ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 – Greece v Commission

(Case C‑552/12 P)

‛Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic’

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(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 32-34, 50)

2. 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(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 55, 67, 75)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 in Case T‑215/10 Greece v Commission dismissing an action for the annulment of the Commission Decision 2010/152/EU final of 11 March 2010 excluding from European Union funding certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), [notified under number C (2010) 1317] (OJ 2010 L 63, p. 7), in that it excludes certain expenditure made by Greece.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 – Greece v Commission

(Case C‑552/12 P)

‛Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic’

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(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 32-34, 50)

2. 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(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 55, 67, 75)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 in Case T‑215/10 Greece v Commission dismissing an action for the annulment of the Commission Decision 2010/152/EU final of 11 March 2010 excluding from European Union funding certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), [notified under number C (2010) 1317] (OJ 2010 L 63, p. 7), in that it excludes certain expenditure made by Greece.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
13

At the outset, the General Court recalled the principles established by the case-law of the Court of Justice with regard to the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. It observed, in particular, in paragraph 17 of the judgment under appeal, that the likelihood of confusion, under that provision, must be assessed globally, according to the perception by the relevant public of the signs and the goods or services in question, and taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, in particular the interdependence between similarity of the signs and similarity of the goods or services that they cover. It then specified, in paragraph 18 of the judgment, that a likelihood of confusion, under that provision, presupposes both that the two marks are identical or similar and that the goods or services which they cover are identical or similar. Finally, in paragraphs 19 and 20 of that judgment, the General Court recalled, in the context of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, that account should be taken of the average consumer of the category of the goods concerned (Greek in the present case), who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, while indicating that the level of attention of the average consumer is liable to vary depending on the category of the goods or services at issue.
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 19 December 2013 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission

(Case C‑506/13 P-R)

‛Application for interim measures — Appeal — Suspension of operation of a judgment of the General Court — Financial assistance in support of a medical research project — Debit note seeking to recover part of the financial assistance — Application for annulment — Counterclaim seeking payment of the sum requested — Order to pay that sum’

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3)) (see para. 12)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Assessment in the light of the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 18-20)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of 9 July 2013 in Case T‑552/11 Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission by which the General Court (Fourth Chamber) declared inadmissible an action seeking the annulment of debit note No 3241109207 of 9 September 2011, issued by the Commission, for the recovery of part of the advances paid to the applicant in the context of contract No 510743 relating to Community financial assistance for the project ‘WARD IN HANDS’, concluded in the context of the ETEN program dedicated to research and development in the field of medical collaboration — Actionable measure.

Operative part:

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Case C‑350/13

Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp. and Others

v

Aivars Lembergs

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of provisional and protective measures — Annulment of the initial decision — Maintenance of the request for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate’

Summary — Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 5 June 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — No action pending before the national court — No need to adjudicate — Analogous cases pending before the same court — No effect

(Art. 267 TFEU)

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 7-13)

Case C‑350/13

Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp. and Others

v

Aivars Lembergs

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of provisional and protective measures — Annulment of the initial decision — Maintenance of the request for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate’

Summary — Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 5 June 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — No action pending before the national court — No need to adjudicate — Analogous cases pending before the same court — No effect

(Art. 267 TFEU)

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 7-13)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — Acanfora

(Case C‑181/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 107 TFEU — ‘State aid’ — National legislation which, in the event that tax is not paid, obliges the taxable person to pay the tax collection agency an amount equal to 9% of the sums entered in the tax roll as remuneration for tax collection activities — Description of the factual context — Lack of description — Manifestly inadmissible’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 11-14, operative part)

2. State aid — Definition — Interpretation — Jurisdiction of the national courts — Limits (Art. 107(1) TFEU and 267 TFEU) (see paras 20-22)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina — Interpretation of Article 107 TFEU — ‘State aid’ — National legislation which, in the event that the assessment notice is not complied with, obliges the taxable person to pay the tax collection agency an amount equal to 9% of the sums entered in the tax roll as collection fees.

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina (Italy) by decision of 5 December 2012 is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — Acanfora

(Case C‑181/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 107 TFEU — ‘State aid’ — National legislation which, in the event that tax is not paid, obliges the taxable person to pay the tax collection agency an amount equal to 9% of the sums entered in the tax roll as remuneration for tax collection activities — Description of the factual context — Lack of description — Manifestly inadmissible’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23) (see paras 11-14, operative part)

2. State aid — Definition — Interpretation — Jurisdiction of the national courts — Limits (Art. 107(1) TFEU and 267 TFEU) (see paras 20-22)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina — Interpretation of Article 107 TFEU — ‘State aid’ — National legislation which, in the event that the assessment notice is not complied with, obliges the taxable person to pay the tax collection agency an amount equal to 9% of the sums entered in the tax roll as collection fees.

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina (Italy) by decision of 5 December 2012 is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2014 — Intelcom Service

(Case C‑600/13)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 TFEU, 35 TFEU, 37 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 60 TFEU — Directive 2006/123/EC — National legislation granting notaries the exclusive right to draft and authenticate deeds relating to the sale of immovable property — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question manifestly without relevance (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 15-17)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di pace di Matera — Interpretation of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (JO 2006 L 376, p. 36) and Articles 37 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 60 TFEU — National legislation granting notaries the exclusive right to draft and authenticate deeds relating to the sale of immovable property.

Operative part:

The request for a preliminary ruling presented by the Giudice di pace di Matera (Italy) by decision of 22 April 2013 is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2014 — Intelcom Service

(Case C‑600/13)

‛Request for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 TFEU, 35 TFEU, 37 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 60 TFEU — Directive 2006/123/EC — National legislation granting notaries the exclusive right to draft and authenticate deeds relating to the sale of immovable property — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question manifestly without relevance (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 15-17)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di pace di Matera — Interpretation of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (JO 2006 L 376, p. 36) and Articles 37 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 60 TFEU — National legislation granting notaries the exclusive right to draft and authenticate deeds relating to the sale of immovable property.

Operative part:

The request for a preliminary ruling presented by the Giudice di pace di Matera (Italy) by decision of 22 April 2013 is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

—

Trade marks

—

Interpretation of Regulation No 40/94 and Directive 89/104

—

Rights conferred by a trade mark

—

Right to oppose the initial placing into circulation within the European Economic Area of goods bearing that mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 9 and 13; Council Directive 89/104, Arts 5 and 7) (see paras 21-24, 27, operative part

)

Operative part

Operative part

Articles 5 and 7 of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, and Articles 9 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark may oppose the initial placing on the market within the European Economic Area or the European Union of goods bearing that mark without his consent.
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 25)

2. Actions for damages — Application — Lack of precise details as regards the extent of the damage — Admissibility — Conditions — Claim by the applicant that circumstances exist which justify that omission (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 28-30)

3. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any legal basis — Order delivered without an Advocate General having been assigned to the case — Lawfulness (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 2(2), 18, 19 and 111) (see para. 43)

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV, Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak, Mulders Agro vof, Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof, Melkveebedrijf De Peel and Mathijs Moonen are ordered to pay the costs.
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(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, al. 1) (see paras 33-37)
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(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 28, 33)
13

By the decision at issue, the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM granted the appeal, annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity brought by ultra air. According to the Board of Appeal, the application for a declaration of invalidity was vitiated by an abuse of rights and had to be rejected as inadmissible. In that regard, it considered, in essence, that, by its application for a declaration of invalidity, ultra air, was in reality seeking to use the designation ‘ultrafilter’ itself as a trade mark (whether alone or in combination with other terms). That company thus pursued objectives other than the public interest objectives laid down in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. Its hidden intentions, which amount to an abuse of rights, were further evidenced by the fact that, in 2003, the former manager of the proprietor of the trade mark and current manager of ultra air personally defended the distinctive character which that mark had acquired through use. Since an abuse of rights constitutes a ‘general obstacle to the procedure’, abusive applications and actions which amount to procedures designed to attain objectives other than those which are legitimate under trade mark law are not admissible, and there is no need to refer to the procedural law of the Member States, in accordance with Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

—

Admissibility

—

Questions referred without sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred

—

Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94

)

Operative part

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria regionale della Lombardia (Italy), by decision of 19 December 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.
2.

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. 33)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 — Adiamix

(Case C‑202/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(v) — Tax exemption scheme for undertakings taking over a firm in difficulty — Commission decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Recovery of individual aid granted under an aid scheme — Assessment of the validity of the Commission decision — Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’’

State aid — Existing aid and new aid — Development of the common market — Concept — Change in the economic and legal framework of the sector concerned by the measure in question — Commission notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation — Not included (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1(b), (v)) (see paras 23, 26-28)

Operative part

Consideration of the question referred has not shown any factor such as to affect the validity of Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty.

( 1 ) OJ C 202, 30.06.2014

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 — Adiamix

(Case C‑202/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(v) — Tax exemption scheme for undertakings taking over a firm in difficulty — Commission decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Recovery of individual aid granted under an aid scheme — Assessment of the validity of the Commission decision — Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’’

State aid — Existing aid and new aid — Development of the common market — Concept — Change in the economic and legal framework of the sector concerned by the measure in question — Commission notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation — Not included (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1(b), (v)) (see paras 23, 26-28)

Operative part

Consideration of the question referred has not shown any factor such as to affect the validity of Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty.

( 1 ) OJ C 202, 30.06.2014
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 April 2015 — Burzio

(Case C‑497/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Principle of ne bis in idem — National legislation providing for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for failure to pay withholding taxes — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction’

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 — Object of the dispute not presenting any link to 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; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 27-33)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy) by decision of 27 October 2014.

( 1 ) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 April 2015 — Burzio

(Case C‑497/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Principle of ne bis in idem — National legislation providing for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for failure to pay withholding taxes — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction’

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 — Object of the dispute not presenting any link to 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; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 27-33)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy) by decision of 27 October 2014.

( 1 ) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015