ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — Purple Parking and Airparks Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C‑117/11)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Article 28(2)(a) — Article 28(3)(b) — Exemption of certain transport services — Transaction combining car parking services and the transport of travellers between the car park and an airport — Existence of two separate supplies of services or of a single supply — Principle of fiscal neutrality

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Supply of services — Transactions comprising several elements — Services consisting of parking vehicles in a car park outside an airport, on the one hand, and carrying passengers between that car park and the airport, on the other — Transaction that must be regarded as a single, complex supply (Council Directives 77/388 and 92/111) (see para 41, operative part 1)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — Interpretation 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) — Right of the Member States to maintain exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage — Maintenance, under national legislation, of an exemption with refund of the tax paid in respect of the supply of certain transport services — Operator supplying, to air travellers, a car parking service together with transport between the car park and the airport — Transaction to be regarded, for VAT purposes, as a single supply or several distinct supplies?

Operative part

On a proper construction 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, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, for the purpose of determining the rate of value added tax applicable, services for the parking of a vehicle in an ‘off-airport’ car park and for the transport of the passengers of that vehicle between that car park and the airport terminal concerned must, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, be regarded as a single, complex supply of services in which the parking service is predominant.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 —

Lancôme v OHIM



(Case C‑334/11 P)

Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark ACNO FOCUS — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark FOCUS — Refusal of registration — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Earlier mark registered for not less than five years

Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Time from which the period of five years runs — Date on which the earlier mark was registered (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3); Council Directive 89/104, Art. 10(1)) (see paras 47, 48)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2011 in Case T‑466/08 Lancôme v OHIM by which that court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘ACNO FOCUS’ for goods in Class 3 against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 29 July 2008 in Case R 1796/2007‑1 dismissing the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision refusing registration of that mark in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 — Interpretation and application of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Meaning of genuine use of a trade mark.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 —

Smanor v Commission and European Ombudsman



(Case C‑474/11 P)

Appeal — Article 119 of the rules of the procedure — Marketing of frozen yoghurt prohibited — Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations –Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Action for damages — Manifest inadmissibility

Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 112(1)(c), and 119) (see paras 9‑12)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2011 in Case T‑185/11 Smanor v Commission and Ombudsman , by which that court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking, first, a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully failed to initiate infringement proceedings against the French Republic and, secondly, compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 June 2012 —

Volturno Trasporti

(Case C-21/11)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility

1. Preliminary rulings — Reference to the Court — Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred — Assessment by the national court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 10, 11)

2. Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 12, 13)

3. Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Questions relating to national law bearing no relation to the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings — Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 14-17 and operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Benevento — Interpretation of Articles 10(c) and 12(e) of Council Directive No 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Imposition of an annual fee for entry in the register of companies kept by the local chambers of commerce — Whether permissible.

Operative part:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Benevento (Italy), by decision of 22 September 2010, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the President of the Court of 8 June 2012 —

Schenker v Air France-KLM and Commission

(Case C-590/11 P(I))

Appeals — Intervention — Interest in the result of the case

Judicial proceedings — Intervention — Conditions of admissibility — Interest in the result of the case — Meaning — Need for a direct and existing interest — Dispute concerning the lawfulness of a Commission decision finding there to be a cartel and imposing a fine — Lack of direct interest of the customers of undertakings participating in the cartel — Ability of a customer to seek compensation for harm caused by the cartel — Customer who has made an application for access to the documents of the administrative procedure concerning the cartel — Lack of relevance (Art. 101 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 10, 12-16, 23-25)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2011 in Case T-62/11 Air France-KLM v Commission , by which the General Court rejected the application for leave to intervene made by Schenker AG — Interest in the result of the case — Dispute relating to an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight).

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 September 2012 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission



(Case C-495/11 P)

Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Infringement of the principles of conferred powers and of proportionality — Manifestly incorrect interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of equity and of the equality of arms — Duty to state reasons

1. Appeals — Grounds — Requirement that criticism of the reasoning of the General Court be specific (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 29, 72, 84)

2. Competition — European Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption of a decisive influence exerted by the parent company over its wholly-owned subsidiaries — Evidential obligations of the company seeking to rebut that presumption (Art. 101 TFEU) (see paras 26, 28, 31, 36, 42, 57)

3. Acts of the institutions — Grounds — Obligation — Scope — Decision imposing fines for the infringement of the competition rules and concerning a number or addressees — Attribution of the practices of a subsidiary to its parent company — Requirements of explicit grounds (Arts 101 TFEU and 296, second para. TFEU) (see paras 48-49, 51)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts submitted to the General Court — 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. 52)

5. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Deterrent effect — Taking account of the size and overall resources of the undertaking on which the fine was imposed (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see para. 80)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 14 July 2011 in Case T-190/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission by which that Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Infringement of the principles of conferred powers and of proportionality — Manifestly incorrect interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of equity and of the equality of arms — Duty to state reasons.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
19

As it took the view that the outcome of the main proceedings depends on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of European Union law, the Krajský súd v Prešove decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Are Articles 5 to 9 of Directive 2005/29 … to be interpreted as meaning that the practice whereby a supplier assigns claims against a consumer to an entity in bankruptcy should be regarded as an unfair commercial practice if the consumer has no guarantee of reimbursement of the costs of legal proceedings arising from a consumer contract? (2) If the answer to the preceding question is that the assignment of claims against a consumer to an entity in bankruptcy for recovery purposes is contrary to EU law, in that case: (a) Can Article 47 of the Charter … be interpreted in such a way that it is not contravened by a court procedure whereby the court, in order to protect consumers, does not apply the statutory fee concession of the trustee in bankruptcy, and that, in such a case, the court does not infringe the right of the trustee in bankruptcy to judicial protection if it discontinues the proceedings if the fee for the application is not paid? (b) Do Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of … Directive 93/13 … preclude the application of provisions of national law exempting a trustee in bankruptcy from court fees if, in the absence of the unfair commercial practice, the applicant would not be exempt from court fees and the discontinuance of proceedings would prevent the judicial proceedings concerning fulfilment of the unfair term?’
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 —Ziemski and Kozak

(Case C-31/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Manifest inadmissibility (Art 267 TFEU) (see paras 6, 7, operative part.)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem – Interpretation of the concept of ‘technical regulation’ in Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18) – Obligation on the part of a Member State to communicate to the Commission all draft technical regulations – Law of a Member State concerning games of chance.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem (Poland), by decision of 13 January 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 —Ziemski and Kozak

(Case C-31/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Manifest inadmissibility (Art 267 TFEU) (see paras 6, 7, operative part.)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem – Interpretation of the concept of ‘technical regulation’ in Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18) – Obligation on the part of a Member State to communicate to the Commission all draft technical regulations – Law of a Member State concerning games of chance.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem (Poland), by decision of 13 January 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 — Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte and Others

(Case C-128/12)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector workers — Failure to implement EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation which does not constitute a measure implementing 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)) (see paras 9-14, operative part)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto — Interpretation of Articles 20, 21(1) and 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1) — Observance of the principles of equality and non-discrimination and of the right to fair and just working conditions — National legislation providing for salary reductions for certain public sector workers.

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction with regard to the request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto (Portugal), made by decision of 6 January 2012.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 — Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte and Others

(Case C-128/12)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector workers — Failure to implement EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation which does not constitute a measure implementing 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)) (see paras 9-14, operative part)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto — Interpretation of Articles 20, 21(1) and 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1) — Observance of the principles of equality and non-discrimination and of the right to fair and just working conditions — National legislation providing for salary reductions for certain public sector workers.

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction with regard to the request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto (Portugal), made by decision of 6 January 2012.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part

Keywords Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Actionable omissions — Failure on the part of the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings — Inadmissibility (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 11-12 ) Subject of the case Re: Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 March 2012 in Case T-594/11 H-Holding v Commission , by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant seeking, first, a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to initiate infringement proceedings against the Czech Republic and, second, damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that alleged failure on the part of the Commission. Operative part Operative part 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. H-Holding AG is ordered to pay its own costs.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — H-Holding v Commission

(Case C-235/12 P)

‛Appeal — Action for failure to act — Article 265 TFEU — Actions for damages — Failure on the part of the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Actionable omissions — Failure on the part of the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings — Inadmissibility (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 11-12)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 March 2012 in Case T-594/11 H-Holding v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant seeking, first, a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to initiate infringement proceedings against the Czech Republic and, second, damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that alleged failure on the part of the Commission.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Transactions not subject to indirect taxation — Annual duty payable by all undertakings on account of their registration in the companies register — Whether admissible (Council Directive 2008/7, Art. 5(1)(c)) (see paras 18, 19, 23-26, operative part)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer — Manifestly inadmissible (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 93(a)) (see paras 29-33)

Subject of the case

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza — Interpretation of Article 5 of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11) — Imposition of an annual fee for entry in the register of companies kept by the local chambers of commerce — Amount of the annual duty determined in a more favourable manner for individual undertakings, agricultural partnerships (‘societá semplici’) and law firms than for other economic undertakings.

Operative part

Operative part:

Article 5(1)(c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as not precluding the charging of an annual duty, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, paid to chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture by all undertakings registered or noted in the register kept by those chambers and calculated, in general, on the basis of their turnover, but fixed on a flat-rate basis for certain categories of undertakings, and, in particular, for undertakings individually owned or managed by natural persons.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Volkswagen v OHIM

(Case C-260/12 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark Swift GTi — Opposition by the proprietor of national and international word marks GTI — Withdrawal of the opposition — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate’

Appeals — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it (see para. 13)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Case T-63/09 Volkswagen v OHIM — Suzuki Motor (SWIFT GTi) by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 (Case R 749/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Volkswagen AG and Suzuki Motor Corp. — Word sign SWIFT GTi — Likelihood of confusion with the word mark GTI — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

2. Volkswagen AG is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Volkswagen v OHIM

(Case C-260/12 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark Swift GTi — Opposition by the proprietor of national and international word marks GTI — Withdrawal of the opposition — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate’

Appeals — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it (see para. 13)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Case T-63/09 Volkswagen v OHIM — Suzuki Motor (SWIFT GTi) by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 (Case R 749/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Volkswagen AG and Suzuki Motor Corp. — Word sign SWIFT GTi — Likelihood of confusion with the word mark GTI — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.