ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The fact that the applicant for a declaration of invalidity may file an application with a view to subsequently affixing the sign in question to its own products cannot amount to an abuse of rights in any circumstances. The public interest safeguarded by Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark is precisely that of keeping that sign freely available.

In addition, the intention of the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to use the mark in question after the declaration of invalidity is not contrary to Regulation No 207/2009. Article 52(1) of that regulation provides that a Community trade mark may also be declared invalid where there are absolute grounds for refusal on the basis of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings, which presupposes that the defendant in that action may obtain a declaration of invalidity even if he has used the mark in question and intends to continue to do so.

By contrast, the rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity on the ground of an abuse of rights would preclude the effective attainment of the objectives pursued by Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. Such rejection would not permit an assessment of the mark in the light of the rules governing the registrability of marks or of the existence of an absolute ground for refusal of registration.

(see paras 43-45)
2.

State aid — Definition — Grant of an advantage to the beneficiaries — Measures intended to compensate potential competitive disadvantages affecting undertakings established in a given region of a Member State — Included — Declaration No 30 relating to island regions, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Article 158 EC and national legislation recognising the particularity of the situation of that region — No impact on the classification as State aid (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 21, 22)
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Definition — Burden of proof of notification (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7) (see paras 31-33)

2. Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Strict application of EU rules (see para. 44)

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.
—

in a situation where, in the context of the transfer of an undertaking, the transferor is the subject of insolvency proceedings which are under the supervision of a competent public authority and where the Member State concerned has chosen to make use of Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/23, that Article does not prevent that Member State from prescribing or permitting that charges payable by the transferor on the date of the transfer or the opening of the insolvency proceedings as a result of contracts of employment or employment relationships — including charges relating to the statutory social security system — are not to be transferred to the transferee, provided that such proceedings ensure a level of protection for employees which is at least equivalent to that resulting from Directive 80/987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. Nevertheless, that Member State is not precluded from prescribing that such charges are to be borne by the transferee, even where the transferor is insolvent;
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 October 2014 — Elcogás

(Case C‑275/13) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of State intervention or through State resources — Companies which own electricity generating plants — Extraordinary financing’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 18, 19)

2. State aid — Concept — Grant of advantages imputable to the State — Public authorities involved in the adoption of the measure (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 22, 23)

3. State aid — Concept — Aid from State resources — Mechanism for compensating additional costs linked to the production of electricity — Mechanism financed by the tariff applied to consumers and users of the transport and distribution network and managed by a State body — Included (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 24-33, operative part)

Operative part

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the sums allocated to a private undertaking producing electricity which are financed by all end users of electricity in the national territory and which are distributed to undertakings in the electricity sector by a public body in accordance with predetermined legal criteria constitute aid granted by a Member State or through State resources.

( 1 ) OJ C 226, 3.08.2013

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 October 2014 — Elcogás

(Case C‑275/13) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of State intervention or through State resources — Companies which own electricity generating plants — Extraordinary financing’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 18, 19)

2. State aid — Concept — Grant of advantages imputable to the State — Public authorities involved in the adoption of the measure (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 22, 23)

3. State aid — Concept — Aid from State resources — Mechanism for compensating additional costs linked to the production of electricity — Mechanism financed by the tariff applied to consumers and users of the transport and distribution network and managed by a State body — Included (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 24-33, operative part)

Operative part

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the sums allocated to a private undertaking producing electricity which are financed by all end users of electricity in the national territory and which are distributed to undertakings in the electricity sector by a public body in accordance with predetermined legal criteria constitute aid granted by a Member State or through State resources.

( 1 ) OJ C 226, 3.08.2013
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 November 2014 –

Krikorian and Others

(Case C‑243/14)

‛Article 267 TFEU — Direct application by the parties — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts — Direct application by the parties to a dispute before a national court — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 5, 6)

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to deal with the application brought by Mr Krikorian and Others.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 November 2014 –

Krikorian and Others

(Case C‑243/14)

‛Article 267 TFEU — Direct application by the parties — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts — Direct application by the parties to a dispute before a national court — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 5, 6)

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to deal with the application brought by Mr Krikorian and Others.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — 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 — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

Summary

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 16-24, 30-33)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 —

Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian v OHIM

(Case C‑414/14 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark GULBENKIAN — Opposition by the owner of the well-known trade mark, company name and national logos including the word elements ‘FUNDAÇÃO CALOUSTE GULBENKIAN’ — Partial rejection of the opposition — Admissibility of evidence adduced for the first time before the General Court — Likelihood of confusion’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Not included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see para. 38)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48, 49)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170(1)) (see para. 52)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 —

Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian v OHIM

(Case C‑414/14 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark GULBENKIAN — Opposition by the owner of the well-known trade mark, company name and national logos including the word elements ‘FUNDAÇÃO CALOUSTE GULBENKIAN’ — Partial rejection of the opposition — Admissibility of evidence adduced for the first time before the General Court — Likelihood of confusion’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Not included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see para. 38)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48, 49)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170(1)) (see para. 52)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 –

Compagnie des bateaux mouches v OHIM

(Case C‑368/14 P)

‛Appeals — Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BATEAUX-MOUCHES’ — Partial refusal of registration by the examiner — Definition of ‘relevant public’’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of the distinctive character — Determination of the relevant public — Mark containing word elements (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 23-25)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 –

Compagnie des bateaux mouches v OHIM

(Case C‑368/14 P)

‛Appeals — Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BATEAUX-MOUCHES’ — Partial refusal of registration by the examiner — Definition of ‘relevant public’’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of the distinctive character — Determination of the relevant public — Mark containing word elements (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 23-25)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 May 2015 — Văraru

(Case C‑496/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in matters of social security — Calculation of the amount of child allowance — Failure to implement EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation not constituting a measure implementing EU law and not having any other connection with EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU and 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 15-22)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) by decision of 9 October 2014.

( 1 ) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 May 2015 — Văraru

(Case C‑496/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in matters of social security — Calculation of the amount of child allowance — Failure to implement EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation not constituting a measure implementing EU law and not having any other connection with EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU and 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 15-22)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) by decision of 9 October 2014.

( 1 ) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — Petrus

(Case C‑451/14)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of provisions of international law binding on the Member States outside of the EU law framework — Not included (Art. 267 TFUE) (see para. 15)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation not constituting a measure implementing EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFUE; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1) (see paras 17-19)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Rayonen sad Sofia (Bulgaria).

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — Petrus

(Case C‑451/14)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of provisions of international law binding on the Member States outside of the EU law framework — Not included (Art. 267 TFUE) (see para. 15)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation not constituting a measure implementing EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFUE; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1) (see paras 17-19)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Rayonen sad Sofia (Bulgaria).
2.

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from exempting from a tax, such as that laid down in Law No 9/2012, vehicles that are already registered, in respect of which a tax previously in force has been paid, when the residual amount of that tax, included in the value of those vehicles, is less than the amount of the new tax. That is necessarily the case when the earlier tax must be reimbursed with interest because of its incompatibility with EU law.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 —

Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító v Commission and Ombudsman

(Case C‑576/14 P) 1 ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Action for annulment — Refusal by the Commission to bring infringement proceedings — Inadmissibility and lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible’

1. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 15)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Refusal of the Commission to bring infringement proceedings — Not included — No infringement of the right to effective judicial protection (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paras 16, 23)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary — Obscure ground — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 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 paras 19, 20)

4. 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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see para. 24)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító kft is ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 —

Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító v Commission and Ombudsman

(Case C‑576/14 P) 1 ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Action for annulment — Refusal by the Commission to bring infringement proceedings — Inadmissibility and lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible’

1. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 15)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Refusal of the Commission to bring infringement proceedings — Not included — No infringement of the right to effective judicial protection (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paras 16, 23)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary — Obscure ground — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 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 paras 19, 20)

4. 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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see para. 24)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító kft is ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 —

Tamoil Italia

(Case C‑156/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 191(2) TFEU — Directive 2004/35/EC — Environmental liability — National legislation under which no provision is made for the administrative authorities to require owners of polluted land who have not contributed to that pollution to carry out preventive and remedial measures, and the sole obligation imposed concerns the reimbursement of the measures undertaken by those authorities — Whether compatible with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority)’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 9, 10)

2. Environment — Prevention and remedying of environmental damage — Environmental liability — Directive 2004/35 — ‘Polluter pays’ principle — Impossibility of identifying the polluter of a plot of land or to have that person adopt remedial measures — National legislation laying down the obligation to reimburse the costs relating to the measures undertaken by the competent authority to owners of polluted land not responsible for that pollution — Lawfulness (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/35) (see para. 11, operative part)

Operative part

Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, where it is impossible to identify the polluter of a plot of land or to have that person adopt remedial measures, does not permit the competent authority to require the owner of the land (who is not responsible for the pollution) to adopt preventive and remedial measures, that person being required merely to reimburse the costs relating to the measures undertaken by the competent authority within the limit of the market value of the site, determined after those measures have been carried out.

( 1 ) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.