ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeals — 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 — Assessments relating to the similarity of the marks at issue

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

(see paras 5, 7)
Case C‑292/18

Petra Breyer and Heiko Breyer

v

Sundair GmbH

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kassel)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Right to compensation in the event of flight cancellation — Article 3(5) — Scope — Article 2(a) — Concept of air carrier — Undertaking not yet possessing an operating licence at the date scheduled for the performance of a flight — Question admitting of no reasonable doubt)

Summary — Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 6 December 2018

Transport — Air transport — Regulation No 261/2004 — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Air carrier — Concept — Undertaking not yet possessing an operating licence at the date scheduled for the performance of a flight — Not included — Right to compensation for passengers — No right to compensation — Limits

[(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Arts 2(a), 3(5), 5(1)(c) and 7(1); Council Directive 90/314, Art. 5(1))

Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in conjunction with Article 2(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which had lodged an application for an operating licence that was not issued to it at the time for the performance of scheduled flights cannot fall within the scope of that regulation, so that the passengers concerned have no right to compensation under Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of the regulation.

The non-performance of flights by that undertaking, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, cannot, therefore, result in the effects of a cancellation under Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) thereof. In view of the particular circumstances of the main proceedings, it should be noted that the fact that Article 3(5) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in conjunction with Article 2(a) thereof, prevents the passengers concerned from receiving compensation under that regulation does not prevent them from seeking reparation in other ways, including — as provided for in Article 3(6) of the same regulation — under Directive 90/314 which, in particular, provides, in Article 5(1) thereof, that Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that the organiser and/or retailer party to the contract is liable to the consumer for the proper performance of the obligations arising from the contract, irrespective of whether such obligations are to be performed by that organiser and/or retailer or by other suppliers of services without prejudice to the right of the organiser and/or retailer to pursue those other suppliers of services.

(see paras 25, 26, 28, operative part)
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. 4)
European Parliament — Members — Payment of expenses and allowances — Establishment of undue payment — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Power of the Secretary-General of the Parliament

(Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, Art. 68(1); Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Art. 25(3))

(see paras 41, 42)
Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Plea based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure — None — Amplification of an existing plea — No amplification — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1))

(see para. 19)
EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Application to documents concerning an EU Pilot procedure — General presumption that the exception to the right of access applies — Lawfulness

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), third indent)

(see paras 5, 6)
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2019 — Shindler and Others v Council

(Case C‑755/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Institutional law — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Article 50 TEU — Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom with a view to concluding an agreement determining the terms of withdrawal — Loss of citizenship of the Union — Article 263, fourth para., TFEU — Whether directly concerned)

Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant's legal situation — Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations with a Member State with a view to concluding an agreement relating to the withdrawal of that Member State from the European Union — Action brought by nationals of the Member State concerned — No binding legal effect on the applicants — Inadmissibility

(Art. 50 TEU; Art. 263, forth para., TFEU)

(see paras 30-32, 36-39)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2020 — Solak

(Case C‑258/18) ( 1 )

(Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 59 of the Additional Protocol — Decision No 3/80 — Social security for Turkish migrant workers — Waiver of residence clauses — Article 6 — Supplementary benefits — Suspension — Renunciation of the nationality of the host Member State — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Special non-contributory cash benefits — Residence requirement)

International agreements — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Social security for migrant workers — Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council — Waiver of residence clauses — Supplementary benefits granted under national legislation — National legislation suspending the payment of a benefit for recipients no longer residing on national territory — Application to Turkish former workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the host Member State — Turkish nationals who have renounced the nationality of that Member State and returned to their country of origin — Whether permissible

(Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council EEC-Turkey, Art. 6(1), first subpara.; Additional protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Art. 59)

(see paras 51-53, 55, 57, 59, operative part)

Operative part

The first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families read in conjunction with Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 in Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the payment of a benefit intended to supplement an invalidity pension in order to ensure a minimum income, granted in accordance with that legislation, is suspended in relation to a Turkish national who is duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State and who, having renounced the nationality of that Member State, which he had acquired during his period of residence in that State, has returned to his country of origin.

( 1 ) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
4

The referring court states that, under Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the withdrawal agreement which might be concluded between the United Kingdom and the Union under Article 50(2) TEU, setting out the arrangements for that withdrawal, may be ratified only if that agreement and the framework for the future relationship of the United Kingdom and the European Union has been approved by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The referring court states that, where the withdrawal agreement is not approved by that Parliament, and if no other proposal is made, the departure of the United Kingdom from the Union will nonetheless take effect as from 29 March 2019.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

4 March 2021 ( *1 )

(Rectification of judgment)

In Case C‑471/18 P-REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 18 July 2018,

Federal Republic of Germany, represented initially by T. Henze and D. Klebs, and subsequently by D. Klebs and J. Möller, acting as Agents,

appellant

the other parties to the proceedings being:

Esso Raffinage, established in Courbevoie (France), represented initially by H. Estreicher, Rechtsanwalt, and N. Navin-Jones, Solicitor, subsequently by H. Estreicher, Rechtsanwalt, A. Kołtunowska, adwokat, K. Merten-Lentz, avocate, and N. Navin-Jones, Solicitor, and finally by H. Estreicher, Rechtsanwalt, A. Kołtunowska, adwokat, and K. Merten-Lentz, avocate,

applicant at first instance,

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), represented by W. Broere, C. Jacquet and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

French Republic, represented initially by D. Colas, J. Traband and A.‑L. Desjonquères, and subsequently by E. Leclerc, J. Traband, W. Zemamta and A.-L. Desjonquères, acting as Agents,

Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by M.K. Bulterman and M.L. Noort, acting as Agents,

interveners at first instance,

European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by D. Thomas, Solicitor,

Higher Olefins and Poly Alpha Olefins REACH Consortium, established in Brussels (Belgium),

Higher Olefins & Poly Alpha Olefins vzw, established in Brussels,

represented initially by E. Vermulst, advocaat, and subsequently by P. Kugel, advocaat,

interveners,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of A. Prechal (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, President of the Court, acting as Judge of the Third Chamber, N. Wahl, F. Biltgen and L.S. Rossi, Judges,

Advocate General: E. Tanchev,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 21 January 2021, the Court (Third Chamber) delivered judgment in Germany v Esso Raffinage (C‑471/18 P, EU:C:2021:48).

2 That judgment contains, in the version in the language of the case, an error which it is appropriate to rectify at the request of European Coalition to End Animal Experiments pursuant to Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies to the procedure on appeal under Article 190(1) of those rules.

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

1. In the introductory part of the judgment of 21 January 2021, Germany v Esso Raffinage (C‑471/18 P, EU:C:2021:48), the reference to European Coalition to End Animal Experiments shall be rectified as follows: – ‘European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by D. Thomas, Solicitor,’

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

Luxembourg, 4 March 2021. A. Calot Escobar Registrar A. Prechal President of the Third Chamber

( *1 ) Language of the case: English.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 10 July 2019 — Meblo Trade v EUIPO

(Case C‑359/19 P)

(Appeal — EU trade mark — Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Request failing to show that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

Appeal — Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to show the significance of the issue — Appeal not allowed to proceed

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see paras 6-8)

Operative part

1. The appeal shall not be allowed to proceed.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 1 October 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO

(Case C‑460/19 P)

(Appeal — EU trade mark — Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed— Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Application not demonstrating the significance of an issue of law with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed)

Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Request for the appeal to be allowed to proceed not demonstrating that the issue is significant — Not allowed to proceed

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see paras 9-14)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
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)
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 30 September 2019 — All Star v EUIPO

(Case C‑461/19 P)

(Appeal — EU trade mark — Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Request failing to demonstrate the significance of an issue of law with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed)

1. Appeal — Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see paras 10, 11)

2. Judicial procedure — Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Request that an appeal should be allowed to proceed — Formal requirements — Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see paras 14, 15)

3. Appeal — Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to show the significance of the issue — Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see paras 16-24)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 — Renew Consorzio Energie Rinnovabili v Commission and Italy

(Case C‑325/19 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for annulment and for damages — Decision to take no further action on a complaint concerning the Italian legislation on renewable energy — Alleged breach of EU law — Non-contractual liability of the Italian Republic — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

1. Appeal —Grounds — 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 19, 20)

2. Appeal —Grounds — No specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFUE; 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 21-25)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 8)
Appeal — Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to show the significance of the issue — Appeal not allowed to proceed

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see paras 13-16, 24)
Appeal — 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; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

(see para. 36)
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. 3)
Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission decision to initiate an administrative proceeding under the competition rules — Decision affecting only the procedural situation of the undertaking that is the subject of the inquiry — No deprivation of procedural rights, effect on the Commission’s power or modification of the applicable material control criterion — Precluded — Interruption of the limitation period under national law — Irrelevant

(Arts 101 and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 11(6); Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 2(1))

(see paras 35-38, 48, 52, 57, 75)
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 7 February 2020 — Walker and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case C‑789/19 P(R))

(Appeal — Order for interim relief — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 — Loss of EU citizenship — Action for annulment — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility of the action for annulment)

1. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate or contradictory grounds — Scope of the obligation to state reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Whether permissible — Conditions (Statue of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 119) (see paras 19-23)

2. Appeal — 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; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 31-34)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Judicial proceedings – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Possibility of ruling without an oral procedure – Action manifestly inadmissible

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)

(see paras 23, 24, 26, 27)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 May 2021 – Fluctus and Others

(Case C‑920/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 56 TFEU – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Gambling – Dual system of organisation of the market – Monopoly on lottery products and casino games – Prior authorisation for the use of automatic gaming machines – Advertising practices of the monopolist – Criteria for assessment – Constitutional case-law finding the national legislation to be compatible with EU law)

1. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Games of chance – National legislation instituting a State monopoly for the organisation of certain games of chance and a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of other games – Whether permissible – Advertising practices of monopoly holders aimed at stimulating active participation in gambling – Consistent and systematic nature of that national legislation – Overall assessment by the national court (Art. 56 TFEU) (see paras 30-32, 36, 40, 46-49, 53, operative part 1)

2. EU law – Primacy – Conflicting national law – Inapplicability as a matter of law of existing provisions – Obligation to comply with instructions of a higher court that are contrary to EU law – Unlawful (Arts 56 and 267 TFEU) (see paras 57, 58, 60, operative part 2)

Operative part

1. Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a dual system of organisation of the market for games of chance on the sole ground that the advertising practices of the holder of the monopoly on lottery products and casino games aim at encouraging active participation in gambling, for example by trivialising gambling, by conferring on it a positive image because revenues derived from it are used for activities in the public interest or by increasing its attractiveness by means of enticing advertising messages holding out the tantalising prospect of major winnings.

2. The principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring a national court of a Member State to disapply a provision of national law which is contrary to Article 56 TFEU, including where a higher court of that Member State has held that that provision was consistent with EU law.

( 1 ) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.