ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-51/03

Criminal proceedings

against

Nicoleta Maria Georgescu

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Löbau)

(Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 – Countries for which the application of the abolition of the visa requirement is suspended until a further decision of the Council – Extent of the suspension – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

Summary of the Order

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Act adopted on the basis of Title IV of Part III of the Treaty – Regulation No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement – National courts or tribunals which may make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling on interpretation – Courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law

(Arts 62(2)(b)(i) EC and68(1) EC; Council Regulation No 539/2001)
Operative part



Operative part

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

The total costs to be reimbursed by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to Zirh International Corp. are fixed at EUR 5 126.95.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 87(1) EC, 88(2) EC, and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 37-38, 40-42, 50-51)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 43)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 27 May 2004 in Case T-358/02 Deutsche Post and DHL International v Commission dismissing as inadmissible the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/782/EC of 12 March 2002 on the aid granted by Italy to Poste Italiane SpA (formerly Ente Poste Italiane) (OJ 2002 L 282, p. 29)

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Deutsche Post AG and DHL Express (Italy) Srl, formerly DHL International Srl, to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2008 – CEF City Electrical Factors and CEF Holdings v Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie

(Joined Cases C‑105/04 P-DEP and C-113/04 P-DEP)

Taxation of costs

1. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Courts having jurisdiction on appeal (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(1) (see paras 21-23)

2. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Matters to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 25, 39)

3. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Intervener (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 33)

4. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Several lawyers involved (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 41-42)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 September 2006.

Operative part

The Court:

Fixes the total amount of the costs which Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie BV must, to the extent to which they are individually liable, reimburse to CEF City Electrical Factors BV and to CEF Holdings Ltd at EUR 15 000.
16

Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling must be that Articles 49 EC to 55 EC do not preclude the domestic legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from prohibiting a person who resides and works in that State from using, in that State, a vehicle which he has rented from a leasing company established in another Member State, when that vehicle has not been registered in the first State and it is intended that it should be used there essentially on a permanent basis or is, in fact, used in that manner.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions

(Arts 49 EC to 55 EC)

Summary

Articles 49 EC to 55 EC preclude national legislation of a Member State which requires a natural person established in that Member State who leases a vehicle registered in another Member State to pay the full amount of a registration tax when the vehicle is first used on the highway in the first Member State, without taking account of the duration of the use of that highway and without the person in question having any right to an exemption or a refund, where the vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that way.

(see para. 33, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal

–

Grounds

–

Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance

–

Failure to specify the error of law relied on

–

Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c), first subpara.) (see paras 23-25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2005 in Case T-17/04 Front national and Others v Parliament and Council , by which it dismissed as inadmissible an action for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the appellants to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Driving licences – Directive 91/439 (Council Directive 91/439, Arts 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) (see para. 38 and operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Oberlandsgericht München – Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) – Refusal to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State, raised against a holder whose national licence was withdrawn without a prohibition period due to repeated offences under the highway code – Obligation to provide beforehand a medical-psychological opinion attesting to aptitude to drive.

Operative part

Operative part

The combined provisions of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997, preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise, on its territory, the right to drive resulting from a driving licence issued in another Member State and, accordingly, the validity of that licence so long as the holder of that licence, whose previous licence in the territory of the first Member State was withdrawn without a measure prohibiting the holder from obtaining a new licence for a given period, has not complied with the conditions required under the laws of that first Member State for the issuing of a new licence following that withdrawal, including a driving test designed to establish that the reasons for that withdrawal have ceased.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Obligation of the Court of First Instance to open the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility – None (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114(1) to (3)) (see para. 46)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 56-60, 67)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Error of law pleaded not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para., Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 62)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 22 July 2005 in Case T-376/04 Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Council and Commission , which declared inadmissible an action for, first, annulment of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 59/2004 of 26 April 2004 amending Annex II to the EEA Agreement (OJ 2004 L 277, p. 30) permitting Norway to apply more stringent concentration limits for acrylamide than those applicable in the Community, and also a declaration that the joint statement relating to the EEA Agreement regarding the review clauses in the field of dangerous substances, adopted at the meeting of the Joint Committee on 26 March 1999 (OJ 1999 C 185, p. 6), is unlawful and, second, an action for damages to obtain compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Polyelectrolyte Producers Group is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-32, 37-39)

2. Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts before the Court of First Instance – Excluded except in the case of distortion of the facts (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 35-36)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 25 May 2005 in Case T‑352/02 Creative Technology v OHIM , dismissing as unfounded an action brought by the applicant for the Community trade mark ‘PC WORKS’ for goods in Class 9 against decision R 265/2001‑4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 4 September 2002 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing to register that trade mark in opposition proceedings brought by the holder of the national figurative mark ‘W WORK PRO’ for goods in Class 9.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Creative Technology Ltd to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure

–

No need to adjudicate (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see para. 20, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 June 2005 in Case T-315/03 Wilfer v OHIM by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision refusing to register the mark ‘ROCKBASS’ – Descriptive character of the trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Mr Wilfer.

2. Mr Wilfer is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 April 2006 – L v Commission

(Case C-230/05 P)

Appeal – Officials – Harassment – Commission’s duty to provide assistance – Liability – Refusal by the Court of First Instance to allow the examination of witnesses – Offer of supplementary evidence which did not exist at the closing of the written procedure – Refusal to withdraw an allegedly defamatory document from the file – Obligation to provide reasons – Principal of sound administration – Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible

1. Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessments of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Excluded except in cases of distortion (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 45-46)

2. Procedure – Measures of inquiry (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 66(1) (see para. 47)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – Whether admissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 53)

4. Procedure – Measures of organisation of procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 49 and 64(3)(d)) (see paras 67-68)

5. Appeal – Grounds – Ground put forward for the first time in the appeal – Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 42(2), and 118) (see para. 99)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2005 in Case T-254/02 L v Commission , dismissing, first, the action for annulment of the decisions of the Commission rejecting the request for assistance, access to documents and compensation and refusing to recognise an occupational disease and, second, the claim for damages for the loss suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 January 2006 – Entorn v Commission

(Case C‑162/05 P)

Appeal – EAGGF – Financial participation in a demonstration project concerning the introduction of new cultivation techniques in sumac production – Withdrawal of financial aid).

1. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Failure to specify the error of law relied on – Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1), first subpara., (c)) (see paras 42-44)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 66(1) (see para. 49)

3. Procedure – Measures of inquiry (see paras 55-56)

4. Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Presumption of innocence (Art. 6 EU) (see paras 59-60)

5. Appeals – Grounds – 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. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 65, 68)

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2005 in Case T-141/01 Entorn v Commission , rejecting an application for annulment of the Commission decision withdrawing aid under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance Section, granted to the applicant for a demonstration project concerning the introduction of new cultivation techniques

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2007 – Ricosmos v Commission

(Case C‑420/05 P)

Appeal – Customs code – External Community transit operation – Remission of import duties – Conditions – Compliance with time‑limits – Compliance with the rights of the defence – Principle of proportionality – Notion of manifest negligence – Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part

1. Appeals – Grounds – Ground not supported by legal argument – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 64, 70, 116, 120, 161, 165-166)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law made by the Court of First Instance – Whether admissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 71-72, 80-81, 90, 102, 112, 168)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissible (see para. 74)

4. Appeals – Production of new pleas in the course of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see paras 76, 137)

5. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import duties (Council Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 905 and 906a) (see paras 84-86)

6. Appeals – Grounds – 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. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1) (see paras 95-96, 105, 115, 119, 131, 142, 148, 158, 171)

7. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239(1)) (see paras 113-114, 118, 121-122, 134-136, 138, 143-144)

8. Appeals – Grounds – Plea directed against the decision of the Court of First Instance on costs – Inadmissible where all other pleas dismissed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 2) (see para. 174)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 September 2005 in Case T-53/02 Ricosmos v Commission , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 09/00 of 16 November 2001 informing the Netherlands authorities that there were no grounds for remission of import duties in respect of a consignment of cigarettes intended for the Czech Republic on the ground that fraud committed by third parties in the course of an external Community transit operation does not constitute a special situation justifying remission of the import duties.

Operative part:

The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 December 2006 – Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Council and Commission

(Case C‑368/05 P)

Appeal – Council decision determining the Community’s position – Decision of the EEA Joint Committee permitting the Kingdom of Norway to apply more stringent specific concentration limits for acrylamide than those applicable in the Community

1. Procedure – Obligation of the Court of First Instance to open the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility – None (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114(1) to (3)) (see para. 46)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 56-60, 67)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Error of law pleaded not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para., Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 62)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 22 July 2005 in Case T-376/04 Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Council and Commission , which declared inadmissible an action for, first, annulment of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 59/2004 of 26 April 2004 amending Annex II to the EEA Agreement (OJ 2004 L 277, p. 30) permitting Norway to apply more stringent concentration limits for acrylamide than those applicable in the Community, and also a declaration that the joint statement relating to the EEA Agreement regarding the review clauses in the field of dangerous substances, adopted at the meeting of the Joint Committee on 26 March 1999 (OJ 1999 C 185, p. 6), is unlawful and, second, an action for damages to obtain compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Failure to identify the error of law relied on – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 23-24, 29)

2. Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review of the evidence by the Court of Justice – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 26-27, 29)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPEAL brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2005 in Case T-124/04 Ouariachi v Commission by which it dismissed, as being manifestly unfounded, the application brought by the present appellant for damages to compensate for the loss which he allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged unlawful conduct of a member of staff of the Commission delegation in Khartoum (Sudan).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Ouariachi to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 22-24)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 40-41)

3. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 45-46)

4. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support its operative part – Invalid plea in law (see para. 47)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2005 in Case T-369/03 Arizona Chemical and Others v Commission , in which the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible an action for annulment of Commission Decision D(2003)430245 of 20 August 2003, rejecting the applicant’s request to withdraw rosin from the list of dangerous substances set out in Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA and Cray Valley Iberica SA shall bear the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Provisional measures

–

Conditions for granting

–

Prima facie case

–

Serious and irreparable damage

–

Balancing of the interests involved

–

Interest in the sound administration of justice (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 84(2); Council Directive 79/409) (see paras 14-20

)
Keywords



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Withdrawal by the national court of questions referred to the Court of Justice – Removal from the register

(Art. 234 EC)
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 September 2006 – Quariachi v Commission

(Case C-4/06 P)

Appeal – Action for damages – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Appeal manifestly inadmissible

1. Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Failure to identify the error of law relied on – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 23-24, 29)

2. Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review of the evidence by the Court of Justice – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 26-27, 29)

Re:

APPEAL brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2005 in Case T-124/04 Ouariachi v Commission by which it dismissed, as being manifestly unfounded, the application brought by the present appellant for damages to compensate for the loss which he allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged unlawful conduct of a member of staff of the Commission delegation in Khartoum (Sudan).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;