ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 225(1) EC; Statute of the court of Justice, Art 58, first para.) (see para. 24

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2007 in Case T-242/06 Cabrera Sánchez v OHIM – Industrias Cárnicas Valle , by which that Court dismissed the action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2006 (Case R 790/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Cabrera Sánchez and Industrias Cárnicas Valle SA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Cabrera Sánchez to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Zipcar Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders WWF UK Ltd to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow AgroSciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH, Dintec Agroquímica – Produtos Químicos L da and Finchimica SpA shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Legal classification of the facts – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC) (see paras 33-34)

2. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Conditions – Requirement that the institution should examine the documents specifically and individually (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(7)) (see paras 52-56)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2008 in Case T-478/07 Cofra v Commission by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 October 2007 rejecting a request made by the appellant for review of that institution’s earlier refusal to allow it access to certain documents.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Cofra Srl is ordered to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Alfa Agricultural Supplies SA and Aragonesas Agro SA to pay the costs;

3. Orders the European Crop Protection Association to bear its own costs.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Appeal – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

2. Appeal – Pleas in law – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 – Kastrinaki v AHEPA

(Joined Cases C‑180/08 and C-186/08)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 89/48/EEC – Recognition of diplomas – Studies completed in an ‘independent study centre’ not recognised as an educational establishment by the host Member State Psychologist

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration – Directive 89/48 – Psychologist (Council Directive 89/48, Art. 3) (see paras 50-53, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis – Interpretation of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) – Interpretation of Article 39(1) EC, the first paragraph of Article 10 EC and Articles 43, 47(1), 49, 55, 149 and 150 EC – National of a Member State who has pursued a regulated profession in the host Member State before and after recognition of professional equivalence resulting from academic qualifications obtained in another Member State – Prior completion of part of university studies, under a franchising agreement, in an institution not recognised as an educational establishment by the host Member State – Possibility, by reason of a refusal to recognise such qualifications, of excluding a worker from professional activity.

Operative part

The competent authorities of a host Member State are required, under Article 3 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, to permit a national of a Member State who holds a diploma within the meaning of that directive issued by a competent authority of another Member State to pursue his profession on the same conditions as apply to holders of national diplomas even though that diploma

– attests to education and training received, in whole or in part, at an establishment located in the host Member State which, according to the legislation of that State, is not recognised as an educational establishment, and

– has not been homologated by the competent national authorities.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 – Leche Celta v OHIM

(Case C‑300/08 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 –Article 8(1)(b) – Mixed word and figurative trade mark, Celia – Relative grounds for refusal of registration – Similarity of the mark for which registration is sought to an earlier mark – Trade mark covering identical goods – Likelihood of confusion – Appeal manifestly inadmissible

Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 35)

Re:

Appeal against judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2008 in Case T‑35/07 Leche Celta v OHIM , by which that court rejected the action brought by the applicant against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2006 relating to opposition proceedings between Leche Celta SL and Celia SA – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) – Relative grounds for refusal of registration – Likelihood of confusion linked to application for registration of a mark similar to an earlier mark covering identical goods – Comparison of signs visually, phonetically and conceptually.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2009 – Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission

(Case C‑281/08 P)

Appeal – Action for annulment – Access to documents – Capacity of a regional parliament to be a party to legal proceedings

1. Appeals – Grounds – Breach of the principle audi alteram partem – Order ruling on the objection to admissibility without oral argument having been heard – Defendant having submitted observations on that objection – Ground of appeal manifestly unfounded (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114(1)) (see paras 15-19)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law – Order ruling on the appellant’s capacity to bring legal proceedings in the light of its national law – Determination necessary in the case of actions brought by infrastate territorial bodies – Ground of appeal manifestly unfounded (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 22-26)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 in Case T‑236/06 Landtag Schleswig‑Holstein v Commission , by which the Court rejected as inadmissible an application for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 10 March and 23 June 2006 refusing to grant the applicant access to the document SEC (2005) 420, of 22 March 2005 containing a legal analysis of a draft framework decision, under discussion in the Council, on the retention of data processed and stored in relation to the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of data transmitted by means of the public communications networks, for purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences, including terrorism – Capacity of a regional parliament to be a party to legal proceedings – Right to be heard before a court – Definition of ‘legal person’ in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the products or services referred to in the application for registration – Duty to state reasons for a refusal of registration – Scope

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1), and 73)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Separate examination of the various grounds for refusal – Overlapping of the ambits of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation No 40/94

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1))

Summary

1. An examination of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 40/94 must, first, be carried out in relation to each of the goods and services for which trade mark registration is sought and, secondly, the decision of the competent authority refusing registration of a trade mark must, in principle, state reasons in respect of each of those goods or services.

However, the competent authority may use only general reasoning for all the goods and services concerned where the same ground of refusal is given for a category or group of goods or services. That power of the competent authority cannot, in particular, prejudice the essential requirement for any decision refusing the benefit of a right conferred by Community law to be subject to judicial review designed to secure effective protection of that right, that must, accordingly, cover the legality of the reasons for the decision.

First, such a power extends only to goods and services interlinked in a sufficiently direct and specific way, to the point where they form a sufficiently homogeneous category or group of goods or services. Secondly, the mere fact that the goods and services concerned are within the same class of the Nice Agreement is not sufficient for a finding that such homogeneity exists, as those classes often contain a large variety of goods and services not necessarily interlinked in a sufficiently direct and specific way.

(see paras 37-40)

2. Even if there is a degree of overlapping of the respective ambits of the absolute grounds for refusal to register a trade mark set out in Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, it is nevertheless the case that each of the grounds for refusal to register listed in Article 7(1) of that regulation is independent of the others and requires separate examination.

The overlapping of the absolute grounds for refusal implies that a word mark descriptive of characteristics of goods or services may, on that account, be devoid of any distinctive character in relation to those goods or services, without prejudice to other reasons why it may be devoid of distinctive character.

(see paras 50, 52)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – Scope of the objection to state reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (see paras 31-32)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Injury/damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 34)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2008 in Case T-137/07 Portela v Commission , in which the Court rejected as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, for the remainder, manifestly unfounded an application claiming, primarily, that the Court of First Instance should impose on the Commission the obligation to act in accordance with Article 14b of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), as amended by Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (OJ 1998 L 331, p. 1), by ordering the certification company TÜV Rheinland Product Safety GmbH, through the Federal Republic of Germany, to activate, in favour of the appellant, the mandatory civil liability insurance provided for in point 6 of Annex XI to Directive 93/42, concluded by that company or, if the alleged damage could not be remedied by the main claim, a claim for compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant on account of the various omissions on the part of the Commission.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Portela – Comércio de artigos ortopédicos e hospitalares, Lda to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

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.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Kaul GmbH shall pay the costs.

Luxembourg, 4 March 2010.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure

–

Costs

–

Taxation

–

Recoverable costs

–

Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 16

)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Rights conferred by a trade mark – Right to prohibit the importation or exportation of goods bearing the mark – Definition of ‘importation’

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(3)(c))

2. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Rights conferred by a trade mark – Right to prohibit the first placing into circulation within the European Economic Area of original goods bearing the mark

(Council Directive 89/104, Arts 5 and 7(1))

Summary

1. When original goods sent to a Member State from a non-member State have not yet been released for free circulation, but are placed under the customs warehousing procedure, there is no ‘importation’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of First Directive 89/104 on trade marks.

(see para. 18)

2. First Directive 89/104 on trade marks may not be interpreted as leaving it open to the Member States to provide in their domestic law for exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark in respect of products put on the market in non-member States. The effect of the directive is to limit exhaustion of the rights conferred on the proprietor of a trade mark to those cases alone in which goods have been put on the market in the EEA and thus to allow the proprietor to control the initial marketing in the EEA of goods bearing the mark.

Accordingly, when goods bearing a mark have not previously been put on the market in the EEA by the proprietor of that mark or with his consent, Article 5 of the directive confers on that proprietor exclusive rights which entitle him, in particular, to prohibit any third party from importing those goods, offering them, or putting them on the market or stocking them for these purposes.

Thus, Article 5 of the directive must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark may prevent original goods bearing that mark from being put on the market in the EEA for the first time without his consent.

(see paras 22-24, 26, operative part)
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2009 – Pannon GSM Távközlési Rt. v Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa

(Case C‑143/09)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Accession to the European Union – Directive 2002/22/EC – Application ratione temporis – Jurisdiction of the Court

Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Universal service and users’ rights – Directive 2002/22 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/22, Art. 13(2) and Annex IV) (see paras 17-20)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Fővárosi Bíroság – Interpretation of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33), of Articles 10, 87(1) and 249 EC and of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) – Sharing of the net cost of the universal service obligation between providers of networks and electronic communications services – National legislation on the mechanisms for cost sharing providing for the application of rules incompatible with the directive as regards the financing of universal services provided during the year preceding the accession of the Member State in question to the European Union.

Operative part

Article 13(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’) and Annex IV to that directive do not apply to the facts of a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, which concerns a contribution in the field of electronic communications charged by the authorities of the Republic of Hungary for 2003.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 October 2012 — Zafra Marroquineros v Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

(Case C-254/09 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (See paras 21, 22)

Re:

Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure – Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2010 in Case C-254/09 P Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v OHIM and Zafra Marroquineros, SL

Operative part

1. The total amount of costs which Calvin Klein Trademark Trust must reimburse to Zafra Marroquineros is fixed at EUR 1 210.

2. Case C-254/09 P-DEP is referred back to the General Court of the European Union in so far as concerns the application for taxation of costs incurred by Zafra Marroquineros SL in the proceedings before that Court.

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 October 2012 — Zafra Marroquineros v Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

(Case C-254/09 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (See paras 21, 22)

Re:

Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure – Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2010 in Case C-254/09 P Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v OHIM and Zafra Marroquineros, SL

Operative part

1. The total amount of costs which Calvin Klein Trademark Trust must reimburse to Zafra Marroquineros is fixed at EUR 1 210.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 June 2010 – Kronoply v Commission

(Case C‑117/09 P)

Appeal – State aid – Application for aid intended to amend aid previously granted to the recipient undertaking and notified to the Commission after the investment project had been carried out in full – Criteria of incentive effect and of necessity

1. Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 32-34)

2. State aid – Commission decision – Assessment of legality by reference to the information available when the decision was adopted (Art. 87 EC) (see para. 40)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 52)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 January 2009 in Case T‑162/06 Kronoply v Commission by which the Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/262/EC of 21 September 2005 declaring State aid which Germany is planning to implement for the appellant to be incompatible with the common market (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 50) – Proposed aid intended to amend aid previously granted to the recipient undertaking notified to the Commission after the investment project had been carried out in full by means of the aid initially approved – Incorrect assessment of the incentive effect and of the necessity of the aid at issue.

Operative part:

1. Dismisses the appeal;