ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 December 2014 —

Qwatchme v Kastenholz

(Case C‑435/13 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Definition — Fees paid by a company to its lawyer — Included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 144(b) and 184(1) (See para. 9)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings — Included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 10)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Involvement of more than one lawyer — No effect — Assessment having regard primarily to the total number of hours’ work objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 11-13)

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed by Erich Kastenholz to Qwatchme A/S in Case C‑435/13 P are fixed at EUR 2 200.

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 December 2014 —

Qwatchme v Kastenholz

(Case C‑435/13 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Definition — Fees paid by a company to its lawyer — Included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 144(b) and 184(1) (See para. 9)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings — Included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see para. 10)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Involvement of more than one lawyer — No effect — Assessment having regard primarily to the total number of hours’ work objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 11-13)

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed by Erich Kastenholz to Qwatchme A/S in Case C‑435/13 P are fixed at EUR 2 200.
2.

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — National scales of lawyers’ fees — Not included (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b)) (see paras 10-12)
5

According to Article 7 of the Directive: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers. 2. The means referred to in paragraph 1 shall include provisions whereby persons or organisations, having a legitimate interest under national law in protecting consumers, may take action according to the national law concerned before the courts or before competent administrative bodies for a decision as to whether contractual terms drawn up for general use are unfair, so that they can apply appropriate and effective means to prevent the continued use of such terms. 3. With due regard for national laws, the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 2 may be directed separately or jointly against a number of sellers or suppliers from the same economic sector or their associations which use or recommend the use of the same general contractual terms or similar terms.’
4

According to the referring court, it is essential to determine whether, in the context of proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of a decision made by a court of another Member State, the damage caused to individuals who are not parties to the initial proceedings may constitute a ground for applying the public‑policy clause in Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001. In those circumstances, the Augstākās tiesas Senāts decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of proceedings for the recognition of a judgment delivered by a court of another Member State, infringement of the rights of persons who are not parties to the main proceedings may constitute a ground for applying the public-policy clause contained in Article 34(1) of that regulation and for refusing to recognise that judgment in so far as it affects persons who are not parties to the main proceedings? (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the right to a fair trial set out therein allows proceedings for the adoption of provisional protective measures to limit the economic rights of a person who has not been a party to the proceedings, if provision is made to the effect that any person who is affected by the decision on the provisional protective measures is to have the right at any time to request the court to vary or discharge the judgment, in a situation in which it is left to the applicants to notify the decision to the persons concerned?’
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 — Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio v Italy

(Case C‑11/14 P)

‛Appeal — Challenge to the penalties imposed by the Italian Football Association — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court of the European Union’

Judicial proceedings — Action for annulment or for damages brought by a natural or legal person against a Member State — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Inadmissibility (Arts 256 TFEU, 263 TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, third and fourth paras, TFEU) (see paras 13-15)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2013 in Case T‑476/13 Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio v Italy, by which the General Court dismissed an action for the annulment of the penalties imposed on the applicant by the Federazione italiana giuoco calico, and an application seeking damages from the Italian authorities for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of those penalties.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dimissed.

2. Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl, in liquidation, is ordered to bear its own costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 — Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio v Italy

(Case C‑11/14 P)

‛Appeal — Challenge to the penalties imposed by the Italian Football Association — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court of the European Union’

Judicial proceedings — Action for annulment or for damages brought by a natural or legal person against a Member State — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Inadmissibility (Arts 256 TFEU, 263 TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, third and fourth paras, TFEU) (see paras 13-15)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2013 in Case T‑476/13 Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio v Italy, by which the General Court dismissed an action for the annulment of the penalties imposed on the applicant by the Federazione italiana giuoco calico, and an application seeking damages from the Italian authorities for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of those penalties.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dimissed.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Szabó

(Case C‑204/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax debts accumulated by a commercial company — Director of that company could not be recruited to be a director of another company — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Interpretation requested of provisions of EU law that are inapplicable — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court — Hypothetical questions — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of provisions of EU law manifestly inapplicable in the main proceedings — Dispute concerning a purely domestic issue — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Arts 26 TFEU, 35 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94(a)) (see paras 16-19, 23, 24)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — General or hypothetical questions — Determination by the Court of its own jurisdiction — Question referred for a preliminary ruling of a hypothetical nature — Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 26, 27)

Operative part

1. The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to provide an answer to the third question referred by the Tatabányai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary).

2. The other questions referred by the aforementioned court are manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Municipiul Piatra Neamț

(Case C‑13/14)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the national court — Assessment of the need for and the relevance of the questions referred (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 8, 9)

2. 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; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see para. 10-16)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Bacău — Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Application of less favourable national legislation to a previously concluded public contract — Actual or potential threat to the EU budget — Presumption of harm based on the finding that the rules for concluding public contracts have been infringed.

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania), by Decision of 7 January 2014 (Case C‑13/14) is manifestly inadmissible

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Municipiul Piatra Neamț

(Case C‑13/14)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the national court — Assessment of the need for and the relevance of the questions referred (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 8, 9)

2. 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; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see para. 10-16)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Bacău — Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Application of less favourable national legislation to a previously concluded public contract — Actual or potential threat to the EU budget — Presumption of harm based on the finding that the rules for concluding public contracts have been infringed.

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania), by Decision of 7 January 2014 (Case C‑13/14) is manifestly inadmissible
It is for the referring court to assess, in accordance with the legislation, collective agreements and/or national practice, what the nature of the compensation granted to a worker, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, should be in order for that compensation to constitute a sufficiently effective measure to penalise the abuse, within the meaning of Clause 5.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work.

It is also for the referring court, should it be necessary, to give the relevant provisions of domestic law an interpretation which is, so far as possible, consistent with EU law.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 —

Big Line v Demon International

(Case C‑170/14 P)

‛Appeals — Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word element ‘DEMON’ — Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the international word mark DEMON — Rejection by the Board of Appeal of the application for a declaration of invalidity’

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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 31)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 —

Big Line v Demon International

(Case C‑170/14 P)

‛Appeals — Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word element ‘DEMON’ — Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the international word mark DEMON — Rejection by the Board of Appeal of the application for a declaration of invalidity’

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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 31)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 February 2015 —

Equitalia Nord

(Case C‑68/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 106 TFEU and 107 TFEU — Competition — Concept of ‘State aid’ — National legislation — Use of buildings for institutional purposes — Rent reduction — Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Need for a reply to the questions referred — Lack of information — Manifest inadmissibility’

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, Art. 53(2) and 94) (see paras 13-17, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy), by decision of 12 December 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 February 2015 —

Equitalia Nord

(Case C‑68/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 106 TFEU and 107 TFEU — Competition — Concept of ‘State aid’ — National legislation — Use of buildings for institutional purposes — Rent reduction — Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Need for a reply to the questions referred — Lack of information — Manifest inadmissibility’

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, Art. 53(2) and 94) (see paras 13-17, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy), by decision of 12 December 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 —

Argo Group International Holdings v OHIM

(Case C‑370/14 P)

‛Appeals — Community trade mark — Figurative mark in colour including the word element ‘ARIS’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark in red and blue including the word elements ‘ARISA ASSURANCES S.A.’ — Refusal of registration’

1. 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, TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 24, 39)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (see para. 28)

3. 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, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see paras 32, 33)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Argo Group International Holdings Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 —

Argo Group International Holdings v OHIM

(Case C‑370/14 P)

‛Appeals — Community trade mark — Figurative mark in colour including the word element ‘ARIS’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark in red and blue including the word elements ‘ARISA ASSURANCES S.A.’ — Refusal of registration’

1. 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, TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 24, 39)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (see para. 28)

3. 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, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see paras 32, 33)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
3.

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Scope — No obligation to prove matters within common knowledge — Dispute before the General Court — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment by the General Court of whether matters were within common knowledge — 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.; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76) (see paras 65)
1.

Appeals — Grounds — Distortion of national law relied on as evidence — Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 19-27)
1.

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 — Plea alleging distortion of the facts — Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (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 paras 38-42, 57, 68)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Tita and Others

(Case C‑495/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Directive 89/665/EEC — Public procurement — National legislation — Fees for access to administrative proceedings in the field of public procurement — Right to an effective remedy — Dissuasive fees — Judicial review of administrative decisions — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence’

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 27, 28)

2. Approximation of laws — Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts — Directive 89/665 — Member States’ duty to provide for a review procedure — Fixing legal costs — Member States’ discretion — Limits — Observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and the effectiveness of Directive 89/665 (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66, Art. 1) (see paras 33-38)

3. Approximation of laws — Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts — Directive 89/665 — Member States’ duty to provide for a review procedure — Fixing legal costs — National legislation imposing, on the bringing of an action in administrative proceedings relating to public procurement, the payment of legal costs which are higher than in other areas — Admissibility (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66, Art. 1) (see paras 40-50 and operative part)

Operative part

Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation requiring the payment of court fees, such as the standard fee at issue in the main proceedings, when proceedings are brought in the public procurement field before the administrative courts.

( 1 ) OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
7

Part One of the CN consists of a number of preliminary provisions. In Section I of Part One, which contains general rules, subsection A, entitled ‘General rules for the interpretation of the [CN]’, provides: ‘Classification of goods in the [CN] shall be governed by the following principles: 1. The titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions. … 3. When, by application of rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows: (a) the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. … … 6. For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this rule, the relative section and chapter notes also apply, unless the context requires otherwise.’
3.

The interested persons and bodies referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be invited to express their views, if any, on whether the Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic (Spain) satisfies the criteria laid down in the case-law of the Court in order to be regarded as a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU.