum fees.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Articles 10 EC and 81 EC do not preclude a national law which in principle prohibits derogation from minimum fees approved by ministerial decree, on the basis of a draft drawn up by a professional body of lawyers such as the Consiglia nazionale forense, and which also prohibits the court, when it decides the amount of costs that the unsuccessful party must pay to the other party, from derogating from those minimum fees.

2. The third question referred by the Consiglio di Stato by decision of 13 January 2006 is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Art. 242 EC) (see paras 16-17)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 242 EC) (see paras 18-19)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of operation of Regulation No 809/2007 containing a definition of the concept of ‘drift-net’ capable of requiring an effective cessation of fishing with ‘thonaille’ nets – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Art. 242 EC; Council Regulation No 809/2007) (see paras 24-25, 28-31)

Subject of the case

Re:

Action for annulment – Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (OJ 2007 L 182, p. 1) – Concept of ‘drift nets’ – Inclusion in that concept of stabilised nets such as the ‘thonaille’ – Infringement of the obligation to provide reasons and of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rejects the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Transport

–

Road transport

–

Driving licences

–

Directive 91/439 (Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Arts 1(2) and 8(2) and (4)) (see para. 45, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Amtsgericht Landau/Isar – Interpretation of Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) – Non-recognition by the Member State of residence, on its territory, of a driving licence obtained in another Member State during the period of a temporary ban on applying for a new licence in the Member State of residence.

Operative part

Operative part

Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State where the holder of that licence was, on the date on which the licence was issued, subject to a temporary ban on obtaining a new driving licence in the first Member State. The fact that the question of validity arose after the date that marked the end of the period of the ban is irrelevant.
Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2007,

Sellier

v

Commission

(T-276/06), whereby the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action by the applicant for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 14 July 2006 to take no action on his complaint alleging that French legislation concerning the deposit of funds held by notaries with certain banking establishments was contrary to Community law.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 11-45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure – Action on taxation of costs following judgment of the Court of 25 July 2008.

Operative part

Operative part:

The total costs to be reimbursed by the Commission of the European Communities to C.A.S. SpA are fixed at EUR 29 568.
1.

Following the judgment of 21 July 2005 in Case C-207/04 Vergani, in which national legislation was found to be incompatible with Community law, it is for the authorities of the Member State concerned to adopt the general or specific measures necessary to ensure that Community law is complied with in their territory, those authorities retaining the choice of measures to be taken to ensure that national law is changed so as to comply with Community law and that the rights which individuals derive from Community law are given full effect. Where there has been found to be discrimination contrary to Community law, for as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, a national court must set aside any discriminatory provision of national law, without having to request or await its prior removal by the legislature, and apply to members of the disadvantaged category the same arrangements as those enjoyed by the persons in the other category.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 June 2008 – Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30 v Commission

(Case C‑448/07 P)

Appeal – Provision of data relating to the excessive deficit procedure – Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 – European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA 1995) – Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 – Classification of the body ‘Madrid Calle 30’ in the ‘general government’ sector – Eurostat press release – Actionable act

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Commission press release publishing data relating to government debt and deficit – Implied decision approving the classification of a body in the general government sector of the European System of Accounts 1995 – None (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 3605/93, Arts 8a(1), 8c, 8g, 8h and 8i(1) (see paras 45-53)

Re:

Appeal against order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 in Case T-177/06 Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30, SA v Commission dismissing as inadmissible an action for the annulment of the Eurostat news release No 48/2006 of 24 April 2006 to the extent that it contains a decision of the Commission (Eurostat) on the classification of Madrid Calle 30 in the ‘general government’ sector within the European System of Accounts (ESA 95).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 in Case T-491/04

Merant

v

OHIM

, by which that Court annulled decision R 542/2002-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2004 upholding an action against the opposition decision which partially rejected the application for registration of Community word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national figurative mark ‘MICRO FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 41 and 42 – Likelihood of confusion between two marks.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Direct effect

(Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Art. 37; Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Art. 10(1))

2. International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Workers – Equal treatment

(Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Art. 37; Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Art. 10(1))

Summary

1. The wording of Article 37 of the Additional Protocol, annexed to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, is essentially the same as that in the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Association Agreement with Slovakia and Article 23(1) of the Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement which lay down, in clear, precise and unconditional terms, a prohibition precluding any Member State from discriminating, on grounds of nationality, against the workers from the non-member State concerned, vis-à-vis their own nationals, so far as their conditions of work, remuneration and dismissal are concerned. Those provisions may therefore be relied on by individuals before the courts of the Member States.

Furthermore, Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80, which repeats the rule laid down in Article 37 of the Additional Protocol, lays down in clear, precise and unconditional terms a prohibition precluding Member States from discriminating, on the basis of nationality, against Turkish migrant workers duly registered as belonging to their labour force as regards remuneration and other conditions of work.

(see paras 28-29)

2. The prohibition on all discrimination against Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the Member States with respect to remuneration and other conditions of work, as laid down in Article 37 of the Additional Protocol, annexed to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, and Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80, adopted by the Association Council established by that agreement, on the development of the association, must be interpreted as precluding the application to a professional sportsman of Turkish nationality legally employed by a club established in a Member State, of a rule laid down by a sports association in that State, according to which clubs are authorised to field in competitions organised at national level only a limited number of players from non-member States which are not parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

(see para. 32, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

–

Trade marks

–

Directive 89/104

–

Registration of a trade mark refused or trade mark declared invalid

–

Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States

–

Effect (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 19

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Bundespatentgericht (Germany) – Interpretation of Article 3 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) – Examination of applications for registration of trade marks on a case-by-case basis without account being taken of earlier decisions in similar situations – Refusal to register a trade mark applied for by the proprietor of a series of similar marks.

Operative part

Operative part:

The competent authority of a Member State called upon to rule on an application for registration of a trade mark is not required to disregard the grounds for refusal of registration set out in Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by Council Decision 92/10/EEC of 19 December 1991, and to grant that application on the ground that the sign for which registration as a trade mark is sought is composed in a manner identical or comparable to a sign which it has already accepted for registration as a trade mark and which refers to identical or similar goods or services.