ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/59

Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-594/14) (1)

(2015/C 381/76)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/77

Order of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Pelikan v OHIM — RMP (be.bag)

(Case T-517/14) (1)

(2015/C 398/90)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/58

Order of the General Court of 8 September 2015 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)

(Case T-252/14) (1)

(2015/C 381/73)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/28

Order of the General Court of 18 December 2015 — CompuGroup Medical v OHIM — Schatteiner (SAM)

(Case T-850/14)

((Action for annulment - Community trade mark - Time-limit for bringing an action - Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal to the electronic account at OHIM of the applicant’s representative - Out of time - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2016/C 068/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: CompuGroup Medical AG (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: H. Kunz, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Simon Schatteiner (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schulz and H. Pernez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2014 (Case R 818/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Simon Schatteiner and CompuGroup Medical AG.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/55

Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — EREF v Commission

(Case T-694/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Association - Members not directly concerned - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 038/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: U. Prall, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, K. Herrmann and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the Communication from the Commission of 28 June 2014, entitled ‘Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020’ (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1), concerning the assessment criteria of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid for energy from renewable sources.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) shall pay its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/43

Order of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — REWE-Zentral v EUIPO — Vicente Gandía Pla (MY PLANET)

(Case T-362/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 270/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and A. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: I. P. Harrington and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Vicente Gandía Pla, SA (Chiva, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2014 (Case R 201/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Vicente Gandía PIa SA and REWE-Zentral AG.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. REWE-Zentral AG is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
59

In that connection, as regards the condition – relied on by the Commission and the Kingdom of Denmark – concerning the absence of implementing measures, the Court made clear in paragraphs 63 and 66 of the judgment in Montessori that although, for the beneficiaries of an aid scheme, the national provisions establishing that scheme and the measures implementing those provisions, such as a tax notice, constitute implementing measures entailed by a decision declaring the scheme incompatible with the internal market or declaring it compatible with that market subject to compliance with commitments entered into by the Member State concerned, that interpretation cannot be applied to the situation of the competitors of beneficiaries of a national measure that has been found not to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Such a competitor does not satisfy the conditions laid down by that measure to be eligible to benefit from it. In those circumstances, it would be artificial to require that competitor to request the national authorities to grant it that benefit and to contest the refusal of that request before a national court, in order to cause that court to ask the Court of Justice about the validity of the Commission’s decision concerning that measure.
Interim relief – Procedure – Whether desirable to hear the parties – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief – Criteria

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 160 to 164)

(see paragraph 22)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 August 2022 –

Kerstens v Commission

(Case C‑447/21 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal – Civil Service – Disciplinary proceedings – Requests for assistance – Rejection – Notification of decisions by electronic means – Action for annulment – Period allowed for commencing proceedings – Point from which time starts to run – Action brought out of time)

Actions brought by officials – Time limits – Point from which time starts to run – Decision notified by email – Presumption of notification – None

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91(3))

(see paragraphs 25, 31, 32, 39, 65, 70)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Petrus Kerstens to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

( 1 ) OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 November 2022 – Commission v Poland (Exemption from excise duty on alcohol used for the production of medicines)

(Case C‑166/21) ( )

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages – Directive 92/83/EEC – Exemption from harmonised excise duty – Ethyl alcohol used for the production of medicines – Article 27(1)(d) – Exemption conditional on placing the alcohol under a duty suspension arrangement – No facility to obtain a refund of the excise duty paid – Principle of proportionality)

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/83 – Alcohol and alcoholic beverages – Exemptions from harmonised excise duty – Products used for the production of medicines – Concept

(Council Directive 92/83, Art. 27(1)(d))

(see paragraph 42)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/83 – Alcohol and alcoholic beverages – Exemptions from harmonised excise duty – Exemptions provided for in Article 27(1) of the Directive – Power of Member States to attach other conditions to those exemptions – Limits

(Council Directive 92/83, Art. 27(1))

(see paragraphs 44-46)

3. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/83 – Alcohol and alcoholic beverages – Exemptions from harmonised excise duty – Ethyl alcohol used for the production of medicines – Exemption conditional on placing the alcohol under a duty suspension arrangement – Whether permissible – No obligation on Member States to adopt legislation providing for the refund of those excise duties

(Council Directives 92/83, recitals 18 and 23 and Arts 25 and 27(1) and (6), and 2008/118, Art. 11)

(see paragraphs 50-52, 54, 55, 57-62)

Operative part

The Court

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland;
Appeal – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Scope of the obligation to state reasons – Obligation for the General Court to clearly and unequivocally disclose its reasoning

(Art. 256(1), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117(m))

(see paragraphs 50-54)
Judicial proceedings – Costs – Taxation of costs – Recoverable costs – Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties – Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer – Included – Elements to be taken into consideration for the purposes of taxation of costs

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b))

(see paragraphs 15-18, 21, 24-26)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 –

PF (Age limit for the recruitment of police psychologists)

(Case C‑569/21)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Directive 2000/78/EC – Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – National legislation fixing a maximum age limit of 30 years for the recruitment of technical psychologist commissioners – Justification)

1. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 – Scope – National legislation fixing the maximum age for recruitment of technical psychologist commissioners at 30 years – Included (Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 3(1)(a)) (see paragraphs 45, 46)

2. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – National legislation fixing the maximum age for recruitment of technical psychologist commissioners at 30 years – Genuine and determining occupational requirement for carrying out that activity – None – Justifications – None – Not permissible (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 21; Council Directive 2000/78, Arts 1, 2(2), 4(1) and 6(1)) (see paragraphs 48, 49, 51-54, 56, 57, 59, 67-71, operative part)

Operative part

Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the fixing of a maximum age limit of 30 years for participation in a competition aimed at recruiting police psychologists.
4.

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 facts or evidence have been distorted – Ground of appeal alleging distortion 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 – Requirement that the distortion be obvious from the documents in the file (Art. 256(1), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paragraphs 51, 52)
Order of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2022 –

Mara-Tóni

(Case C‑244/22) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirement to state the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred – Requirement to state the relationship between the provisions in respect of which interpretation is sought and the national legislation applicable – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred without sufficient information regarding the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of explanation as to the relationship between the provisions of Union law relied on by the referring court and the national legislation applicable to the main proceedings – Manifest inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(c); European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/104, Art. 3(1)(b) and (c); Council Directive 2001/23, Art. 1(1))

(see paragraphs 22-30, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), by decision of 1 March 2022, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 –

VP (Written evidence)

(Case C‑188/22)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 – Taking of evidence – Written evidence of a person residing in a Member State other than the Member State of the court having jurisdiction – Possibility of having recourse to the means of taking evidence provided for by national law and not to that provided for by that regulation)

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters – Regulation No 1206/2001 – Written evidence of a person residing in a Member State other than the Member State of the competent court – Power of that court to apply the rules of national law – No authorisation from the central body or the competent authority of the requested Member State within the meaning of the regulation – Admissibility

(Council Regulation No 1206/2001, recitals 2, 7, 8, 10 and 11 and Arts. 1(1)(b), 3, 17 and 21(2))

(see paragraphs 26-35, operative part)

Operative part

Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

a court of a Member State wishing to take evidence from a person residing in another Member State need not necessarily use the means of taking evidence provided for in that regulation, but may take evidence from that person in writing, in accordance with the law of the Member State to which the court belongs, without obtaining the authorisation of the central body or the competent authority of the requested Member State within the meaning of Article 3 of that regulation.
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 12 July 2022 –

Cipla Europe v EUIPO and Glaxo Group

(Case C‑245/22 P(I))

(Appeal – Intervention – EU trade mark – Cancellation proceedings – Leave for other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to participate in the proceedings in the case before the General Court – Time limits – Unforeseeable circumstances – Participation in the oral proceedings – Rejection)

1. Appeal – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the General Court on implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see paragraphs 28, 29)

2. Judicial proceedings – Intervention – Time limits – Time-barred – Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure – Concept (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 143(1)) (see paragraphs 35-37)

3. Judicial proceedings – Intervention – Time limits – Time-barred – Admissibility in the light of the right for all persons to a fair trial (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 143(1)) (see paragraph 46)

4. Judicial proceedings – Intervention – Failure of a party to the proceedings before the EUIPO to comply with the time limit referred to in Article 179 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Not possible to intervene under Article 173 of those rules (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts. 40, second para, and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts. 173 and 179) (see paragraphs 59-61)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 June 2022 –

Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission

(Case C‑3/22 P)

(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 263 TFEU – Acts which may be the subject of an action before the EU Courts – Pre-accession assistance – Legal situation forming part of contractual relationships governed by the national law designated by the contracting parties – National public procurement – Letter from the European Commission concerning the enforcement of a bank guarantee requested by the national contracting authority)

Action for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Pre-accession assistance instrument – Public procurement procedure in the context of the decentralised management of an EU programme – National public procurement – Termination of the contract by the contracting authority – Request for enforcement by the contracting authority of a bank guarantee – Countersignature by the head of the EU Delegation in the non-member State or by his or her deputy – Legal situation forming part of contractual relationships governed by the national law designated by the contracting parties – Lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature

(Arts 256, 263, 272 and 288 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Regulation No 1085/2006; Commission Regulation No 718/2007)

(see paragraphs 9 (9, 10, 12, 13, 24-27), 10)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169)

(see paragraph 10)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 November 2022 –

AB (Low severity offence)

(Case C‑243/22)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Scope – Article 49 – Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties – Exclusion of the criminal liability of the infringement on account of its lack of a particularly serious nature – National case-law prohibiting the application of a national rule before the Magistrate – Lack of connection to EU law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

Questions referred – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Subject matter of the national dispute having no connection with Union law – Manifest 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))

(see paragraphs 16-19, 21 and operative part)

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Giudice di pace di Lecce (Magistrate, Lecce, Italy), by decision of 23 March 2022.
Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see paragraphs 4 [3, 4, 6], 5)
Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see paragraphs 4 [4, 5, 7], 5)
4.

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 facts or evidence have been distorted – Ground of appeal alleging distortion 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 – Requirement that the distortion be obvious from the documents in the file (Art. 256(1), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paragraphs 50, 51)
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a (1) and 170b)

(see paragraph 10)
Judicial proceedings – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – Amplification of an existing plea – No amplification – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1))

(see paragraphs 145-151)
Judicial proceedings – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – Amplification of an existing plea – No amplification – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1))

(see paragraphs 137-143)
Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Compensation for loss caused to an official or member of staff – Duty of the administration to have regard for the welfare of officials – Scope

(Arts 268, 270 and 340, second para., TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

(see paragraphs 132-134)
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Decision 2004/258 of the European Central Bank (ECB) – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law – Requirement that the institution should examine the documents specifically and individually – Scope – Possibility to base reasoning on general presumptions applying to certain categories of documents – None

(European Central Bank Decision 2004/258, as amended by Decisions 2011/342 and 2015/529, Art. 4(1)(c))

(see paragraphs 75, 76)
Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Rights and obligations – Freedom of expression – Exercise – Limits – Dignity of position – Duty of loyalty – Acts liable to reflect on official’s position – Concept – Act of plagiarism – Included – No breach of the principle of legal certainty

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 11, first para., and 52(1); Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 11, 12, 17a(1) and 21; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 11, first para.)

(see paragraphs 55, 58-75, 85-98, 233-243)
1.

Annuls the decision of 18 May 2020 by which the European Investment Bank (EIB) rejected the medical certificates produced by KL to justify his absences from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 under Article 3.3 of Annex X to the EIB Staff Rules, adopted in implementation of the EIB Staff Regulations;
Officials – Disciplinary measures – Procedure – Observance of the rights of the defence – Right of the person concerned to be heard – Scope – Infringement – Consequences

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex IX, Arts 2 to 4)

(see paragraphs 66-68, 70, 86)