ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Breach by the contested directive of a higher-ranking legal rule - Criterion not automatically met

(Art. 242 EC)

2. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Burden of proof

(Art. 242 EC)

Summary

1. Whilst a breach of a higher-ranking legal rule may affect the validity of a directive, it cannot in principle be sufficient on its own to establish that any damage caused is serious and irreparable, thereby meeting one of the criteria for suspension of operation of the directive. It is not enough to allege infringement of fundamental rights in the abstract for the purposes of establishing that the harm which could result would necessarily be irreparable.

( see para. 45 )

2. Whilst it is true that, for the purposes of establishing the existence of serious and irreparable damage in proceedings for interim measures, it is not necessary to prove beyond all possible doubt that the damage in question will arise, and although it is enough to show that it is sufficiently likely to occur, the applicant is nevertheless required to prove the facts on the basis of which it is alleged that such serious and irreparable damage is foreseeable.

( see para. 51 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for non-enforcement of the right to immediate payment of a fine - Conditions for granting - Exceptional circumstances

(Art. 242 EC)

2 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for non-enforcement of the right to immediate payment of a fine - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Account taken of the financial situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs

(Art. 242 EC)

3 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Cumulative conditions

(Art. 242 EC)

Summary

1 An application for dispensation from an obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for non-enforcement by the Commission of its right to immediate payment of a fine can be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

In the context of applications for interim relief, express provision is made in the Rules of Procedure of both the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance for requiring security to be lodged, which is a general and reasonable policy pursued by the Commission.

2 In assessing the ability of undertakings to furnish a bank guarantee, regard may be had to the group of undertakings to which it belongs and, in particular, to the resources available to that group as a whole.

That approach is based on the idea that the objective interests of the undertaking concerned are not autonomous in relation to those of the natural or legal persons with a controlling interest in it and that, consequently, the serious and irreparable nature of the damage alleged must be assessed at the level of the group comprising those persons. In particular, given that the interests at stake overlap, the undertaking's interest in its own survival must not be viewed in isolation from the interest of those controlling it in prolonging its life indefinitely.

In that connection a simple unilateral refusal of assistance by the principal shareholder cannot be enough to preclude the financial situation of the group as a whole from being taken into account. The extent of the damage alleged cannot flow from the unilateral intent of the majority shareholder of the undertaking.

3 In an application for interim measures, given the cumulative nature of the conditions for granting suspension of the operation of a measure, an application for suspension must be dismissed if any one of them is absent.

Accordingly, if the court hearing the application considers that the existence or imminence of serious and irreparable damage has not been established, it is no longer obliged to balance the various interests at stake.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 October 1999. - N v Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal - Former officials - Staff report - Interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility. - Case C-21/99 P.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-07163



Keywords

Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments raised before the Court of First Instance - Appeal clearly inadmissible and unfounded

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))
Keywords



Keywords

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

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

2. Social policy - Protection of workers' safety and health - Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time - Scope - Medical and nursing staff in the on-call service, in primary care teams and in other services treating outside emergencies - Included

(Council Directive 93/104, Art. 1(3))

3. Social policy - Protection of workers' safety and health - Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time - Derogations provided for in Article 17 - Applicability

(Council Directive 93/104, Art. 17)

4. Social policy - Protection of workers' safety and health - Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time - Working time - Definition - Medical and nursing staff in the on-call service, in primary care teams and in other services treating outside emergencies

(Council Directive 93/104, Art. 2(1))
Order of the President of the Court of 21 March 2002. - Anklagemyndigheden v Tonny Haugsted Hansen. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Københavns Byret - Denmark. - Removal from the register. - Case C-233/99.



European Court reports 2002 Page I-03107



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Withdrawal by the national court of the questions referred to the Court - Removal from the register

(Art. 234 EC)

Parties

In Case C-233/99,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by Københavns Byret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against

Tonny Haugsted Hansen,

on the interpretation of Articles 5, 7, 9 and 18 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10), and of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC),

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

after hearing Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

makes the following

Order

Grounds

1 By order of 17 June 1999, received at the Court on 21 June 1999, Københavns Byret referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC three questions on the interpretation of Articles 5, 7, 9 and 18 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10), and of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).

2 By letter of 14 February 2002, received at the Court on 20 February 2002, Københavns Byret informed the Court that it wished to withdraw its application.

3 In the circumstances, the present case must be removed from the register.

4 The costs incurred by the Danish, Netherlands and United Kingdom Governments and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

hereby orders:

Case C-233/99 is removed from the register.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Officials - Social security - Insurance against accidents and occupational diseases - Accident - Definition - Acceptance of risk or negligence - Excluded

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and occupational disease, Art. 2(1))

Summary

$$Acceptance of risk and negligence are not used in the definition of accident in Article 2(1) of the Rules on the Insurance of officials against the risk of accident and occupational disease. Their application to a particular case cannot, therefore, preclude an event or external factor being treated as an accident, but could only serve to exclude an accident within the meaning of the rules on insurance cover laid down in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations.

( see para. 21 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition - Administrative procedure - Investigation of complaints - Excessive duration - Consequences

2. Appeals - Grounds - Plea alleging incorrect appraisal of the facts - Inadmissible - Whether the Court of Justice may review the appraisal of the evidence submitted to the Court of First Instance - Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

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

3. Appeals - Grounds - Admissibility - Conditions

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

Summary

1. Where an excessive amount of time is taken to deal with a complaint concerning infringement of the competition rules, that cannot, as a rule, affect the actual content of the final decision adopted by the Commission. It cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, alter the substantive matters which, according to the case, determine whether or not the existence of an infringement of the competition rules is established or give the Commission good reason not to conduct an investigation.

( see para. 34 )

2. The Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction to make findings of fact, save where a substantive inaccuracy in those findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it, and also to appraise those facts. The appraisal of the facts does not, save where the evidence before the Court of First Instance has been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal.

( see para. 41 )

3. In any appeal a precise statement must be given not only of the parts of the judgment under appeal with which the appellant takes issue but also of the legal arguments upon which the appeal is specifically founded.

( see para. 44 )
Case C-204/01

Tillmann Klett

v

Bundesministerin für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)

‛Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom to provide services — Directives 78/686/EEC and 93/16/EEC — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications — Admission to training for dentists — Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria’

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 5 November 2002 I-10009

Summary of the Order

Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Practitioners of dentistry — Recognition of diplomas and evidence of qualifications — Directive 78/686 — Transitional measures concerning Austria — Recognition of a diploma in medicine combined with a diploma certifying a specialisation in the field of dentistry — Scope — Entitlement of a person whose diploma in medicine was not obtained in Austria to be admitted to such a training course in dentistry — No such entitlement

(Council Directive 78/686, Art. 19b)

Article 19b of Directive 78/686 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, permits, in the context of the special transitional regime established for Austria on accession to the European Union, the recognition of a diploma in basic medicine combined with a diploma certifying a specialisation in the field of dentistry, for the purpose of practising as a dental practitioner in the other Member States.

That provision must be interpreted as meaning that a person whose degree in general medicine was not conferred by an Austrian university cannot be admitted to a training course in dentistry offered in that Member State. Such courses were to cease to exist and were to continue to be available only to enable persons who had already begun such training to complete it.

(see paras 34-35, 41, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Civil liability insurance in respect of motor vehicles — Directive 84/5 — Member State which provides for a number of types of civil liability — National laws laying down, in respect of one of them, maximum amounts of compensation that are lower than the minimum amounts of cover — Not permissible — (Council Directive 84/5, Art. 1(2))

Summary

Article 1(2) of the Second Directive 84/5 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles precludes national laws which provide for a number of types of civil liability applicable to road-traffic accidents, laying down, in respect of one of them, maximum amounts of compensation that are lower than the minimum amounts of cover laid down by that article.

see para. 25, operative part
Keywords



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Protocol on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention - National courts which may request the Court to give a preliminary ruling - Luxembourg Tribunal de paix acting at first instance - Excluded - Court clearly lacking jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the questions referred to it

(Protocol of 3 June 1971, Art. 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Reasons for revocation of the trade mark — Lack of genuine use of the trade mark — Definition — (Council Directive 89/104, Arts. 10(1) and 12(1))

2. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Reasons for revocation of the trade mark — Lack of genuine use of the trade mark — Consideration of circumstances subsequent to the filing of the application for revocation — Whether permissible — Conclusion to be drawn by the national court — (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 12(1))

Summary

1. Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of First Directive 89/104 on trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that there is " genuine use" of a trade mark where it is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services; genuine use does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by that mark. When assessing whether use of the trade mark is genuine, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial use of the mark is real in the course of trade, particularly whether such use is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark, the nature of those goods or services, the characteristics of the market and the scale and frequency of use of the mark. When it serves a real commercial purpose, in the circumstances cited above, even minimal use of the mark or use by only a single importer in the Member State concerned can be sufficient to establish genuine use within the meaning of the directive.

see para. 27, operative part 1

2. While First Directive 89/104 on trade marks makes the classification of use of the trade mark as " genuine use" , within the meaning of Article 12(1), consequential only on consideration of the circumstances which pertain in respect of the relevant period and which predate the filing of the application for revocation, it does not preclude, in assessing the genuineness of use during the relevant period, account being taken, where appropriate, of any circumstances subsequent to that filing. It is for the national court to determine whether such circumstances confirm that the use of the mark during the relevant period was genuine or whether, conversely, they reflect an intention on the part of the proprietor to defeat that claim

see para. 33, operative part 2
ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

29 January 2004

((Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Fruit and vegetables – Producers' organisation – Extension of the rules governing production and marketing – Imposition of membership fees – Non-member producers))

and

THE COURT (First Chamber),

the national court having been informed that the Court proposes to give its decision by way of a reasoned order in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice having been invited to submit any observations which they might wish to make in this regard, makes the following

Order

1

2

Legal background

3

─ a producers' organisation or

─ an association of producers' organisations having adopted the same rules,

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

4

5

─ administrative costs resulting from application of the scheme referred to in paragraph 1,

─ the cost of research, market research and sales promotion measures undertaken by the organisation or association and benefiting all producers in the area.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

─ a Member State which has applied Article 15b(1), by making certain production and marketing rules laid down by a producers' organisation mandatory for producers who are established in the district of that organisation and who are not members of it, may not, without infringing the principle of non-discrimination, apply Article 15b(8) by making them liable for all or part of the fees paid by member producers, without determining whether those non-member producers are in a situation objectively different from that of the member producers;

─ non-member producers are in a situation objectively different from that of the member producers when the rules adopted by that organisation do not apply or apply only marginally to their products and the actions undertaken by the organisation are of no benefit or only of marginal benefit to those products;

─ it is for the national courts to assess the evidence presented on this point.

31

On those grounds,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

─

─

─

R. Grass P. Jann
Case C-471/02 P(R)





Santiago Gómez-Reino

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – Interlocutory proceedings – Conditions for admissibility of the application for interim measures – Officials – Investigative powers of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – Rights of the defence)»

Order of the President of the Court, 8 April 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order

1.. Appeal – Pleas in law – Insufficient statement of reasons – Application as regards orders on applications for interim measures

2.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions governing admissibility – Main action prima facie admissible – Obligation on the applicant to adduce evidence – Evidence to be appraised by the Court of First Instance – Findings of fact – Whether these may be reviewed in the course of an appeal – Not possible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2))

3.. Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Preparatory act – Opening and conduct of an internal investigation – Inadmissible – Damage to the rights of the defence – Not relevant

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1.

2.

3.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Registration in breach of the provisions of Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 – Material date for the examination of whether the mark has become customary – Taking account of circumstances subsequent to the date of filing the application for registration – Whether permitted

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(d) and 51(1)(a))

Summary

While the date of filing the application for registration of a Community trade mark is the material date for the examination of the absolute ground for invalidity referred to in Articles 7(1)(d) and 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, relating to whether the mark has become customary, it is possible without inconsistency in reasoning or error of law for material to be taken into account which, although subsequent to the date of filing the application, enables the drawing of conclusions on the situation as it was on that date.

(see paras 40-41)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Questions raised without sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context — Questions containing a mere reference to the facts found in judgments and decisions of other national authorities — (Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23)

Summary

The need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary that the national court define the factual and legal context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based. That requirement is of particular importance in the area of competition, where the factual and legal situations are complex. Moreover, it is essential that the national court should give at the very least some explanation of the reasons for the choice of the Community provisions of which it requests an interpretation and on the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute.

All that information 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 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Accordingly, a reference for a preliminary ruling containing a mere reference to the facts found in other judgments or in a decision of the competent competition authority is manifestly inadmissible in so far as it does not enable the Court usefully to reply or put the governments of the Member States in a position to submit observations.

see paras 6-8, 12
Case C-393/03 R





Republic of Austria

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Application for interim measures – System of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria – Refusal by the Commission to reduce the number of ecopoints for 2003)»

Order of the President of the Court, 14 November 2003

Summary of the Order
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs

–

Factors to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court of 24 July 2003.

Operative part

Operative part

The total amount of costs which the Commission of the European Communities must repay to Artegodan GmbH is fixed at EUR 22 383.49.