Arrangements for association of overseas countries and territories – Imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories – Safeguard measures – Regulation (EC) No 304/97 – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility
C-451/98, [2001] EUECJ C-451/98, [2001] ECR I-8763, ECLI:EU:C:2001:622, [2001] ECR I-8949
European
Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.166903
State aid – Tax benefit granted to certain undertakings – Wholesale distributors
C-53/00, [2001] EUECJ C-53/00, [2001] ECR I-9067, ECLI:EU:C:2001:627, [2003] 1 CMLR 34
European
Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.166911
Social security for migrant workers – Invalidity insurance – Person in receipt of benefits residing in a Member State other than the competent State – Medical examinations – Requirement that the recipient travel to the territory of the competent Member State at the request of the institution responsible for payment – Conditions – Journey not harmful to the health of recipient and expenses paid – Unfitness to travel certified by the institution of the place of stay – Verification on the spot of unfitness to travel by the institution responsible for payment – Permissibility
(Council Regulation No 574/72, Article 51(1))
Where an institution responsible for payment of an invalidity benefit exercises the power provided for in Article 51(1) of Regulation No 574/72 of having a recipient of the benefit residing in another Member State examined by a doctor of its own choice, the person concerned may be required to go to the Member State in which the competent institution is situated, provided that the travel and accommodation expenses thereby incurred are borne by the competent institution and the person concerned is fit enough to make the journey without impairment of his health.
Where the institution of the place where the person concerning is staying or residing has determined that that person is not fit enought to undertake the journey, there is nothing to prevent the institution responsible for payment or the body responsible for medical examinations from verifying that circumstance on the spot.
[1991] ECR I-3245, C-344/89, [1991] EUECJ C-344/89
European
Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.160369
IPO Supplementary Protection Certificates – The co-applicants provided authorisations granted in Switzerland in support of their applications but reasoned that these authorisations extended to Liechtenstein and not the rest of the community such that the period of the certificates determined by Article 13(1) should not be calculated on the basis of these authorisations.
This was contrary to the examiner’s preliminary view. References to the first authorisation for placing the product on the market in the ‘Community’ as found in Article 8(1)(c) and 13(1) of the Regulation were considered to have been adapted by point 8 of Protocol 1 to the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) agreement. Adapted references to ‘Community’ being understood as references to territories of the contracting parties to the EEA agreement. Since Liechtenstein’s accession to the EEA a marketing authorisation granted by the Swiss authorities but immediately effective in Liechtenstein under its Heilmittelgezetz (‘HMG’) law was considered an authorisation in the Community and thus capable of determining the duration of the certificates.
The hearing officer concluded:
Point 8 of Protocol 1 on horizontal adaptations to the Agreement applies to Article 13(1) of the EEA version of the Regulation in such a way that the reference in that Article to the territory of the ‘Community’ should be understood as a reference to the territories of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement. Thus, an authorization to place a medicinal product on the market, granted in accordance with the national legislation of an EEA/EFTA State, is relevant for the purposes of Article 13(1) of the Regulation if it is the first in the EEA;
a marketing authorization, granted by the Swiss authorities but effective in Liechtenstein under its HMG law, can be relevant for the purpose of Article 13(1) of the Regulation even though Annex 10 to Decision No. 1/95 of the EEA Council requires that Liechtenstein shall not deliver certificates for medicinal products as laid down in the Regulation; and the adaptation to Annex II to the Agreement made by EEA Council Decision No. 1/95, which requires that the provisions on the free movement of goods contained in the Agreement or in acts referred to shall be applicable to exports from Liechtenstein to the other Contracting Parties only to products in conformity with the acts referred to in Annex II, has no bearing on the question whether a marketing authorization in accordance with Liechtenstein’s HMG law should be relevant for the purpose of determining the duration of a certificate in another EEA Member State in accordance with Article 13(1) of the Regulation.
Accordingly the Hearing Officer found the Swiss authorisations admitted by the co-applicants should determine the duration of the certificates by virtue of their effect in Liechtenstein.
Mr R Walker
SPC/GB/00/013, SPC/GB/99/012, [2003] UKIntelP o04403
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1768/92 13(1)
Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.455476
The Husband denied that the court had jurisdiction to hear his wife’s petition for divorce. He said that both parties had acquired a domicile of choice there.
Bennett J
[2007] EWHC 3315 (Fam)
Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 3
England and Wales
Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.279035
ECJ Procedure – action brought before the court under an arbitration clause -jurisdiction to hear and determine a counterclaim – basis – conditions (ECSC treaty, art. 42; EEC treaty, art. 181; EAEC treaty, art. 153). Although under an arbitration clause the court is called upon to resolve a dispute in accordance with the national law governing the contract, the question whether it has jurisdiction to hear and determine a counterclaim and to consider whether it is admissible must be assessed solely in the light of article 42 of the ECSC treaty, article 181 of the EEC treaty, article 153 of the EAEC treaty and the court ‘ s rules of procedure. The jurisdiction of the court, where it is based on an arbitration clause, derogates from the ordinary rules of law and must therefore be given a restrictive interpretation. The court may hear and determine only claims arising from the contract containing the arbitration clause, which was concluded with the community, or claims that are directly connected with the obligations arising from that contract.
C-426/85, [1986] EUECJ C-426/85
European
Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.134309
C-246/84, [1986] EUECJ C-246/84
European
Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.133044
ECJ Own resources of the European communities – establishment and making available by the member states – request by the commission for advance payment – binding on the member states (council regulation no 2891/77, art. 10 (2) and art. 12 (2)) 2. Own resources of the European communities – establishment and making available by the member states – crediting the commission’s account – delay in crediting amounts – obligation to pay default interest – error of a member state as to the extent of its obligations – no effect (council regulation no 2891/77, art. 11)
1. In view of the autonomy conferred on the commission with regard to the management of own resources and of the allocation of tasks as between the commission and the member states under the system established by the decision of 21 April 1970 and regulation no 2891/77, the exercise of the power conferred on the commission by article 10 (2) of that regulation, if necessary, to invite the member states to bring forward by one month the entering of resources other than vat resources on the basis of the information available to them on the 15th of the same month cannot be dependent on the agreement of the various member states, for this would deprive article 10 (2) of its effectiveness. Since only the commission can assess whether it is necessary to bring forward the entering of own resources, the member states, which are responsible only for collecting the resources and making them available but not for their management, are under a duty to bring forward the entry of own resources as requested without expressing their agreement or disagreement.
That finding is not affected by the fact that article 12 (2) of that regulation gives the commission an alternative means of resolving any cash-flow problems, since it is for the commission alone to choose between the two alternatives.
2. The very wording of article 11 of regulation no 2891/77 shows that default interest is payable in respect of ‘any delay’ in crediting own resources to the commission’s account, regardless of the reason for the delay, and hence a member state cannot escape paying that interest by pleading that it was not satisfied that an invitation to bring forward the payment of own resources pursuant to article 10 (2) of the regulation was binding.
The rate of that default interest is set at a flat rate by article 11 with regard to all the member states at a level which cannot be varied according to the particular circumstances of each individual case.
Case 93/85
European
Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.134089
C-194/16, [2017] EUECJ C-194/16, [2018] EMLR 8, [2018] 3 WLR 59, [2018] CEC 364, ECLI:EU:C:2017:766, [2017] ILPr 41, [2017] WLR(D) 665, [2018] QB 963
European
Cited – Wright v Granath QBD 16-Jan-2020
Defamation across borders – Jurisdiction
The claimant began an action for defamation in an online publication. The Norwegian resident defendant had begun an action there seeking a declaration negating liability. The Court was now asked by the defendant whether under Lugano, the UK action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.598843
The parties had disputed insurance claims after the foundering of the Alexandros T. After allegations of misbehaviour by the underwriters, the parties had settled the claims in a Tomlin Order. Five years later, however, the shipowners began proceedings in Greece making substantially similar allegations and claims, but under the equivalent in Greek law. In response the insurance underwriters issued proceedings here under the Tomlin orders settling the first proceedings requesting a stay of the proceedings in Greece. At first instance the Judge refused a saty under Article 28, and awarded judgment to the insurers. On appeal the CA granted a stay under article 27, not having to decide the A28 claim. The insurers now challenged the stay granted under A27, saying that a stay under article 28 was correctly refused.
Held: The stay under A27 should not have been granted. A stay under A27 depended upon the claims being the same in the two jurisdictions, so that a risk of irreconcilable judgments arose. There was an insufficient identity between the claims settled and the claims now made. The settled claims were in contract, and the current Greek claims were in tort. Also the factual base and objects of the two sets of proceedings differed.
As to A28, a stay was available only to a court other than the court first seized. Such a stay was discretionary and intended again to avoid conflicts between jurisdictions. In this case, the natural place was the UK, and proceedings had already reached an advanced stage. The cross appeal was dismissed and the decision refusing a stay under A28 was correct.
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes
[2013] UKSC 70, [2013] 2 CLC 713, [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 223, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep IR 327, [2014] 1 All ER 590, [2014] BUS LR 873, [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 337, UKSC 2013/0023
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 27 28
England and Wales
At first instance – Starlight Shipping Company v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others (Alexandros T) ComC 19-Dec-2011
Starlight had sued its insurers for payment under policies with regard to the Alexandros T. After allegations of serious misconduct were made against some of the insurance underwiters, the matter was settled with full liabiity under the terms of a . .
At CA – Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
Cited – Folien Fischer AG and another v Ritrama SpA ECJ 25-Oct-2012
ECJ Area of freedom, security and justice – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict – Action for a negative declaration (‘negative Feststellungsklage’) . .
Cited – The owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship ‘Tatry’ v The owners of the ship ‘Maciej Rataj’ ECJ 6-Dec-1994
ECJ On a proper construction, Article 57 of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments as amended means that, where a Contracting State is also a contracting party to another . .
Cited – Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority CA 12-Aug-1996
. .
Cited – Sarrio Sa v Kuwait Investment Authority HL 17-Nov-1997
The parties were spanish companies. They were involved in proceedings against each other in Spain. The respondent had begun an action here for negligent misrepresentation against the appellant. The appellant argued that given the Spanish . .
Cited – Underwriting Members of Lloyd’s Syndicate 980 and others v Sinco Sa ComC 29-Jul-2008
The claimants, insurers, relied upon an exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in a binder given to a Greek broker. It set England and Wales for any dispute. The insurers had terminated the binder alleging fraudulent conduct by the broker. A . .
Cited – Wright v Granath QBD 16-Jan-2020
Defamation across borders – Jurisdiction
The claimant began an action for defamation in an online publication. The Norwegian resident defendant had begun an action there seeking a declaration negating liability. The Court was now asked by the defendant whether under Lugano, the UK action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.517444
ECJ Area of freedom, security and justice – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict – Action for a negative declaration (‘negative Feststellungsklage’) – Whether a person alleged to have committed a harmful act may bring a person who might be adversely affected before the courts with jurisdiction for the place where the act allegedly occurred or may occur, seeking a declaration that there is no liability in tort or delict
A. Tizzano, P
[2012] WLR (D) 292, C-133/11, [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 569, [2013] ILPr 1, [2013] CEC 727, [2013] 2 WLR 373, ECLI:EU:C:2012:664, [2013] QB 523
European
Opinion – Folien Fischer Ag and Another v Ritrama Spa ECJ 19-Apr-2012
ECJ (Opinion) Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special grounds of jurisdiction – Matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – . .
Cited – In re The Alexandros T SC 6-Nov-2013
The parties had disputed insurance claims after the foundering of the Alexandros T. After allegations of misbehaviour by the underwriters, the parties had settled the claims in a Tomlin Order. Five years later, however, the shipowners began . .
Cited – Wright v Granath QBD 16-Jan-2020
Defamation across borders – Jurisdiction
The claimant began an action for defamation in an online publication. The Norwegian resident defendant had begun an action there seeking a declaration negating liability. The Court was now asked by the defendant whether under Lugano, the UK action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.465404
IPO The applicants did not offer observations to meet the examiners objection that the product had already been the subject of a certificate. Subsequent warnings that failure to reply would result in rejection and an invitation to be heard also failed to illicit a response. Therefore the application for an SPC was rejected.
Mr R Walker
[2002] UKIntelP o27502, O/275/02, SPC/GB/98/010
Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.455187
Europa Brussels Convention – Proceedings to establish a fund to limit liability in respect of the use of a ship – Action for damages – Article 21 – Lis pendens – Identical parties – Court first seised – Identical subject-matter and cause of action – None – Article 25 – ‘Judgment’ – Article 27(2) – Refusal to recognise.
The subject matter of the two sets of proceedings was a pipeline owned by Maersk damaged by W de Boer’s vessel. The claim in the Netherlands was for a declaration that liability was limited under an international Convention and Dutch legislative provisions which gave effect to it. The later claim in Denmark was for compensation.
Held: ‘ . . even if it be assumed that the facts underlying the two sets of proceedings are identical, the legal rule which forms the basis of each of those applications is different. . . The action for damages is based on the law governing non-contractual liability, whereas the application for the establishment of a liability limitation fund is based on the 1957 Convention and the Netherlands legislation which gives effect to it.’
C-39/02, [2004] EUECJ C-39/02, [2005] 1 Lloyds Rep 210, [2004] ECR I-9657, [2005] 1 CLC 479, [2004] ECR I-7007
European
Cited – Olafsson v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 22-Oct-2009
The claimant sought damages after the defendant had negligently failed to arrange for the service of the claimant’s defamation proceedings on a defendant in Iceland leaving the action time barred.
Held: The Claimant had not acted unreasonably . .
Cited – Wright v Granath QBD 16-Jan-2020
Defamation across borders – Jurisdiction
The claimant began an action for defamation in an online publication. The Norwegian resident defendant had begun an action there seeking a declaration negating liability. The Court was now asked by the defendant whether under Lugano, the UK action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.216587
R-71/82, [1982] EUECJ R-71/82
European
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.215122
T-271/99, [2002] EUECJ T-271/99
European
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.213924
T-348/99, [2002] EUECJ T-348/99
European
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.213923
The dutch based claimant sought damages for wrongful termination of what it said was a long-term contract. The claimant in Austria claimed the price of goods sold and delivered pursuant to a number of one-off contracts to which the defendant (claimant in Holland) responded by setting off a counterclaim for breach of the long-term contract.
Held: The causes of actions were not the same. The fact that the defence and counterclaim in Austria relied on the long-term contract sued upon in Holland was irrelevant since that reliance only appeared in Austria as a defence. Where proceedings between the same parties relating to the same cause of action had been begun in separate jurisdictions, the court second to be apprised should stay those proceedings. When looking at whether they were the same cause, only the claimants claims should be inspected, not any issues rasied by the defendants.
ECJ REFERENCE to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Wathelet (Rapporteur), P
C-111/01, Times 14-May-2003, [2003] EUECJ C-111/01, [2003] ECR 1-4207
European
Cited – Kolden Holdings Ltd v Rodette Commerce Ltd and Another CA 21-Jan-2008
Lawrence Collins LJ said: ‘For the purposes of article 27, the question whether the ‘same cause of action’ is raised before the courts of two member states is answered by looking at the claims made, and not at the defences raised at a later stage to . .
Cited – Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
Cited – Wright v Granath QBD 16-Jan-2020
Defamation across borders – Jurisdiction
The claimant began an action for defamation in an online publication. The Norwegian resident defendant had begun an action there seeking a declaration negating liability. The Court was now asked by the defendant whether under Lugano, the UK action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.182128
(Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Free movement of goods – Common organisation of the market in hemp – National legislation restricting the importation of hemp from another Member State solely to fibre and seeds
C-663/18, [2020] EUECJ C-663/18_O, [2020] EUECJ C-663/18
European
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.660177
(Judgment) Appeal – State aid – Regional aid for the steel industry – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market – Concept of’ State aid ‘- Advantage – Private operator test – Manifest error – Burden of proof – Limits of judicial review
C-148/19, [2020] EUECJ C-148/19P, ECLI :EU:C:2020:354
European
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.660178
The claimant in Germany sought to enforce a contract by claiming the price of a delivered machine; the claimant in Italy asked for a declaration that no contract had been entered into or, if it had, that it had been discharged by repudiatory conduct on the part of the seller.
Held: These claims involved the same cause of action because one claim was the negation of the other and that a stay should be granted by the Italian court which was second seised.
‘If, in circumstances such as those of this case, the questions at issue concerning a single international sales contract were not decided solely by the court before which the action to enforce the contract is pending and which was seised first, there would be a danger for the party seeking enforcement that under Article 27(3) a judgment given in his favour might not be recognized, even though any defence put forward by the defendant alleging that the contract was not binding had not been accepted. There can be no doubt that a judgment given in a contracting state requiring performance of the contract would not be recognized in the state in which recognition was sought if a court in that state had given a judgment rescinding or discharging the contract. Such a result, restricting the effects of each judgment to the territory of the state concerned, would run counter to the objectives of the convention, which is intended to strengthen legal protection throughout the territory of the community and to facilitate recognition in each contracting state of judgments given in any other contracting state.’
ECJ Brussels Convention – Concept of Lis pendens. – The terms used in article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 in order to determine whether a situation of lis pendens arises must be regarded as independent. Lis pendens within the meaning of that article arises where a party brings an action before a court in a contracting state for the rescission or discharge of an international sales contract whilst an action by the other party to enforce the same contract is pending before a court in another contracting state.
C-144/86, [1987] ECR 4861, R-144/86, [1987] EUECJ R-144/86, [1989] ECC 420
European
Cited – Turner v Grovit and others CA 28-May-1999
A court has an inherent power to injunct a party not to institute or continue proceedings abroad, where they appear intended purely to harass another party in proceedings here. The two actions here were based upon the ‘same contractual relationship’ . .
Cited – Turner v Grovit and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The applicant was a solicitor employed by a company in Belgium. He later resigned claiming unfair dismissal, saying he had been pressed to become involved in unlawful activities. The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English . .
Cited – Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
Cited – Wright v Granath QBD 16-Jan-2020
Defamation across borders – Jurisdiction
The claimant began an action for defamation in an online publication. The Norwegian resident defendant had begun an action there seeking a declaration negating liability. The Court was now asked by the defendant whether under Lugano, the UK action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.134427
R-125/77, [1978] EUECJ R-125/77
European
Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.214762
Application for stay under the 1996 Act or alternatively under the Regulation.
Gloster DBE J
[2010] EWHC 2567 (Comm), [2011] ILPr 13, [2011] 1 Lloyds Rep 252
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001, namely the Jurisdiction and Judgments Regulation 2, Arbitration Act 1996 9
England and Wales
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.425309
This appeal concerns the relationship of the 1980 Hague Convention (the ‘1980 HC’) to asylum law. The 1980 HC is an international agreement incorporated into UK law which enables the prompt return of a wrongfully abducted child to his or her country of habitual residence.
(1) Does a child named as a dependent on a parent’s asylum application have any protection from refoulement?
(2) Can a return order be made under the 1980 Hague Convention even where a child has protection from refoulement?
(3) Should the High Court be slow to stay an application under the 1980 Hague Convention prior to determination of an application for asylum?
Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens
[2021] UKSC 9
Bailii, Bailii Summary, Bailii Issue and Facts
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, Council Directive 2005/85/EC, Council Directive 2004/83/EC, Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees
England and Wales
Appeal from – Re G (A Child : Child Abduction) CA 15-Sep-2020
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.660051
Renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review of the decision taken to leave the EU: ‘The thrust of the claim is that the UK Government has allegedly already decided that an automatic consequence of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union is that the EEA Agreement would cease to apply to the United Kingdom and that notification of withdrawal from the EEA Agreement under Article 127 is not required. They contend that that alleged decision is wrong as it is based on a misunderstanding of the effect of the EEA Agreement.
The second set of claims involves claims by four individuals who seek to challenge what they describe as:
‘The Defendant’s attempt to withdraw from the European Union on the assumption that the United Kingdom will no longer be in the EEA without prior approval from HM Treasury and an act of Parliament providing authorisation.’
Held: ‘We refuse permission in these claims for the reason that the claims are premature. We do not consider it necessary to comment on each of the reasons given by the judge and we express no view on the correctness of each of those reasons.’
[2017] EWHC 630 (Admin)
England and Wales
See Also – Yalland and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union (629) Admn 3-Feb-2017
Application for anonymity order – challenge to constitutionality of proposed steps in leaving the EU.
Held: Granted for those applying for it.
The common law rights of the public and press to know about court proceedings are also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.628715
ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Request for renewal of the Community figurative mark CVTC – Partial renewal – Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
T-572/12, [2015] EUECJ T-572/12, ECLI:EU:T:2015:136
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 47
European
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.543915
ECJ Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark PRANAYUR – Earlier Community word mark AYUR and earlier Community figurative marks Ayur, Ayur Naturals Herbals and Aanb – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
T-543/13, [2015] EUECJ T-543/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:134
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)
European
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.543882
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 191(2) TFEU – Directive 2004/35/EC – Environmental liability – National legislation under which no provision is made for the administrative authorities to require owners of polluted land who have not contributed to that pollution to carry out preventive and remedial measures, and the sole obligation imposed concerns the reimbursement of the measures undertaken by those authorities – Whether compatible with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority
M Ilesic P
C-534/13, [2015] EUECJ C-534/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:140, [2015] WLR(D) 103
TFEU 191(2), irective 2004/35/EC
European
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.543879
Judgment – Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark FSA K-FORCE – Earlier Community word mark FORCE-X – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009
T-558/13, [2015] EUECJ T-558/13
European
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.543880
H denied that the court had jurisdiction over him in divorce proceedings.
Bennett J
[2008] EWHC 332 (Fam)
Counsel Regulation (EC) 2201/2003
England and Wales
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.278547
R-217/80, [1981] EUECJ R-217/80
European
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.215017
R-216/81, [1982] EUECJ R-216/81
European
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.215085
R-277/80, [1982] EUECJ R-277/80
European
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.215047
Post-clearance demand for customs duty almost seven years after the taxpayer had imported garlic into the United Kingdom, which had been falsely declared to be of a certain origin, and just under four years after the customs became aware of the fraud.
Lewison, Newey LJJ, Henry Carr J
[2018] EWCA Civ 2401, [2018] WLR(D) 670, [2019] 1 WLR 2841
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
England and Wales
At FTTTx – FMX Food Merchants Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Nov-2013
FTTTx Customs duty – import of Chinese garlic, falsely declared as Cambodian in origin – late issue of post-clearance demand note for unpaid duty – whether the customs debt was the result of an act which, at the . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd UTTC 10-Dec-2015
Customs Duty – import of Chinese garlic falsely declared as Cambodian origin – Customs Code Art 221 – customs debt resulting from a criminal act – post clearance demand issued after expiry of the three year period – no express provisions in UK law . .
Appeal from – FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jan-2020
This appeal concerns the meaning and effect of the phrase ‘Customs Debt’ in article 221(4) of the former Customs Code of the EU, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Customs duties may be due under ‘post-clearance demands’ and the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.628681
ECJ (Order Of The Court) Appeals – Community trade mark – Figurative mark in black and white ‘zoo sport’ – Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word and figurative marks containing the word elements ‘ZOOT’ and ‘SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS’ – Partial refusal of registration
C-675/13, [2014] EUECJ C-675/13 – CO
European
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.535377
ECJ (French Text) (Order Of The Court) Appeal – EAGGF EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from funding from the European Union – Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic
C-71/13, [2014] EUECJ C-71/13 – CO
European
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.535361
ECFI Judgment – Arbitration clause – Contract for the loan of fissile material intended for the Joint Research Centre’s ISPRA site – Non-performance of the contract – Default interest
H. Kanninen, P
T-223/11, [2014] EUECJ T-223/11
European
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.534347
T-166/10, [2012] EUECJ T-166/10
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453053
T-329/05, [2012] EUECJ T-329/05
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453051
C-121/11, [2012] EUECJ C-121/11
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453052
T-328/11, [2012] EUECJ T-328/11
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453049
ECJ Foreign policy and security policy – Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation – Freezing of funds – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Jurisdiction of the Board – Misuse of powers – Entry into force – Non-retroactivity – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defense – Right to effective judicial protection – Error of law – Notion of support to nuclear proliferation – Error of assessment ‘
Pelikovana P
T-509/10, [2012] EUECJ T-509/10
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453050
C-213/10, [2012] EUECJ C-213/10
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453045
T-581/10, [2012] EUECJ T-581/10
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453035
F-50/11, [2012] EUECJ F-50/11
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453039
T-49/09, [2012] EUECJ T-49/09
European
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453043
ECFI (Order) (French Text) Interim measures – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Syria – Freezing of funds and economic resources – Application for interim measures – New Application – Developments – None – Inadmissibility
T-572/11, [2012] EUECJ T-572/11 – O, [2014] EUECJ T-572/11
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453046
T-125/08, [2012] EUECJ T-125/08
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453030
Radiation
T-501/09, [2012] EUECJ T-501/09
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453034
C-297/11, [2012] EUECJ C-297/11
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453041
ECJ Community trade mark – Community word mark BrainLAB – Failure to apply for renewal of the registration of the trade mark – Removal of the trade mark from the register on expiry of registration – Application for restitutio in integrum – Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
N.J. Forwood P
T-326/11, [2012] EUECJ T-326/11
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 81
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453038
T-80/12, [2012] EUECJ T-80/12 – AJ
European
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453032
Order – Removal from the register
T-368/08, [2012] EUECJ T-368/08
European
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453031
T-554/08, [2012] EUECJ T-554/08
European
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453044
T-327/09, [2012] EUECJ T-327/09
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453033
ECJ Appeal – State aid – Aid scheme granted to utility companies – Tax exemptions – Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Standing – Cause of action
Rosas P
C-329/09, [2011] EUECJ C-329/09 – P
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452817
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Persons liable to pay tax – Third party jointly and severally liable – Warehousing arrangements other than customs warehousing – Joint and several liability of the warehouse-keeper of the goods and the taxable person who owns the goods – Good faith or lack of fault or negligence of the warehouse-keeper
C-499/10, [2011] EUECJ C-499/10
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452819
ECJ Directive 2003/96/EC – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Article 14, paragraph 1, b) – Exemption of energy products used as fuel for aircraft navigation – Fuel provided by the lessor of an aircraft used by charterers of it for their flights for purposes other than providing an air service for consideration
Bonichot P
C-250/10, [2011] EUECJ C-250/10
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452816
C-50509 – P – O, [2011] EUECJ C-50509 – P – O
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452806
C-320/09, [2011] EUECJ C-320/09 – P
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452808
ECJ Second paragraph of Article 288 TFEU – Regulation (EC) No 1/2005- Protection of animals during transport – Transport by road of domestic animals of the porcine species – Minimum height of compartments – Inspection during a journey – Loading density – Right of Member States to adopt detailed standards
Lenearts J
C-316/10, [2011] EUECJ C-316/10
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452814
C-482/10, [2011] EUECJ C-482/10
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452813
Appeal – State aid – Aid scheme granted to utility companies – Tax exemptions – Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Locus standi – Interest in bringing proceedings – Article 87 EC – Concept of ‘help’ – Article 88 EC – Concept of ‘new aid’ -Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 – Articles 1 and 14 – Lawfulness of a recovery order – Obligation to state reasons’
A. Rosas, acting as P
C-319/09, [2011] EUECJ C-319/09 – P
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452809
ECJ Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Earlier word marks MUNDICOLOR – Application for Community word mark MUNDICOR – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94,
T-184/02, [2004] EUECJ T-184/02
European
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.213792
ECFI Community trade mark Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the Community figurative mark BoomerangTV – Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BOOMERANG and Boomerang Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention – No damage to reputation – Failure to produce evidence before the Opposition Division of the existence of certain earlier trade marks or translations thereof Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(c), Article 8(5) and Article 74(2) of Regulation EC No 40/94 Rule 16(2) and (3), Rule 17(2) and Rule 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.
T-420/03, [2008] EUECJ T-420/03, [2008] ETMR 71
Regulation EC No 40/94, Regulation (EC) No 2868/95
European
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.270308
Europa Council Directive 2000/78/EC Article 6 – General principle of Community law – Age discrimination – Compulsory retirement – Direct effect – Obligation to set aside conflicting national law.
C-411/05, [2007] EUECJ C-411/05, [2007] IRLR 989, [2007] ECR I-8531
European
Order – Felix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA ECJ 16-Oct-2007
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Spain had legislated for compulsory retirement when it wanted to encourage recruitment; then abolished it when economic circumstances improved and it wanted to encourage people to stay in . .
Cited – Whaley and Another v Lord Advocate HL 28-Nov-2007
The House considered claims that the 2002 Act, which set out to make unawful the hunting of wild mammals with dogs unlawful, infringed the claimants’ human rights, in that it contravened international treaties requiring the support for traditional . .
Cited – Age UK, Regina (On the Application of) v Attorney General Admn 25-Sep-2009
Age UK challenged the implementation by the UK of the Directive insofar as it established a default retirement age (DRA) at 65.
Held: The claim failed. The decision to adopt a DRA was not a disproportionate way of giving effect to the social . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.248897
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Spain had legislated for compulsory retirement when it wanted to encourage recruitment; then abolished it when economic circumstances improved and it wanted to encourage people to stay in work; and then reintroduced it by allowing collective agreements to prescribe retirement ages, provided that the worker had qualified for a retirement pension.
Held: Despite recital 14, requiring retirement at a particular age is direct age discrimination within the meaning of article 2(1) and 2(2)(a) and has therefore to be justified. But this did not preclude national legislation allowing for this, even if the social policy aims were not spelled out in the legislation, as long as it could be decided from the context and other sources what those aims were. The encouragement of recruitment was a legitimate aim. The means employed had still to be both appropriate and necessary, although member states (and where appropriate social partners) enjoyed a broad discretion in the choice both of the aims and of the means to pursue them. The measure in question did not unduly prejudice the legitimate claims of the workers because it was based, not only on a specific age, but also on having qualified for a pension.
It is not necessary for the national measure at issue, in order to be justifiable under article 6(1) of the Directive, to refer expressly to a legitimate aim of the kind envisaged in article 6(1); it suffices that ‘other elements, taken from the general context of the measure concerned, enable the underlying aim of that law to be identified for the purposes of judicial review of its legitimacy and whether the means put in place to achieve that aim are appropriate and necessary.’
Skouris P
Times 23-Oct-2007, [2007] ECR I-8531, C-411/05, [2009] ICR 1111, [2007]EUECJ C-411/05, [2007] Pens LR 411, [2007] IRLR 989, [2008] 1 CMLR 16, [2008] All ER (EC) 249
European
Order – Felix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA ECJ 15-Feb-2007
Europa Council Directive 2000/78/EC Article 6 – General principle of Community law – Age discrimination – Compulsory retirement – Direct effect – Obligation to set aside conflicting national law. . .
Cited – Incorporated Trustees of The National Council For Ageing v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform ECJ 5-Mar-2009
(Third Chamber) The trustees complained that the respondent had failed to implement the Directive, in that there remained, for example, rules allowing employers to have fixed retirement ages.
Held: The complaint failed. The Directive allowed . .
Cited – Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
Cited – Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership) CA 28-Jul-2010
The claimant solicitor said that the compulsory retirement from his partnership on age grounds was discriminatory, and that the UK Regulations had not implemented the Directive fully.
Held: The appeal failed. The purpose of the provision as to . .
Cited – Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes SC 25-Apr-2012
The appellant claimed that the requirement imposed on him to retire from his law firm partnership on attaining 65 was an unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age.
Held: The matter was remitted to the Employment tribunal to see whether the . .
Cited – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 6-Feb-2013
The appellant, a part time recorder challenged his exclusion from pension arrangements.
Held: The appeal was allowed. No objective justification has been shown for departing from the basic principle of remunerating part-timers pro rata . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.261649
1. The ability to rely on directives against State entities is based on the binding nature of directives – which applies only with regard to the Member States to which they are addressed – and seeks to prevent a State from taking advantage of its failure to comply with Community law. The effect of extending that principle to the sphere of relations between individuals would be to recognize a power in the Community to enact obligations for individuals with immediate effect, whereas it has competence to do so only where it is empowered to adopt regulations or decisions.
It follows that a directive may not of itself impose obligations on an individual and may therefore not be relied upon as such against such a person.
2. In the absence of measures implementing Directive 87/102 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit within the period prescribed by that directive, a consumer may not, even in view of Article 129a of the Treaty, base a right of action on the directive itself against a lender who is a private person, on account of inadequacies in the supply of goods or provision of services by the supplier or provider with whom the lender concluded an exclusive agreement with regard to the grant of credit, and assert that right before a national court.
Article 129a is limited in scope. On the one hand, it provides that the Community is under a duty to contribute to the attainment of a high level of consumer protection. On the other, it creates Community competence with a view to specific action relating to consumer protection policy apart from measures taken in connection with the internal market. In so far as it merely assigns an objective to the Community and confers powers on it to that end without also laying down any obligation on Member States or individuals, Article 129a cannot justify the possibility of clear, precise and unconditional provisions of directives on consumer protection which have not been transposed into Community law within the prescribed period being directly relied on as between individuals.
3. If the result prescribed by the directive cannot be achieved by way of interpretation, Community law requires the Member States to make good damage caused to individuals through failure to transpose a directive, provided that three conditions are fulfilled. First, the purpose of the directive must be to grant rights to individuals. Second, it must be possible to identify the content of those rights on the basis of the provisions of the directive. Finally, there must be a causal link between the breach of the State’ s obligation and the damage suffered.
C-192/94, [1996] EUECJ C-192/94
European
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.161385
ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the Community figurative mark OUTBURST – Earlier national word mark OUTBURST – Genuine use of the earlier trade mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009) – Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95
Papasavvas P
T-214/08, [2012] EUECJ T-214/08
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452635
ECFI State aid – Loan granted to an airline company and capable of being counted as own capital – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market – Sale of assets of an airline company – Decision finding no aid at the conclusion of the preliminary examination phase – Actions for annulment – Locus standi – Interested party – Admissibility – Serious difficulties – Jurisdiction – Duty to state reasons
Papasavvas P
T-123/09, [2012] EUECJ T-123/09
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452636
ECJ Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Articles 21 and 34 of the Visa Code – Criminal liability of a smuggler helping illegal immigration of third country nationals who have visas fraudulently obtained but not yet canceled
C-83/12, [2012] EUECJ C-83/12 – PPU, [2012] EUECJ C-83/12
See Also – Minh Khoa Vo ECJ 10-Apr-2012
ECJ (French Text) Area of f?freedom, security and justice – Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 – Community Code on Visas – Articles 21 and 34 – National legislation – Introduction of illegal third country nationals in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452641
ECJ Public procurement – Directive 2004/18/EC – Contract award procedures – Restricted call for tenders – Assessment of the tender – Requests by the contracting authority for clarification of the tender – Conditions
Bonichot R P
C-599/10, [2012] EUECJ C-599/10
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452637
(Opinion) Protection of the financial interests of the European Union – Limitation period for claims of interest due under national law in addition to reimbursement of amounts of aid wrongly received – Interpretation and applicability of Article 3 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95
Sharpston AG
C-564/10, [2012] EUECJ C-564/10
See Also – Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung v Pfeifer and Langen ECJ 29-Mar-2012
ECJ Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Articles 3 and 4 – Administrative measures – Recovery of wrongly obtained advantages – Default and compensatory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452612
ECFI Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Measures to be adopted as a result of the accession of new Member States – 2003 Act of Accession – Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar, and the financial consequences of their elimination – Objective pursued by a provision of primary law – Decision 2007/361/EC
Truchot P
T-262/07, [2012] EUECJ T-262/07
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452627
ECFI Community trade mark – International registration – Request for territorial extension of protection – Figurative mark 3D eXam – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character and lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Kanninen p
T-242/11, [2012] EUECJ T-242/11
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452625
ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Bebio – Earlier Community word mark and international word mark BEBA – Partial refusal of registration – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Papasavvas P
T-41/09, [2012] EUECJ T-41/09
Regulation (EC) No 40/94, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452623
ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark CALCIMATT-Earlier Community word mark CALCILAN – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of signs – Article 8, paragraph 1, sub b) of Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 – Refusal to register
Kanninen P
T-547/10, [2012] EUECJ T-547/10
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452630
ECFI Agriculture – Common organization of markets – Measures to be adopted on account of the accession of new Member States – Act of Accession of 2003 – Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and financial consequences of their elimination – Objective pursued by a provision of primary law – Decision 2007/361/CE
Truchot P
T-243/07, [2012] EUECJ T-243/07
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452631
C-234/10, [2011] EUECJ C-234/10
European
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.448339
Staff employed at the JET Joint Undertaking – Equal treatment – Failure to confer status of temporary servant – Article 152 EA – Reasonable time – Material damage sustained
T-144/02
European
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.216565
Measures Adopted By The Community Institutions.
R-143/88, [1991] EUECJ R-143/88
European
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.215801
R-66/80, [1981] EUECJ R-66/80
European
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.214990
(Quantitative Restrictions)
R-4/75, [1975] EUECJ R-4/75
European
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.214431
R-196/81, [1982] EUECJ R-196/81
European
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.215073
C-11/00, [2003] EUECJ C-11/00
European
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.184684