larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Nichols plc v Registrar of Trade Marks.
Date: 2004-09-16
22. Article 2 of Directive 89/104 contains a list, described as a ‘list of examples’ in the seventh recital in the preamble to that directive, of signs which may constitute a trade mark, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, that is to say to fulfil the trade mark’s function as an indicator of origin. That list expressly includes ‘personal names’.
23. According to Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 89/104, the distinctive character of a mark must be assessed in relation to the goods or services in respect of which registration is applied for and in relation to the perception of the relevant consumers (see Case C-299/99 Philips  [2002] ECR I-5475, paragraphs 59 and 63, and Case C-218/01 Henkel [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 50).
24. In that regard, the provision concerned draws no distinction between different categories of trade mark (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-53/01 to C-55/01 Linde and Others  [2003] ECR I-3161, paragraph 42, and, regarding the identical provision in Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), the order of 28 June 2004 in Case C‑445/02 P Glaverbel  v OHIM  [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 21).
2 5. The criteria for assessment of the distinctive character of trade marks constituted by a personal name are therefore the same as those applicable to the other categories of trade mark.
26. Stricter general criteria of assessment based, for example, on:
– a predetermined number of persons with the same name, above which that name may be regarded as devoid of distinctive character,
– the number of undertakings providing products or services of the type covered by the application for registration, or
– the prevalence or otherwise of the use of surnames in the relevant trade,
cannot be applied to such trade marks.
27. The distinctive character of a trade mark, in whatever category, must be the subject of a specific assessment.
28. In the context of that assessment, it may indeed appear, for example, that the perception of the relevant public is not necessarily the same for each of the categories and that, accordingly, it could prove more difficult to establish the distinctive character of trade marks in certain categories than that of those in other categories (see, in particular, Henkel , paragraph 52, and, in relation to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, Case C-468/01 P Proctor & Gamble  v OHIM  [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 36, and the order in Glaverbel  v OHIM , paragraph 23).
Epikouriko kefalaio v Ypourgos Anaptyxis.
Date: 2004-09-16
25. It is true that the coordination of national provisions relating to the financial guarantees required of insurance undertakings that is achieved, in particular, by the Community provisions referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this judgment is intended to ensure adequate protection for policyholders and third-party beneficiaries in every Member State of the Community (see the second recital in the preamble to Directive 73/239 and the first recital in the preamble to Directive 79/267). In particular, the obligation imposed on insurance undertakings to establish sufficient technical reserves is designed to ensure that they have the financial means to comply with their contractual commitments to policyholders (see Case 205/84 Commission  v Germany  [1986] ECR 3755, paragraph 38; see also the ninth recital in the pre amble to Directive 73/239 and the seventh recital in the preamble to Directive 79/267, as well as the 12th recital in the preamble to Directive 92/49 and the 13th recital in the preamble to Directive 92/96).
Criminal proceedings against Olivier Dupuy and Hervé Rouvre.
Date: 2004-09-16
31. It follows from the Court’s case-law that, in view of the objective of the protection of public health pursued by Directive 76/769, the prohibition laid down by that directive with respect to products classified as ‘toxic for reproductive purposes category 1 or toxic for reproductive purposes category 2’ must be interpreted widely and the exception laid down for ‘artists’ paints’ must be interpreted narrowly (see, to that effect, Case C-286/02 Bellio F.lli  [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 46).
Serge Briheche v Ministre de l'Intérieur, Ministre de l'Éducation nationale and Ministre de la Justice.
Date: 2004-09-30
18. In accordance with settled case-law, t t he principle of equal treatment laid down by the Directive is of general application and that directive applies to employment in the public service (see, in particular, Case C-285/98 Kreil  [2000] ECR I-69, paragraph 18, and Case C-476/99 Lommers [2002] ECR I-2891, paragraph 25).
22. As the Court has already held, Article 2(4) is specifically and exclusively designed to authorise measures which, although discriminatory in appearance, are in fact intended to eliminate or reduce actual instances of inequality which may exist in the reality of social life (Case C‑409/95 Marschall  [1997] ECR I-6363, paragraph 26).
23. A measure which is intended to give priority in promotion to women in sectors of the public service must be regarded as compatible with Community law if it does not automatically and unconditionally give priority to women when women and men are equally qualified, and the candidatures are the subject of an objective assessment which takes account of the specific personal situations of all candidates (see, to that effect, Case C-158/97 Badeck and Others [2000] ECR I-1875, paragraph 23).
24. Those conditions are guided by the fact that, in determining the scope of any derogation from an individual right such as the equal treatment of men and women laid down by the Directive, due regard must be had to the principle of proportionality, which requires that derogations must remain within the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the aim in view and that the principle of equal treatment be reconciled as far as possible with the requirements of the aim thus pursued ( Lommers , cited above, paragraph 39).
25. Article 2(4) of the Directive thus authorises national measures relating to access to employment which give a specific advantage to women with a view to improving their ability to compete on the labour market and to pursue a career on an equal footing with men. The aim of that provision is to achieve substantive, rather than formal, equality by reducing de facto inequalities which may arise in society and, thus, in accordance with Article 141(4) EC, to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in the professional career of the persons concerned (see, to that effect, Case C-450/93 Kalanke  [1995] ECR I-3051, paragraph 19, and Case C-407/98 Abrahamsson and Anderson [2000] ECR I-5539, paragraph 48).
31. Irrespective of whether positive action which is not allowed under Article 2(4) of the Directive could perhaps be allowed under Article 141(4) EC, it is sufficient to state that the latter provision cannot permit the Member States to adopt conditions for obtaining access to public-sector employment of the kind in question in the main proceedings which prove in any event to be disproportionate to the aim pursued (see, to that effect, Abrahamsson and Anderson , cited above, paragraph 55).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 2004-10-05
18. Measures of the Community institutions are in principle presumed to be lawful and accordingly produce legal effects until such time as they are withdrawn, annulled in an action for annulment or declared invalid following a reference for a preliminary ruling or a plea of illegality (see, to that effect, Case C-137/92 P Commission  v BASF and Others  [1994] ECR I-2555, paragraph 48, and Case C‑245/92 P Chemie Linz  v Commission  [1999] ECR I-4643, paragraph 93).
19. By way of exception to that principle, measures tainted by an irregularity whose gravity is so obvious that it cannot be tolerated by the Community legal order must be treated as having no legal effect, even provisional, that is to say they must be regarded as legally non-existent. The purpose of this exception is to maintain a balance between two fundamental, but sometimes conflicting, requirements with which a legal order must comply, namely stability of legal relations and respect for legality ( Commission  v BASF and Others , paragraph 49, and Chemie Linz  v Commission , paragraph 94).
20. The gravity of the consequences attaching to a finding that a measure of a Community institution is non-existent means that, for reasons of legal certainty, such a finding might be reserved for quite extreme situations ( Commission  v BASF and Others , paragraph 50, and Chemie Linz  v Commission , paragraph 95).
CaixaBank France v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie.
Date: 2004-10-05
9. The freedom of establishment provided for in Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, is conferred both on natural persons who are nationals of a Member State and on legal persons within the meaning of Article 48 EC. Subject to the exceptions and conditions specified, it includes the right to take up and pursue all types of self-employed activity in the territory of any other Member State, to set up and manage undertakings, and to set up agencies, branches or subsidiaries (see, inter alia, Case C-255/97 Pfeiffer  [1999] ECR I-2835, paragraph 18).
11. Article 43 EC requires the elimination of restrictions on the freedom of establishment. All measures which prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of that freedom must be regarded as such restrictions (see, inter alia, Case C-55/94 Gebhard  [1995] ECR I-4165, paragraph 37, Case C-108/96 Mac Quen and Others  [2001] ECR I-837, paragraph 26, and Case C-79/01 Payroll and Others  [2002] ECR I-8923, paragraph 26).
12. A prohibition on the remuneration of sight accounts such as that laid down by the French legislation constitutes, for companies from Member States other than the French Republic, a serious obstacle to the pursuit of their activities via a subsidiary in the latter Member State, affecting their access to the market. That prohibition is therefore to be regarded as a restriction within the meaning of Article 43 EC.
13. That prohibition hinders credit institutions which are subsidiaries of foreign companies in raising capital from the public, by depriving them of the possibility of competing more effectively, by paying remuneration on sight accounts, with the credit institutions traditionally established in the Member State of establishment, which have an extensive network of branches and therefore greater opportunities than those subsidiaries for raising capital from the public.
14. Where credit institutions which are subsidiaries of foreign companies seek to enter the market of a Member State, competing by means of the rate of remuneration paid on sight accounts constitutes one of the most effective methods to that end. Access to the market by those establishments is thus made more difficult by such a prohibition.
17. It is clear from settled case-law that where, as in the case at issue in the main proceedings, such a measure applies to any person or undertaking carrying on an activity in the territory of the host Member State, it may be justified where it serves overriding requirements relating to the public interest, is suitable for securing the attainment of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, inter alia, Case C-424/97 Haim  [2000] ECR I-5123, paragraph 57, Mac Quen , paragraph 26, and Case C-439/99 Commission  v Italy  [2002] ECR I-305, paragraph 23).
Panagiotis Markopoulos and Others v Ypourgos Anaptyxis and Soma Orkoton Elegkton.
Date: 2004-10-07
63. Under Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), a Member State seised of an application for authorisation to practise a profession access to which, under national law, depends on possession of a diploma or professional qualification must take into consideration the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of qualifications which the person concerned has acquired in order to practise that profession in another Member State, by comparing the specialised knowledge and abilities certified by those diplomas with the knowledge and qualifications required by the national rules (see Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou  [1991] ECR I-2357, paragraph 16; Case C-232/99 Commission  v Spain  [2002] ECR I-4235, paragraph 21, and Case C-313/01 Morgenbesser  [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 57).
64. If that comparative examination of diplomas results in the finding that the knowledge and qualifications certified by the foreign diploma correspond to those required by the national provisions, the Member State must recognise that diploma as fulfilling the requirements laid down by its national provisions ( Vlassopoulou , paragraph 19).
65. If, on the other hand, the comparison reveals that the knowledge and qualifications certified by the foreign diploma and those required by the national provisions correspond only in part, the host Member State is entitled to require the person concerned to show that he or she has acquired the knowledge and qualifications which are lacking.  In such a case, it will be for the competent national authorities to assess whether the knowledge acquired in the host Member State, either during a course of study or by way of practical experience, is sufficient in order to prove possession of the knowledge which is lacking ( Vlassopoulou , paragraph 20).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2004-10-07
33. As the Court has previously held, the obligation to ensure the full effectiveness of a directive, in accordance with its objective, cannot be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are released from adopting transposing measures where they consider that their national provisions are better than the Community provisions concerned and that the national provisions are therefore more likely to ensure that the objective pursued by the directive is achieved. According to the Court’s case-law, the existence of national rules may render transposition by specific legislative or regulatory measures superfluous only if those rules actually ensure the full application of the directive by the national authorities (see, inter alia, Case C‑194/01 Commission  v Austria  [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 39). Accordingly, it is not open to the Member States to derogate from the rules imposed by Directive 75/442 by replacing the maximum quantities by type of waste which may be recovered without a permit with relative quantities which vary in relation to the capacity of each recovery installation.
62. The Court has held, however, that the hazardous or non-hazardous nature of the waste is not, of itself, a relevant criterion for assessing whether a waste treatment operation must be classified as ‘recovery’ within the meaning of Article 1(f) of  Directive 75/442. The essential characteristic of a waste recovery operation is that its principal objective is that the waste serve a useful purpose in replacing other materials which would have had to be used for that purpose, thereby conserving natural resources (Case C-6/00 ASA  [2002] ECR I-1961, paragraphs 68 and 69).
Sintesi SpA v Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici.
Date: 2004-10-07
21. In that regard, it is settled case-law that the procedure provided for by Article 234 EC is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts (see, inter alia, Case C-343/90 Lourenço Dias  [1992] ECR I-4673, paragraph 14, and Case C-314/01 Siemens and ARGE Telekom  [2004] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 33, and the case-law cited there).
22. In the context of that cooperation, it is for the national court or tribunal seised of the dispute, which alone has direct knowledge of the facts giving rise to the dispute and must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court (see, inter alia, Lourenço Dias , cited above, paragraph 15; Case C-390/99 Canal Satélite Digital  [2002] ECR I-607, paragraph 18; and Siemens and ARGE Telekom , cited above, paragraph 34).
35. According to the 10th recital thereto, the purpose of the Directive is to develop effective competition in the field of public contracts (see Case C-27/98 Fracasso and Leitschutz  [1999] ECR I-5697, paragraph 26; Joined Cases C-285/99 and C‑286/99 Lombardini and Mantovani  [2001] ECR I-9233, paragraph 34; and Case C-470/99 Universale-Bau and Others  [2002] ECR I-11617, paragraph 89).
37. In order to meet the objective of developing effective competition, the Directive seeks to organise the award of contracts in such a way that the contracting authority is able to compare the different tenders and to accept the most advantageous on the basis of objective criteria ( Fracasso and Leitschutz , cited above, paragraph 31).
Kingdom of Sweden v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2004-10-07
14. It suffices to state, as the Swedish Government itself conceded in its reply to the objection raised by the Commission in the defence, that the wording of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 as amended by Regulation No 2245/1999, which entered into force on 30 October 1999 and therefore applied at the material time, no longer requires the Commission to include an evaluation of the expenditure to be excluded in its communication to the Member States.
19. The Court has already held that Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 30a of Regulation No 805/68 prohibit national authorities from making a deduction from the payments made or from demanding the payment of administrative fees relating to applications and having the effect of reducing the amount of the aid (Joined Cases C-36/97 and C-37/97 Kellinghusen and Ketelsen  [1998] ECR I-6337, paragraph 21).
22. As the Advocate General maintained with good reason in paragraph 17 of his Opinion, if the prohibition on deductions is not simply a standard clause, it cannot be interpreted in a purely formal manner as covering only deductions which are actually made on the occasion of payments. Thus the prohibition on any deduction must of necessity extend to all charges which are directly and inseparably linked to the amounts disbursed.
28. According to settled case-law, if the Commission did not carry out the correction due in respect of a previous year, but tolerated the irregularities on grounds of fairness, the Member State concerned does not acquire any right to demand that the same position be taken with regard to the irregularities with respect to the following financial year by virtue of the principle of legal certainty or the principle of protection of legitimate expectations (see Case C-55/91 Italy v Commission  [1993] ECR I-4813, paragraph 67, and Case C-373/99 Greece v Commission [2001] ECR I-9619, paragraph 56).
40. It is common ground that those objectives can be achieved only if the compensatory aid is paid in full to the farmers affected by the consequences of the price reductions (see Kellinghusen and Ketelsen , cited above, paragraph 19).
Skatteministeriet v Imexpo Trading A/S.
Date: 2004-10-07
16. The decisive criterion for the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature must be sought generally in their objective characteristics and qualities, as defined in the wording of the headings and in the notes to the sections or chapters, and in accordance with the general rules on interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in so far as they are not inconsistent with the headings and notes. In addition, the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes are, as such, useful aids to the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (see, inter alia, Case C-11/93 Siemens Nixdorf  [1994] ECR I-1945, paragraphs 11 and 12).
23. The question is thus whether plastic chairmats can in fact be regarded as furniture within the meaning of Chapter 94. Therefore, as there are no express terms in the headings and subheadings of and notes to Chapter 94 classifying those products as furniture, or, conversely, excluding them from Chapter 94, account must be taken of the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes, and, where relevant, the Combined Nomenclature Explanatory Notes (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 69/76 and 70/76 Dittmeyer  [1977] ECR 231, paragraph 4, and Case C-270/96 Laboratoires Sarget  [1998] ECR I-1121, paragraph 16).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2004-10-07
25. In accordance with case-law, mixed agreements concluded by the Community, its Member States and non-member countries have the same status in the Community legal order as purely Community agreements in so far as the provisions fall within the scope of Community competence (see, to that effect, Case 12/86 Demirel  [1987] ECR 3719, paragraph 9, and Case C-13/00 Commission  v Ireland  [2002] ECR I-2943, paragraph 14).
26. From this the Court has inferred that, in ensuring compliance with commitments a rising from an agreement concluded by the Community institutions, the Member States fulfil, within the Community system, an obligation in relation to the Community, which has assumed responsibility for the due performance of the agreement ( Demirel , cited above, paragraph 11, and Commission  v Ireland , cited above, paragraph 15).
27. In the present case, the provisions of the Convention and the Protocol without doubt cover a field which falls in large measure within Community competence.
29. Since the Convention and the Protocol thus create rights and obligations in a field covered in large measure by Community legislation, there is a Community interest in compliance by both the Community and its Member States with the commitments entered into under those instruments.
30. The fact that discharges of fresh water and alluvia into the marine environment, which are at issue in the present action, have not yet been the subject of Community legislation is not capable of calling that finding into question.
31. It follows from the foregoing that the application of Articles 4(1) and 8 of the Convention and Article 6(1) and (3) of the Protocol to discharges of fresh water and alluvia into a saltwater marsh, those discharges not having been the subject of specific Community legislation, falls within the Community framework since those articles are in mixed agreements concluded by the Community and its Member States and concern a field in large measure covered by Community law. The Court therefore has jurisdiction to assess a Member State’s compliance with those articles in proceedings brought before it under Article 226 EC.
Substance
78. As the Court held in Case C-213/03 Pêcheurs de l’étang de Berre  [2004] ECR I‑0000, at paragraph 41, Article 6(3) of the Protocol clearly, precisely and unconditionally lays down the obligation for Member States to subject discharges of substances listed in Annex II to the Protocol to the issue by the competent national authorities of an authorisation taking due account of the provisions of Annex III to the Protocol.