ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 —

Caixabank and Abanca Corporación Bancaria

(Joined Cases C‑91/16 and C‑120/16) ( *1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Default interest rate — Application of the remunerative interest rate — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see paras 13-17, 19, 22)

Operative part

The requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Court of First Instance No 60, Madrid, Spain), by decisions of 8 February 2016 (Case C‑91/16) and of 18 February 2016 (Case C‑120/16), are manifestly inadmissible.

( *1 ) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 February 2017 —

Skylotec v EUIPO

(Case C‑587/16 P)

(Appeal — EU trade mark — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Revocation proceedings — Application for a black and white trade mark representing a polygon — Declaration of revocation)

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 para. 4)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal—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. 18)
3.

Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Individual concern—Criteria—Decision of the Commission concerning measures designed to prevent the introduction and spread in the EU of the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa—Action of olive oil producing undertakings falling within the category of operators concerned by the decision without being individualised by the application in their regard of the provisions in question—Not individually concerned (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Decision 2015/789) (see paras 62-65, 67, 68)
Judicial proceedings—Pleas in the application—Modification in the course of proceedings—Statement submitted in the name and on behalf of the deceased applicant—Obligation on the part of the General Court to identify another applicant—None

Judicial proceedings—Pleas in the application—Modification in the course of proceedings—Assimilation to the bringing of an action by means of an application—Admissibility—Assessment by reference to the situation at the time the statement of modification was lodged

Appeal—Grounds—Ground directed against the General Court’s decision as to costs—Inadmissible where all other grounds are rejected

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, second para.)
Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Definition — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings — Included

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

(see paras 31-33)
Appeal—Grounds—Appeal brought against a judgment ruling on joint cases—Whether possible for any party to raise a plea against any of the grounds of the General Court which adversely affect it, irrespective of the pleas raised by it before the General Court

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 26-28)
2

Article 36 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2012 L 112, p. 21) (‘the Act of Accession’), annexed to the Treaty between the Member States of the European Union and the Republic of Croatia concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (OJ 2012 L 112, p. 10) (‘the Accession Treaty’), states: ‘1. The Commission shall closely monitor all commitments undertaken by Croatia in the accession negotiations, including those which must be achieved before or by the date of accession. The Commission’s monitoring shall consist of regularly updated monitoring tables, dialogue under the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part …, peer assessment missions, the pre-accession economic programme, fiscal notifications and, when necessary, early warning letters to the Croatian authorities. In the autumn of 2011, the Commission shall present a Progress Report to the European Parliament and the Council. In the autumn of 2012, it shall present a Comprehensive Monitoring Report to the European Parliament and the Council. Throughout the monitoring process, the Commission shall also draw on input from Member States and take into consideration input from international and civil society organisations as appropriate. The Commission’s monitoring shall focus in particular on commitments undertaken by Croatia in the area of the judiciary and fundamental rights (Annex VII), including the continued development of track records on judicial reform and efficiency, impartial handling of war crimes cases, and the fight against corruption. … As an integral part of its regular monitoring tables and reports, the Commission shall issue six-monthly assessments up to the accession of Croatia on the commitments undertaken by Croatia in these areas. 2. The Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may take all appropriate measures if issues of concern are identified during the monitoring process. …’
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

3 September 2021 ( *1 )

(Rectification of judgment)

In Case C‑591/16 P‑REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 18 November 2016,

H. Lundbeck A/S, established in Valby (Denmark),

Lundbeck Ltd, established in Milton Keynes (United Kingdom),

represented initially by R. Subiotto QC and T. Kuhn, Rechtsanwalt, and subsequently by R. Subiotto QC,

appellants,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Commission, represented by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

supported by:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented initially by D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, J. Turner QC, J. Holmes QC and M. Demetriou QC and T. Sebastian, Barrister, and subsequently by D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, J. Turner QC, J. Holmes QC and M. Demetriou QC and T. Sebastian, Barrister,

intervener in the appeal,

European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), established in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by F. Carlin, Barrister, and N. Niejahr, Rechtsanwältin,

intervener at first instance,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of M. Vilaras, President of the Chamber, D. Šváby (Rapporteur), S. Rodin, K. Jürimäe and P.G. Xuereb, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Kokott,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 25 March 2021, the Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered the judgment in Lundbeck v Commission (C‑591/16 P, EU:C:2021:243).

2 That judgment contains, in its introductory part, errors which it is appropriate to rectify at the request of the European Commission, pursuant to Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to appeal proceedings in accordance with Article 190(1) of those rules.

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

1. In the introductory part of the judgment of 25 March 2021, Lundbeck v Commission (C‑591/16 P, EU:C:2021:243), the reference to the representatives of the European Commission shall be rectified as follows: ‘European Commission, represented by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents,’

2. 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.

Luxembourg, 3 September 2021. A. Calot Escobar Registrar M. Vilaras President of the Fourth Chamber

( *1 ) Language of the case: English.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 —

For Tune v EUIPO

(Case C‑23/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘fortune’ — Rejection in part of the application for registration)

EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see para. 5)

Operative part

1) The appeal is dismissed.
Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Request which has become devoid of purpose—No need to adjudicate

(Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 149 and 190(1))

(see paras 14, 15)
Joined Cases C‑177/17 and C‑178/17

Demarchi Gino Sas

and

Graziano Garavaldi

v

Ministero della Giustizia

(Requests for a preliminary ruling

from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Lack of a sufficiently close connection — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

Summary — Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 7 September 2017

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation not constituting a measure implementing EU law and not having any other connection with EU law — Clear 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); Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 53(2))

In order to determine whether national legislation involves the implementation of EU law for the purposes of Article 51 of the Charter, some of the points to be determined are whether that legislation is intended to implement a provision of EU law, the nature of that legislation and whether it pursues objectives other than those covered by EU law, even if it is capable of indirectly affecting EU law, and also whether there are specific rules of EU law on the matter or capable of affecting it (judgments of 6 March 2014, Siragusa, C‑206/13, EU:C:2014:126, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited, and of 10 July 2014, Julián Hernández and Others, C‑198/13, EU:C:2014:2055, paragraph 37).

In the present case, as is apparent from the orders for reference, the national provision at issue in the main proceedings concerns the procedure to recover amounts owed by the State by way of fair compensation for the excessive length of legal proceedings, provided for in Article 5sexies of Law No 89/2001. However, it must be noted that the provisions of the TFEU cited to by the referring court impose no specific obligations on the Member States as regards the recovery of sums owed by the State by way of fair compensation for the excessive duration of legal proceedings, and that, as it currently stands, EU law includes no specific rules in this field.

It follows from this that there is nothing to indicate that the dispute in the main proceedings relates to the interpretation or application of a rule of EU law other than those set out in the Charter. When a legal situation does not come within the scope of EU law, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on it and any provisions of the Charter relied upon cannot, of themselves, form the basis for such jurisdiction (order of 18 February 2016, Rîpanu, C‑407/15, not published, EU:C:2016:167, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

(see paras 20, 22, 25, 28)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context—Statement of the reasons for requiring an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

(see paras 16-18)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — Valkov v European Court of Human Rights and Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C‑701/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court of the European Union to hear and determine an action seeking annulment of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights and of a decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

1. Appeal—Grounds—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 General Court, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169) (see paras 10, 11)

2. Actions for annulment—Jurisdiction of the EU judicature—Review of the lawfulness of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights—Not included—Review of the lawfulness of a decision of a national court—Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 12)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal—Grounds—Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal—Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 21-23, 26-28)
Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Conditions relating to a signatory—Status of a third party in relation to the parties—Company represented by a lawyer who is also a director and shareholder of the applicant—Non-compliance with the requirement of independence—Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19)

(see paras 11, 19, 20)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 — Pinzaru and Cirstinoiu

(Case C‑707/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Control of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Failure to comply with the obligation to declare — Penalties laid down by national law — Confiscation by the State of the undeclared sum — Custodial sentence — Fine in the amount of twice the undeclared sum — Proportionality)

Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments—Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union—Regulation No 1889/2005—Obligation to declare—Infringement—Penalties—National legislation which provides, first, for confiscation by the Member State of the undeclared sum and, second, for a custodial sentence of up to six years or a fine in the amount of twice the undeclared sum—Unlawful—Breach of principle of proportionality

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1889/2005, Arts 3 and 9(1))

(see paras 30-33, 35, operative part)

Operative part

Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, as a penalty for failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, imposes, first, confiscation by the State of the undeclared sum and, second, a custodial sentence of up to six years or a fine in the amount of twice the undeclared sum.

( 1 ) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2020 – International Management Group v Commission

(Case C‑183/17 P-INT)

(Application for interpretation – Manifest inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings – Interpretation of a judgment – Conditions for the admissibility thereof

(Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 158(1))

(see paras 19, 20, 24, 25)

Operative part

1. The application for interpretation is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2019 — Rossi and Others

(Case C‑626/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Justices of the Peace — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Limits — Hypothetical questions — Lack of jurisdiction of the referring court to adjudicate on the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU)

(see paras 23, 24, 27, 28)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Giudice di pace di Roma (Justice of the Peace, Italy), by decision of 17 October 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 52 of 12.2.2018.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 May 2018 — Bán

(Case C‑24/18)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fundamental freedoms — Articles 49 and 63 TFEU — Purely internal situation — Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the case in the main proceedings — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context—Scope of the obligation in the area of fundamental freedoms—Question raised concerning a dispute confined within a single Member State—No indication of how the interpretation sought is necessary to the outcome of the dispute—Manifest inadmissibility

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

(see paras 14-19)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Blrôsâg (Court of the second and third districts of Budapest, Hungary), by decision of 12 December 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.
EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see paras 4, 5)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 July 2018 — Wenger v EUIPO

(Case C‑162/18 P)

(Appeal — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

Appeal—Interest in bringing proceedings—Condition—Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it

(see para 13)

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the present appeal.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO

(Case C‑408/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Figurative mark including the word element ‘hp’ — Invalidity proceedings — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity)

Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Review by the Court of the findings of fact—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. 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
Appeal—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), first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2))

(see para. 6)
Appeal — 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 — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para)

(see paras 28, 29, 46, 47)
1.

EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Facts, evidence and observations submitted in support of the opposition — Proof of the existence, validity and scope of the protection of an earlier registered trade mark — Purposive interpretation — Registration certificate sufficient as proof — Conditions (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 19(2)) (see para. 5)
Appeal — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — 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. 24)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject matter of the national dispute not having any connection with EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 51(1) and (2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

(see paras 11, 13-15, operative part)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 June 2019 — Linak v EUIPO

(Case C‑820/18 P)

Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (CE) No 6/2002 — Article 6 — Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Representation of an electrically operated lifting column)

Appeal — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the General Court’s assessment of the facts and the 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. 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
Appeal — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it — Appeal seeking to challenge a judgment of the General Court concerning access to documents in order to avoid the recurrence, in the future, of decisions of the institutions vitiated by unlawfulness — Alleged unlawfulness not liable to recur in the future — No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts. 149 and 190(1))

(see paras 27-30, 34)
European Parliament — Members — Payment of expenses and allowances — Parliamentary assistance allowances — Check relating to the use of parliamentary assistance costs — Burden of proof

(Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, Art. 33(1) and (2))

(see paras 37, 98)