ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Claim for recovery of costs — Time-limit for submission — Obligation to submit the claim for recovery within a reasonable period of time (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 145) (see paras 15-16)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — 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 (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 20, 23)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 145) (see para. 32)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 December 2009.

Operative part

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed by Mr Luigi Marcuccio to the European Commission in Case C-432/08 P are fixed at EUR 8 000.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2008 – Savia and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca and Others

(Case C‑287/08)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – No link with Community law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 7-10)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale ordinario di Milano – Interpretation of Article 6(2) EU and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Right to a fair trial – National legislation with retroactive effect which introduces changes in salary conditions under the contract of employment.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions posed by the Tribunale ordinario di Milano by decision of 16 June 2008.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 March 2009 – K & L Ruppert Stiftung v OHIM

(Case C‑90/08 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Application for registration of the Community figurative mark CORPO LIVRE – Opposition on the part of the proprietor of the earlier national and international word marks LIVRE – Proof of use of the earlier marks submitted out of time – Rejection of the opposition

1. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Time-limits (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 71(1)) (see paras 21-24)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Opposition proceedings (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 43(2) and (3), and 74(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 22(1)) (see paras 35-36)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-86/05 K & L Ruppert Stiftung v OHIM – Lopes de Almeida Cunha and Others by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment by the proprietor of the national and international word marks ‘LIVRE’ for goods in Class 25 against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2004 rejecting the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing the opposition filed against the registration of the figurative Community trade mark ‘CORPO LIVRE’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 – Opposition proceedings – Rejection of the opposition on the ground of late submission of proof of use of earlier marks.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – Calebus v Commission

(Case C‑421/08 P)

Appeal – Protection of habitats – List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region – Commission decision – Action for annulment brought by natural or legal persons – Admissibility – Appeal clearly unfounded

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Absolute bar to proceeding (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 21)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 26, 28-30)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Need for natural or legal persons to proceed by way of a preliminary ruling on validity (Arts 10 EC, 230, fourth para., EC and 234 EC) (see para. 38)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 14 July 2008 in Case T-366/06 Calebus v Commission , in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the application for partial annulment of Article 1 of Annex 1 of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Ramblas de Gergal, Tabernas y Sur de Sierra Alhamilla’, which includes land belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Calebus SA is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 – Fornaci Laterizi Danesi v Commission

(Case C‑498/08 P)

Appeal – Action for annulment – Time-limit for bringing an action – Point from which time starts to run – Inadmissibility because out of time – Appeal manifestly unfounded

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant – Subsidiary matter (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 21-22, 27)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-224/08 Fornaci Laterizi Danesi v Commission by which that court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/25/EC of 13 November 2007 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a first updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region (OJ 2008 L 12, p. 383), in so far as a plot of land belonging to the applicant, under reference IT20A0018, was included in that list.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Application for interpretation of the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 January 2008, in Case T-375/07 R

Rosario Maria Pellegrini

v

Commission

, rejecting the application for interim measures requesting that the Commission be ordered to pay compensation, on a provisional basis, for the financial damage allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the Commission’s failure to ensure full application and correct interpretation of the provisions of Community law governing the activities of financial intermediaries.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Jurisdiction of the national court – Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute – Need to make an order for reference and relevance of the questions referred – Assessment by the national court (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 18-19)

2. Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context (Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 20-29)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma – Interpretation of Article 13B(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Exemption of supplies of goods used wholly for an exempted activity or excluded from the right to deduction – National legislation precluding the exemption.

Operative part

Operative part

The references for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy), by decisions of 9 and 17 June 2009, are manifestly inadmissible.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Ms Marinova shall bear her own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), (2), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 81-84)

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import duties (Council Regulations No 2913/92, Art. 239, No 710/95, No 2584/98 and No 1531/2002; Commission Regulations No 2454/93 and No 2376/94) (see paras 99-103, 107-109, 114-115, 118-135)

3. Procedure – Measures of inquiry – Discretion of the Court of First Instance (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 64(3)(d)) (see paras 137-138)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 29 September 2009 of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Joined Cases T-225/07 and T-364/07 Thomson Sales Europe v Commission by which the Court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of Commission Decision REM No 03/05 of 7 May 2007 informing the French authorities that remission of import duties on the colour television receivers manufactured in Thailand covered by their application of 14 September 2005 was not justified, and for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 20 July 2007 not confirming entitlement to a waiver of post-clearance recovery of import duties on those items – Procedure relating to the application for remission of duties claimed on the basis of Article 239 of the Customs Code and for waiver of post-clearance recovery of those duties on the basis of Article 220(2)(b) of the Code – Failure to respect the rights of the defence – Error in the legal characterisation of the facts.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Thomson Sales Europe to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Extent – Decision taken in a context known to the addressee (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 21-24)

2. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Ground put forward for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (see para. 32)

3. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 42)

4. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law made by the Court of First Instance – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 65-67)

5. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Commission’s discretion – Commission decision making authorisation of payment of aid subject to the condition of prior repayment by the undertaking concerned of unlawful aid previously received (see paras 70-71)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 11 February 2009 in Case T-25/07 Iride and Iride Energia v Commission , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/941/EC of 8 November 2006 on State aid C 11/06 (ex N 127/05) which Italy is planning to implement for AEM Torino (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 62), in the form of subsidies intended to reimburse ‘stranded’ costs in the energy sector, in so far as, first, the conclusion of that decision is that the aid constitutes State aid and/or, secondly, that decision makes the compatibility of the aid with the common market subject to the condition that AEM Torino repay the unlawful aid previously granted under the regime for undertakings known as ‘municipalizzate’ [local administrative bodies].

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed

2. Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA are ordered to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Perfetti Van Melle SpA shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees’ rights – Directive 2001/23

(Council Directive 2001/23, Arts 3(1), first para., and 4(1), first para.)

Summary

When the fixed-term employment contract of a temporary worker has ended, due to expiry of the agreed term, on a date earlier than that of the transfer of the activity to which he was assigned, the non-renewal of this contract because of that transfer does not disregard the prohibition set out in Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/23 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses. Thus, that temporary worker is not to be regarded as still being available to the user company on the date of the transfer.

Accordingly, the worker is not, in principle, entitled to renewal of a fixed-term contract. The fact that the expiry date of such a contract precedes the date laid down for the transfer of the activity to which the worker was assigned cannot create such a right. The non‑renewal of a fixed-term temporary employment contract, due to the absence of a new agreement between the employer and the employee, cannot be regarded as dismissal within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/23, by which the employment contract or employment relationship is terminated by a unilateral decision of the employer.

(see paras 33-34, 37, operative part)
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 16 October 2014 — Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya and Others

(Joined Cases C‑471/09 P-DEP to C‑473/09 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Appeal proceedings before the Court — Unavoidable costs for the purposes of those proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 20)

Operative part

The total amount of costs which Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava and Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa are ordered to reimburse, in equal shares, to Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja is fixed at EUR 150.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 16 October 2014 — Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya and Others

(Joined Cases C‑471/09 P-DEP to C‑473/09 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Appeal proceedings before the Court — Unavoidable costs for the purposes of those proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 20)

Operative part

The total amount of costs which Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava and Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa are ordered to reimburse, in equal shares, to Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja is fixed at EUR 150.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 21-26, operative part 1)

2. Approximation of laws – Electronic communications networks and services – Authorisation and legislative background – Directives 2002/20 and 2002/21 (European Parliament and Council Directives 2002/20 and 2002/21) (see paras 35-36, 38, 40-44, operative part 2)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commissione tributaria provinciale di Taranto – Interpretation of Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) – Imposition of a government authorisation tax in the case of a telephone subscription contract – Tax not applied in the case of a prepaid telephone card – Whether permissible.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The part of the fourth question that relates to Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services and the sixth question are inadmissible.

2. Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (the Authorisation Directive) and Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (the Framework Directive) do not preclude a tax such as the government concession tax.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2010 – Mergel and Others v OHIM

(Case C‑80/09 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1)(c) – Refusal to register – Word mark Patentconsult – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the Court of First Instance – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 25)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods –Definition (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 37)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2008 in Case T-335/07 Mergel and Others v OHIM , by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2007, dismissing the action against the decision of the examiner to refuse the registration of the Community word mark ‘Patentconsult’ for the goods and services within Classes 35, 41 and 42 – Distinctive character of a mark which consists exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the characteristics of the goods or services concerned.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2009 – Noël v SCP Brouard Daude, liquidator in the judicial liquidation of Pronuptia Boutiques Province and Centre de Gestion et d’Étude AGS IDF EST

(Case C‑333/09)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Principle of equal treatment – Redundancy for economic reasons – No link with Community law – The Court of Justice’s manifest lack of jurisdiction

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Question referred in the course of a dispute relating to the application of a national provision not within the scope of Community law – Excluded (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 10-13)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Conseil de Prud’hommes (Labour Tribunal) of Caen (France) – Interpretation of Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – Interpretation of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Redundancy for economic reasons – Redundancy for personnel reasons – National provisions presumed to be contrary to the abovementioned standards – Breach of the principle of equal treatment.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Conseil de Prud’hommes of Caen by decision of 11 June 2009.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2010 – Gennaro Curia v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-381/09)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Sixth VAT Directive – Scope – VAT exemptions – Article 13B(d)(1) – Grant, negotiation and management of credit – Exorbitant lending activities – Activity unlawful under national law

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Substantive scope (Council Directive 77/388) (see paras 18-20, operative part)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive – Exemption for transactions involving the granting of credit (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(d), para. 1) (see paras 18-20, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Exemptions – Transactions consisting in the grant, negotiation and management of credit – Exorbitant lending activities, unlawful activity according to national law.

Operative part

Although exorbitant lending is a criminal offence under the national criminal code it falls, its illegality notwithstanding, within the scope of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment. Article 13B(d)(1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot impose value added tax on that activity when the corresponding lawful activity of money lending at rates of interest that are not excessive is exempt from VAT.