ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Euro Bank

(Case C‑537/15)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Credit agreement — Unfair terms — National rules — Simplified enforcement for banks — Attachment of an enforcement clause by the enforcement court — Assessment by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether contractual terms are unfair — Impossible — National legislation at issue repealed — No need to adjudicate’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Case pending before the national court rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 31-33, 35, 36, operative part)

Operative part

There is no need to proceed to judgment on the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (District Court, Konin, Poland) by decision of 21 September 2015 in Case C‑537/15.
2.

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.
1.

EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — No need to adjudicate — Appeal brought by the proprietor of an EU trade mark against a judgment of the General Court, by which the latter upheld the decision of a Board of Appeal which granted the application for a declaration of nullity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — End of the dispute (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 149 and 190(1); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 6, 7)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 — ESET

(Case C‑393/15) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168 — Article 169(a) — Company established in a Member State in which it carries out taxable transactions — Branch registered in another Member State for the payment of value added tax — Occasional taxable transactions made in that State — Main activity consisting in the performance of internal transactions for the benefit of that company — Input tax paid by that branch — Deducted in the Member State of registration’

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Existence and scope of the right to deduct — Branch registered in one Member State for the payment of value added tax — Occasional taxable transactions made in that State — Input tax paid by that branch — Included (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 168 and 169(a)) (see para. 42, operative part)

Operative part

Article 168 and Article 169(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a branch registered in one Member State for the payment of value added tax for a company established in another Member State and which mainly carries out internal transactions not subject to that tax for that company, but also occasionally transactions taxed in the Member State where it is registered, is entitled to deduct input tax in the latter State charged on goods and services used for the needs of that company’s taxable transactions carried out in the Member State where the branch is established.

( 1 ) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
1)

It is not apparent either from the provisions of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, read in the light of Article 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, nor from Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, that, when determining the maximum annual quantity of greenhouse gas emission allowances, the European Commission excluded emissions other than those attributable to electricity producers.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 September 2016 — Durante

(Case C‑438/15) ( *1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Identical questions referred — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Gambling — Restrictions — Overriding reasons relating to the public interest — Proportionality — Conditions taking part in a tendering procedure and evaluation of economic and financial capacity — Tenderer excluded for failure to produce testimonials of his economic and financial capacity given by two separate banking institutions’

1. Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Betting and gaming — National legislation which makes participation in a tender procedure for the collection of bets conditional on the submission of bank declarations attesting the economic and financial capacity of the operator — Not permissible — Justification — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Objective of fighting crime — Obligation to satisfy the requirement of proportionality — Determination by the national court (Arts 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU) (see paras 10-13, 15, operative part)

2. Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Provisions of the Treaty — Scope — National legislation which makes participation in a tender procedure for the collection of bets conditional on the submission of bank declarations attesting the economic and financial capacity of the operator — Included — No independent examination in the light of the provisions governing the free movement of capital (Arts 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU) (see para. 14)

Operative part

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that requires operators desiring to respond to a call for tenders for the award of licences in the field of betting and gambling to produce evidence of their economic and financial capacity by means of declarations made by at least two banking establishments and does not allow that capacity to be demonstrated otherwise, provided that that provision is capable of satisfying the conditions of proportionality laid down by the Court’s case-law, which it is for the court making the reference to ascertain.

( *1 ) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer — Included — Elements to be taken into consideration for the purposes of taxation

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b))

(see paras 12-15)
11

In those circumstances, the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, Italy) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Does Article 56 TFEU preclude application of Decision No 397/13/CONS of AGCOM and of the related provisions of national law, as interpreted along the lines proposed by that authority, which require the submission of complex [ESI] (which must be drawn up in accordance with Italian accounting standards) on the economic activities carried out in relation to Italian consumers, motivated by objectives of protecting competition but necessarily connected to the various and more limited institutional functions of that authority of safeguarding pluralism within the sector concerned, to operators which nonetheless do not come within the scope of the national legislation governing that sector [the Consolidated legislation on broadcasting and audiovisual media services], and in particular, in the case under review here, to a national operator carrying out only services for its fellow subsidiary governed by Irish law and also, as regards the latter, to an operator not having its headquarters and not carrying on any business using employees within national territory; alternatively, does this constitute a measure restricting freedom to provide services within the European Union in breach of Article 56 TFEU?’
EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Permission to lodge a reply—Discretion of the Court

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (1991), Art. 135(2))

(see paras 5, 6)
3.

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer — No obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed comparative analysis of the tender accepted and the tender of the unsuccessful tenderer (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 113(2); Commission Regulation 1268/2012, Art. 161(2)) (see para. 5)
2.

EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject matter and material scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1), second para., (a)) (see para. 6)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 —

Ignazio Messina & C.

(Joined Cases C‑10/16 to C‑12/16) ( *1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Decision to refer — Insufficient information regarding the legal and factual context — Insufficient information regarding the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving a dispute in the main proceedings — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — 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, Arts 53(2) and 94) (see paras 8-14)

Operative part

The requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Provincial Tax Court, Genoa, Italy), by decisions of 11 December 2015, are manifestly inadmissible.

( *1 ) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
(Art. 256(1) 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)

Appeal—Grounds—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—Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute—Included

(Art. 256(1), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
Appeal — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see para. 33)
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2017 —

Aranyosi

(Case C‑496/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Grounds for refusal to execute — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 4 — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State — Annulment of the European arrest warrant by the issuing judicial authority — Hypothetical question — No need to adjudicate)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Jurisdiction of the Court—Limits—General or hypothetical questions—Questions concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant—Annulment of that warrant—No need to adjudicate

(Art. 267 TFEU)

(see paras 22-29)

Operative part

There is no need to proceed to judgment on the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Higher Regional Court, Bremen, Germany) by decision of 12 September 2016.

( 1 ) OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.
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. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 6, 7)
Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Discretion of the Court — Costs incurred in the context of an appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b))

(see paras 21, 23)
ORDER OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber)

12 January 2017 ( )

(Rectification order)

In Case C‑379/16 P-REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 7 July 2016,

European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, established in Ettelbrück (Luxembourg),

European Dynamics Belgium SA, established in Brussels (Belgium),

Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, established in Athens (Greece),

represented by C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou, dikigoroi,

appellants,

the other party to the proceedings being:

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by N. Bambara, acting as Agent,

defendant at first instance,

THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of E. Juhász (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Jürimäe and C. Lycourgos, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Mengozzi,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 24 November 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) made the order in European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EUIPO (C‑379/16 P, not published, EU:C:2016:905).

2 That order contains a clerical mistake which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify of its own motion under Article 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

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

1.The date mentioned after the operative part, on the last page of the order of 24 November 2016, European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EUIPO (C‑379/16 P, not published, EU:C:2016:905), shall be rectified as follows:

‘Luxembourg, 24 November 2016.’

2.The original of the present order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified order. A note of that order shall be made in the margin of the original of the rectified order.





Luxembourg, 12 January 2017.





A. Calot Escobar E. Juhász
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

7 June 2018 ( )

(Removal from the Register)

In Case C‑674/16 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 29 December 2016,

Guccio Gucci SpA, established in Florence (Italy), represented by P.L. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, avvocati,

appellant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Union Intellectual Property Office(EUIPO), represented by S. Hanne, acting as Agent,

defendant at first instance,

Guess ? IP Holder LP, established in Los Angeles (United States of America), represented by D. McFarland, Barrister,

intervener at first instance,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,

after hearing the Advocate General, P. Mengozzi,

makes the following

Order

1 By a document lodged via e-Curia on 16 May 2018, Guccio Gucci SpA and Guess ? IP Holder LP informed the Court that they had reached an agreement on the amicable settlement of the dispute giving rise to the present case, in which it had been agreed that each party would bear its own costs and, therefore, that it was no longer necessary to rule on the appeal of Guccio Gucci SpA. That letter must be interpreted as including a request on the part of Guccio Gucci SpA to discontinue the proceedings, submitted in accordance with Article 148 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeals by virtue of Article 190(1) of those rules, which that party’s representative confirmed in a subsequent communication.

2 By a document lodged via e-Curia on 23 May 2018, the European Union Intellectual Property Office informed the Court that it had no objections to the proceedings being brought to an end, while requesting the Court not to order it to pay the costs.

3 Under Article 141(1) of the Rules of Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 184(1) thereof, a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the other party’s observations on the discontinuance. In addition, Article 141(3) of those rules provides that, where the parties have come to an agreement on costs, the decision as to costs is to be in accordance with that agreement.

4 Since the European Union Intellectual Property Office confined itself, in its observations, to requesting the Court not to order it to pay the costs and no other party has sought that that party be ordered to pay the costs, it must be held that the European Union Intellectual Property Office is to bear its own costs.

5 In accordance with the agreement reached between Guccio Gucci SpA and Guess ? IP Holder LP, both those parties are to bear their own costs.

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

1. Case C‑674/16 P is removed from the Register of the Court.

2. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Luxembourg, 7 June 2018.

A. Calot Escobar K. Lenaerts
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. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 5, 6)
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 of the Court

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99)

(see paras 23, 24)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 —

Ccc Event Management v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C‑261/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Actions for damages — Alleged non-compliance with EU law of the Austrian legislation in respect of gambling contributions — Failure, by the national courts or tribunals, to refer the matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Reference to the Court—Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred—Assessment by the national court—Failure to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling—Not imputable to the Court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 16, 17)

2. EU law—Rights conferred on individuals—Infringement by a Member State—Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals (see para. 18)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Reference to the Court—Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred—Assessment by the national court—Decision not to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling—Obligation to inform the Court of such a decision—No such obligation—Subjective right to be notified of such a decision—No such right (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 21, 22)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 January 2018 — Josel v EUIPO

(Case C‑536/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Registration of the word mark NN — Opposition dismissed — No genuine use of the earlier mark)

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. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
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. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 5)
Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Balancing of all the interests involved—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 23, 31, 33, 35)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb v Commission

(Case C‑508/17 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — State aid granted to holders of concessions to operate games of chance — Complaint — Abstention of the Commission — Action for failure to act — Rejection)

1. Actions for failure to act—Failure remedied before commencement of proceedings—Inadmissibility (Art. 265 TFEU) (see para. 15)

2. Actions for failure to act—Failure to act—Definition—Measure not considered satisfactory—Precluded (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 23, 24)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH is to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 123 of 9.4.2018.