Tag: European

Zentralverband Des Deutschen Backerhandwerks -V- Commission: ECFI 7 Oct 2015

References: T-49/14, [2015] EUECJ T-49/14, ECLI:EU:T:2015:755
Links: Bailii
ECJ Judgment – Protected geographical indication – ‘Kolocz slaski’ or’Kolacz slaski’ – Cancellation Policy – Legal basis – Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 – Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 – Cancellation Reasons fundamental -Rights
Last Update: 16-Oct-15 Ref: 553135

The English Bridge Union Ltd v Revenue and Customs; UTTC 23 Jul 2015

References: [2015] UKUT 401 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC VAT – exemption for supplies of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education – article 132(1)(m), Principal VAT Directive – entry fees for duplicate bridge tournaments – whether contract or duplicate bridge is a ‘sport’ within the meaning of article 132(1)(m) – reference to CJEU
Last Update: 16-Oct-15 Ref: 553187

Gameaccount Ltd; EPB 29 Jun 2007

References: T 1543/06
‘[A]n invention which as a whole falls outside the exclusion zone of [art 52(2)] (i.e. is technical in character) cannot rely on excluded subject matter alone, even if it is novel and non-obvious (in the colloquial sense . .), for it to be considered to meet the requirement of inventive step. . . [I]t cannot have been the legislator’s purpose and intent on the one hand to exclude from patent protection such subject matter, while on the other hand awarding protection to a technical implementation thereof, where the only identifiable contribution of the claimed technical implementation to the state of the art is the excluded subject-matter itself. It is noted that here the term ‘contribution’ encompasses both means (i.e. tangible features of the implementation) and effects resulting from implementation’.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Symbian Ltd -v- Comptroller General of Patents CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 1066, Times, [2009] RPC 1)
    The Comptroller appealed against the decision in Chancery to grant a patent to the clamant for an invention which the comptroller said should have been excluded from protection under section 1(2) as a computer program. It was argued that the UK was . .

Last Update: 29-Sep-15 Ref: 276936

DM-Drogerie Markt -V- OHMI – Disenos Mireia (M): ECFI 25 Jun 2015

References: T-662/13, [2015] EUECJ T-662/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:434
Links: Bailii
ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark M – Earlier Community word mark dm – Relative ground for refusal – No similarity between the signs – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Last Update: 08-Sep-15 Ref: 549576

EG -V- Parliament: ECJ 18 Jun 2015

References: F-79/14, [2015] EUECJ F-79/14
Links: Bailii
ECJ Judgment – Public service – Officials – Remuneration – Household allowance – Condition for granting – Couple of persons of the same sex – non-marital partnership registered under Belgian law – Article 1, paragraph 2 c), iv) of Annex VII Status – Access to legal marriage in a Member State – Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation – Installation allowance

Leeds City Council v HMRC; UTTC 3 Dec 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 596 (TCC), [2014] BVC 501, [2014] STC 789
Links: Bailii
UTTC VALUE ADDED TAX – claim for repayment of VAT – failure of UK to implement Article 4.5 of Sixth VAT Directive – erroneous guidance issued by HMRC – curtailment of limitation period for claims – section 80 VAT Act 1994 – whether compatible with EU legal principles – appeal dismissed

Salomie And Oltean v Directia Generala a Finantelor Publice Cluj: ECJ 9 Jul 2015

References: C-183/14, [2015] EUECJ C-183/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:454
Links: Bailii
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling) – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 167, 168, 179 and 213 – Reclassification by the national tax authority of a transaction as an economic activity subject to VAT – Principle of legal certainty – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations – National legislation making the exercise of the right of deduction subject to the identification of the trader concerned for VAT purposes and to the filing of a tax return in respect of that tax
Statutes: Directive 2006/112/EC

Fjord Seafood Norway And Alsaker Fjordbruk v Council; 22 Sep 2009

References: [2012] EUECJ T-113/06, T-113/06
Links: Bailii
Partial removal from the register
This case is cited by:

HMRC v Asda Stores Ltd; UTTC 8 May 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 223 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Newey J
UTTC IMPORT DUTY – customs value – Articles 29 and 32 of Community Customs Code (Regulation 2913/92).
Statutes: Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 29(3)
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Asda Stores Ltd -v- Revenue & Customs FTTTx (Bailii, [2012] UKFTT 351 (TC))
    FTTTx IMPORT DUTY – customs value – clothing imported together with hangers etc -hangers supplied to overseas supplier of clothing by separate overseas hanger supplier nominated by UK importer – price for hangers . .
  • Cited – Hauptzollamt Itzehoe -v- HJ Repenning Gmbh ECJ (R-183/85, Bailii, [1986] EUECJ R-183/85)
    ECJ Article 3(1) of Council Regulation No 1224/80 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes must be interpreted as meaning that where goods bought free of defects are damaged before being released for free . .

This case is cited by:

  • At UTTC – Asda Stores Ltd -v- Revenue and Customs CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 317)
    The appellant imported clothing manufactured outside the EU, along with hangers supplied by a third party. The manufacturers were re-imbursed the cost of acquiring the hangers, but the appellants had agreed an inflated price with the hanger . .

Commission v Spain: ECJ 8 Sep 2005

References: C-121/03
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Meaning of ‘waste’ – Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment – Directive 80/68/EEC – Protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances – Directive 80/778/EEC – Quality of water intended for human consumption.

Cascina Tre Pini SS v Ministero Dell’Ambiente E Della Tutela Del Territorio E Del Mare And Others: ECJ 20 Jun 2013

References: C-301/12, [2013] EUECJ C-301/12, [2014] EUECJ C-301/12
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Coram: Kokottt AG
ECJ Opinion – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Site of Community importance – Declassification – Property – Assessment on request – Hearing – Competent authorities
Statutes: Directive 92/43/EEC

Piaggio (Germany); 14 Feb 2007

References: Unreported, 14 Feb 2007
Court of Cassation Sez 6 (Italy). The appellant challenged the issue by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office of a European Arrest Warrant on the ground that it should have been issued and signed by a judge.
Held: The argument failed: ‘The claim alleging breach of article 1(3) of Law no 69 of 2005 on the ground that the EAW was not signed by a judge is completely unfounded.
The provision allegedly requiring signature by a judge does not refer to the EAW, as the appellant mistakenly claims, but to the precautionary measure on the basis of which the warrant was issued: in the present case, it is in fact the arrest warrant issued by the Hamburg District Magistrate’s Court on 24 August 2005, regularly signed by Judge Reinke.
The guarantee specified in the aforesaid article1(3) does not relate to the act requesting the Member State to grant extradition but is directly connected with the custodial measure, that is to say it is a substantial guarantee concerned with the basic conditions underlying the EAW, which must be subject to jurisdiction. In this procedure, the true guarantee of personal freedom is not the fact that the EAW is issued by a judicial authority but the fact that the warrant is based on a judicial measure.
Moreover, article 6 of the framework decision leaves to the individual Member State the task of determining the judicial authority responsible for issuing (or executing) a European Arrest Warrant, and the Italian implementing law, with regard to the active extradition procedure, provides for certain cases in which the Public Prosecutor’s office is to be responsible for issuing the EAW (article 28 of Law no 69/2005).
Essentially, the alleged breach of the law in respect of the fact that the EWA was signed by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office, must be excluded.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Assange -v- The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 22, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, UKSC 2011/0264, SC, [2012] 2 AC 471, [2012] 3 WLR 1, [2012] 4 All ER 1249, [2013] 1 CMLR 4)
    The defendant sought to resist his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant to Sweden to face charges of sexual assaults. He said that the prosecutor who sought the extradition was not a judicial authority within the Framework Decision.

Pontina Ambiente v Regione Lazio (Environment And Consumers); 25 Feb 2010

References: C-172/08, [2010] EUECJ C-172/08
Links: Bailii
Coram: C Toader, P
ECJ Environment Directive 1999/31/EC Article 10 Special levy on the disposal of solid waste in landfills Operator of a landfill subject to that levy Operating costs of a landfill Directive 2000/35/EC Default interest
Statutes: Directive 1999/31/EC, Directive 2000/35/EC
This case cites:

Confederation Europeenne De L’Industrie De La Chaussure v Ba.La. Di Lanciotti Vittorio and v Sas: ECJ 15 Nov 2012

References: C-247/10, [2012] EUECJ C-247/10
Links: Bailii
Coram: K. Lenaerts
ECJ Appeal – Dumping – Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 – Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam – Regulation (EC) No 384/96 – Article 2(7)(b) – Market economy treatment – Article 9(6) – Individual treatment – Article 17(3) – Sampling – Article 20(5) – Rights of the defence

HM Revenue and Customs v GMAC UK Plc, BT Plc v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 3 Aug 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 279 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC VAT Bad debt relief – Insolvency Condition, Property Condition – whether valid under EU law – No; whether repayment claim resulted in a windfall contrary to EU law – need for reference – Yes; Time limit for making claims – whether time-barred as a result of overriding provisions of EU law.

Dundon v The Governor of Cloverhill Prison; 19 Dec 2005

References: [2006] 1 IR 518, [2005] IESC 83, [2006] 1 ILRM 321
Links: Bailii
Coram: Murray CJ, Denham J, Hardiman J. Geoghegan J, Fennelly J
(Supreme Court of Ireland) The UK had issued a European arrest warrant in relation to the appellant. On 11 February 2004 he was arrested in Ireland and remanded in custody. 93 days later, following various adjournments of which some had been at his request, the High Court made an order for his surrender. On 16 March 2005, thus following a significant further delay, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. He forthwith issued fresh proceedings in which, by reference to his rights under the Irish Constitution, he challenged the lawfulness of his continued detention after the expiry of 60 days following his arrest. Ireland had transposed the Decision into its law by the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
Held: Section 16(10) did not automatically entitle the appellant to release on the expiry of 60 days (nor, by analogy, did section 16(11) have that effect on the expiry of 90 days) from the date of his arrest. The terms of section 10 of the Irish Act provided: ‘Where a judicial authority in an issuing state duly issues a European arrest warrant in respect of a person –
(a) against whom that state intends to bring proceedings for the offence to which the . . warrant relates, or
(b) . . that person shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Framework Decision be arrested and surrendered to the issuing state.’ The appellant argued that, even if the terms of section 16(10) and (11) of that Act were not strong enough to secure the success of his appeal, the effect of section 10 was to bring the whole of the Decision into Irish law and that an overall reading of the Decision entitled him to release, and that, whereas section 16(10) and (11) place time limits of 60 and 90 days on the making only of the decision by the High Court, Article 17(3) and (4) of the Decision requires that the ‘final’ decision be made within those limits; and, by reference thereto, he appears also to have relied upon the significant further delay between the making of the order for his surrender and the hearing of his appeal. The terms of section 10 of the Irish Act required the Court to appraise the Decision in detail. Denham J described the time limits of 60 days and 90 days in Article 17(3) and (4) of the Decision as ‘exhortation’; and Geoghegan J explained that they were set ‘with a view to internal discipline within the member states and not with a view to conferring individual rights in individual cases’..
Statutes: Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002
This case is cited by:

Marks and Spencer Plc v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 21 Jun 2010

References: [2010] UKUT 213 (TCC), [2010] STC 2470
Links: Bailii
Coram: Warren J P, Sadler J
UTTC EUROPEAN LAW – group relief for losses of non-resident subsidiaries – whether there are no possibilities for those losses to be taken into account at the date of the group relief claim – date of valid claim where series of group relief claims – whether valid group relief claim can be made out of time – application of principle of effectiveness – method of quantifying losses for which group relief claim can be made
This case cites:

  • At FTTTx – Marks and Spencer plc -v- Revenue & Customs FTTTx (Bailii, [2009] UKFTT 00005 (TC), [2009] SFTD 1, [2009] UKFTT 64 (TC))
    FTTTx EUROPEAN LAW – group relief for losses of non-resident subsidiaries – whether there are no possibilities for those losses to be taken into account at the date of the group relief claim – no at the date of . .

This case is cited by:

  • At UTTC – Revenue and Customs -v- Marks and Spencer Plc SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 30, [2013] WLR(D) 191, [2013] STI 1899, [2013] 3 All ER 835, [2013] BTC 162, [2013] 1 WLR 1586, [2013] STC 1262, [2013] 3 CMLR 36, WLRD, UKSC 2011/0241, SC Summary, SC)
    The company wished to assign losses in its European subsidiaries against its profits. Since the losses were first claimed, the subsidiaries had gone into insolvent liquidation.
    Held: Lord Hope said: ‘I would answer the first issue by rejecting . .
  • Appeal from – HM Revenue and Customs -v- Marks and Spencer Plc CA (Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 1156, [2011] STI 2843, [2011] BTC 589, [2012] STC 231, [2011] NPC 103)
    The taxpayers claimed relief for losses incurred within their European subsidiaries. The claim having been referred to the ECJ, Moses LJ summarised the issues outstanding: ‘(i) Is the test that the ECJ established to identify those circumstances in . .

BT Plc v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 3 Aug 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 278 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Warren J P, Hellier TJ
UTTC VAT Bad debt relief – Insolvency Condition, Property Condition – whether valid under EU law – No; whether repayment claim resulted in a windfall contrary to EU law – need for reference – Yes; Time limit for making claims – whether time-barred as a result of overriding provisions of EU law.

European Commission -V- Ireland: ECJ 15 Apr 2010

References: C-294/09, [2010] EUECJ C-294/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:200
Links: Bailii
ECJ (Judgment Of The Court (Fifth Chamber)) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/43/EC – Statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts – Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period – Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive
Statutes: Directive 2006/43/EC

Laszkiewicz v OHMI – Capital Safety Group Emea (Protekt): ECFI 15 Jul 2014

References: T-576/12, [2014] EUECJ T-576/12
Links: Bailii
ECFI Judgment – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark PROTEKT – Community word marks PROTECTA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009 – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009
Statutes: Regulation No 207/2009 75

Ballast Nedam -V- Commission: ECJ 27 Mar 2014

References: C-612/12, [2014] EUECJ C-612/12
Links: Bailii
Coram: T. von Danwitz, P
ECJ Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen – Setting of the gross price for road pavement bitumen – Setting of a rebate for road builders – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Article 27 – Rights of the defence – Reduction of the fine
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 27

As Flylal-Lithuanian Airlines v VAS ‘Starptautiska lidosta ‘Riga” and AS ‘Air Baltic Corporation’: ECJ 3 Jul 2014

References: C-302/13, [2014] EUECJ C-302/13_O, ECLI: EU: C: 2014:2046, [2014] EUECJ C-302/13
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Coram: Mme Juliane Kokott AG
ECJ Opinion – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Scope – Concept of civil and commercial matters – Compensation for breach of EU competition law – Recognition of provisional and protective measures – Public Order
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

IBM Corporation/Data processor network; EPO 1990

References: [1990] EPOR 91, 06/83
A new method of communicating between programs and data files within the computer, so that they operated effectively as a single entity, was held by the Board to be properly ‘regarded as solving a problem which is essentially technical’ and therefore it did not fall foul of art 52(2). While programs for computers were included in the items listed in Article 52(2), if the claimed subject matter had a technical character it was not excluded from patentability.
This case is cited by:

Nickel and Goeldner Spedition GmbH v ‘Kintra’ UAB: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

References: C-157/13, [2014] EUECJ C-157/13
Links: Bailii
Coram: A. Tizzano, P
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 – Article 3(1) – Concept of an ‘action related to insolvency proceedings and closely connected with those proceedings’ – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 1(2)(b) – Concept of ‘bankruptcy’ – Action for payment of a debt brought by the insolvency administrator – Debt arising out of the international carriage of goods – Relationship between Regulations Nos 1346/2000 and 44/2001 and the Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR)
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 3(1), Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 1(2)(b), Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road

West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and Another (‘The Front Comor’): ComC 21 Mar 2005

References: [2005] EWHC 454 (Comm)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Mr Justice Colman
Appeal against anti-suit order. The court ordered that since the question of whether an anti-suit injunction could be made to restrain proceedings abroad had been decided in Through Transport, that issue could go straight to the House of Lords.
Statutes: EC Regulation 44/2001, Administration of Justice Act 1969 12, Supreme Court Act 1981 37(1)
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

Construccion, Promociones E Instalaciones -V- OHMI – Copisa Proyectos Y Mantenimientos Industriales: ECFI 4 Jul 2014

References: T-345/13, [2014] EUECJ T-345/13, ECLI: EU: T: 2014:614
Links: Bailii
Coram: M. Prek (Rapporteur), P
ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark ICC COPISA INDUSTRIAL – Spanish figurative mark earlier Cpi construccion promociones e instalaciones, and its trade name prior Construccion, Promotions e Instalaciones, SA-CPI – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8 , paragraph 1 b), and paragraph 4 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – No evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark – No evidence of use in the course of trade name previous trade

Julien-Malvy and Others v EEAS; EUCST 25 Sep 2014

References: F-100/13, [2014] EUECJ F-100/13, ECLI:EU:F:2014:224
Links: Bailii
EUCST Judgment – Civil service – Remuneration – Staff of the EEAS assigned to a third country – Decision of the appointing authority amending the list of third countries in respect of which the living conditions are equivalent to those normally obtaining in the European Union – Measure of general application – Admissibility of the action – Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions – Abolition)

Snezhana Somova v Slaven director na Stolichno upravlenie ‘sotsialno osiguryavane’: ECJ 5 Mar 2014

References: C-103/13, [2014] EUECJ C-103/13, [2014] EUECJ C-103/13_J
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Coram: Melchior Wathelet AG
ECJ Opinion – Social security for migrant workers – Requirement interruption insurance to receive an old age pension – Possibility to spread the rule of aggregation of periods of insurance and insurance – Redemption premiums – Coincidence periods insurance in two Member States – Pausing and recovery of payments – Obligation to pay interest – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness

Euro-Link Consultants And European Profiles -V- Commission: ECFI 2 Oct 2014

References: T-199/12, [2014] EUECJ T-199/12, ECLI:EU:T:2014:848
Links: Bailii
ECFI (Judgment) Public service contracts – Tender procedure – Crimean tourism diversification and support project – Rejection of the applicants’ tender – Action for annulment – Measure not amenable to review – Confirmatory measure – Partial inadmissibility – Obligation to state reasons – Award criteria – Manifest error of assessment – Misuse of powers – Equal treatment

Commission v Estonia; ECH 10 May 2012

References: [2012] EUECJ C-39/10, C-39/10
Links: Bailii
Coram: J-C Bonichot, P
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom of movement for workers – Income tax – Allowance – Retirement pensions – Effect on small pensions – Discrimination between resident and non-resident taxpayers
This case cites:

  • See Also – Commission -v- Estonia ECJ (Bailii, [2010] EUECJ C-39/10, C-39/10)
    Order – Interventions . .
  • Opinion – Commission -v- Estonia ECJ (C-39/10, Bailii, [2011] EUECJ C-39/10)
    ECJ Opinion – Failure to fulfill obligations – Objection of inadmissibility – Interveners – Freedom of movement for workers – Article 45 TFEU – Article 28 of the EEA Agreement – Tax legislation – Income tax – . .

Elida Gibbs Ltd v Commissioners Of Customs And Excise.: ECJ 24 Oct 1996

References: C-317/94, [1996] EUECJ C-317/94, [1996] STC 1387, [1996] CEC 1022, [1997] QB 499, [1997] BVC 80, [1996] ECR I-5339
Links: Bailii
Where
(a) a manufacturer issues a money-off coupon, which is redeemable at the amount stated on the coupon by or at the expense of the manufacturer in favour of the retailer, (b) the coupon, which is distributed to a potential customer in the course of a sales promotion campaign, may be accepted by the retailer in payment for a specified item of goods, (c) the manufacturer has sold the specified item at the ‘original supplier’ s price’ direct to the retailer and (d) the retailer takes the coupon from the customer on sale of the item, presents it to the manufacturer and is paid the stated amount,
or
(a) the manufacturer, in the course of a promotion scheme, sells items of goods at the ‘manufacturer’ s price’ direct to a retailer, (b) a cash-back coupon for an amount stated on the packaging of those items entitles the customer, if he proves purchase of one of those items and satisfies other conditions printed on the coupon, to present the coupon to the manufacturer in return for payment of the stated amount, and (c) a customer purchases such an item from a retailer, presents the coupon to the manufacturer and is paid the stated amount, Article 11(A)(1)(a) and Article 11(C)(1) of the Sixth Directive are to be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount serving as a basis for determination of the value added tax payable by the manufacturer is equal to the selling price charged by the manufacturer, less the amount indicated on the coupon and refunded. The same applies if the original supply is made by the manufacturer to a wholesaler rather than directly to a retailer.
That interpretation necessarily follows from the principle that the taxable amount serving as a basis for the VAT to be collected by the tax authorities cannot exceed the consideration actually paid by the final consumer which is the basis for calculating the VAT ultimately borne by him and from the principle of neutrality of the tax whereby within each country similar goods should bear the same tax burden whatever the length of the production and distribution chain.
The VAT system is not disturbed as a result of that interpretation since there is no need to readjust the taxable amount for the intermediate transactions. That amount remains unchanged since, for those transactions, observance of the principle of neutrality is ensured by application of the conditions for deduction set out in the directive, which enable the intermediate links in the distribution chain, such as wholesalers and retailers, to pay to the tax authorities only the part of the VAT representing the difference between the price paid by each to his supplier and the price at which he supplied the goods to his purchaser.

O (Peter) v F KG; 16 Dec 2003

References: [2006] ECDR 9
(Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court)) The court considered a claim to copyright in photographs of grape varieties used as illustrations in a book. They were applying an approach to copyright based on the principle that the work must be the creator’s own intellectual creation.
Held: ‘In accordance with more recent jurisdiction of the finding Senate, photographs are to be considered photographic works in the sense of s.3(2) UrhG (Copyright Law), if they are the result of the creator’s own intellectual creation, with no specific measure of originality being required. What is decisive is that an individual allocation between photograph and photographer is possible in so far as the latter’s personality is reflected by the arrangements (motif, visual angle, illumination, etc.) selected by him. Such freedom of creation does certainly exist not only for professional photographers with regard to works claiming a high artistic level, but also for a lot of amateur photographers, who take pictures of everyday scenes in the form of photos of landscapes, persons and holiday pictures; also, such photographs shall be deemed photographic works, as far as the arrangements used cause distinctiveness. This criterion of distinctiveness is already met, if it can be said that another photographer may have arranged the photograph differently [ . . ]. The two-dimensional reproduction of an object found in nature is considered to have the character of a work in the sense of copyright law, if one’s task of achieving a representation as true to nature as possible still leaves ample room for an individual arrangement [ . . ].
This case is cited by:

Viamex Agrar Handel v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas: ECJ 30 Jun 2011

References: C-485/09, [2011] EUECJ C-485/09
Links: Bailii
ECJ Directive 91/628/EEC – Point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex – Regulation (EC) No 615/98 – Article 5(3) – Export refunds – Protection of bovine animals during rail transport – Conditions for payment of export refunds for bovine animals – Compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC – Principle of proportionality.
Statutes: Directive 91/628/EEC

Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate (BSH) Altersfursorge GmbH: ECJ 22 May 2008

References: C-427/06, [2008] EUECJ C-427/06_O, [2008] ECR I-7245, [2009] All ER (EC) 113, [2009] 1 CMLR 5, [2008] Pens LR 369
Links: Bailii
Coram: Skouris P
ECJ Scope of Community law – Legal effects of directives before the end of their transposition period – Horizontal application of general principles of Community law – Age discrimination – Article 13 EC Directive 2000/78 Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Survivors’ pensions Justification for differential treatment – Proportionality – Limitation ratione temporis of judgments of the Court.
Statutes: Directive 2000/78 Equal treatment in employment and occupation
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Age UK, Regina (On the Application of) -v- Attorney General Admn (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 2336 (Admin), Times, [2009] IRLR 1017, [2009] Pens LR 333, [2010] 1 CMLR 21, [2010] ICR 260)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Age UK, Regina (On the Application of) -v- Attorney General Admn (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 2336 (Admin), Times, [2009] IRLR 1017, [2009] Pens LR 333, [2010] 1 CMLR 21, [2010] ICR 260)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) -v- Secretary of State for Justice SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 63, [2014] 1 AC 271, [2014] HRLR 3, [2013] 3 WLR 1076, [2014] 1 All ER 683, [2013] WLR(D) 392, [2014] 1 CMLR 45, 2014 SC (UKSC) 25, 2014 SLT 143, 2013 GWD 34-676, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0151, SC Summary, SC)
    The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
    Held: The . .

Horne Engineering v Reliance Water Controls; 10 Jun 1999

References: [2000] FSR 90
Coram: Pumfrey J
cw Action for infringement of European patent relating to thermostatic mixing valve.
This case is cited by:

  • Applied – McGhan Medical Uk Ltd -v- Nagor Ltd and Biosil Ltd PatC (Bailii, [2001] EWHC Patents 452)
    The claimants had a patent for breast (and other) implants, the surface of which was claimed to be an improvement. They claimed infringement, and the defendant challenged the validity of the patent as lacking novelty, obviousness, and that . .

‘Geitling’ Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH, ‘Mausegatt’ Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH ‘Prasident’ Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH and associated companies v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community: ECJ 12 Feb 1960

References: C-16/59, [1960] EUECJ C-16/59
Links: Bailii
ECJ The grounds of a decision limited to stressing the objectives to be attained by the high authority to ensure compliance with the treaty but expressly refraining from laying down precise rules which will have to be settled in the future, do not constitute a decision but simply a notice not binding the high authority in the future and not excluding the possibility of its changing its view. Where a decision contains no provisions having legal effects of a legislative or individual nature but is simply an internal measure taken by the High Authority, the applicant cannot be adversely affected. The claims of the applicant for the annulment of a decision which has not been ‘revoked with retroactive effect’ but simply ‘revoked’ are valid in respect of the period between the entry into force of the decision and its revocation; they have not ‘lost their purpose’; but if the applicant subsequently states to the court that he considers them to have done so, this statement is in the nature of a withdrawal of claim. If the wording of the grounds of a decision wrongly gives the impression that a definite view has already been taken and accordingly that there is a true decision justifying an action being brought and unreasonably causing costs to be incurred, the costs are to be borne in part by the defendant.

Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias -V- Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados AE: ECJ 16 Apr 2015

References: C-690/13, [2015] EUECJ C-690/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:235
Links: Bailii
Coram: K. Jurimae, P
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – State aid – Meaning – Article 87(1) EC – Privileges granted to a bank – Company exercising public service obligations – Existing aid and new aid – Article 88(3) EC – Powers of the national court
Statutes: EC Treaty 87(1)

Coedo Suarez v Council; EUCST 26 Mar 2015

References: F-38/14, [2015] EUECJ F-38/14
Links: Bailii
ECJ Judgment – Public service – Officials – Disciplinary proceedings – Disciplinary measure – Removal with reduced disability allowance – Proportionality of the penalty – Manifest error of assessment – Driving Concept of the official throughout his career – Compliance schedules work

Caisse de maladie des C F L Entr’aide medicale” and Societe nationale des chemins de fer luxembourgeois v Compagnie belge d’assurances generales sur la vie et contre les accidents (Judgment): ECJ 12 Nov 1969″

References: C-27/69
Links: Europa
Europa 1. Social security for migrant workers – community rules – persons entitled to benefit – concept (regulation no 3, article 4) 2. Social security for migrant workers – benefit payable under the legislation of one member state for an injury sustained in the territory of another state – subrogation of the institution liable for payment of benefit – connection between the injury sustained by the worker and his professional or trade activity not required (regulation no 3, article 52) 3. Social security for migrant workers – benefit payable under the legislation of one member state for injury sustained in the territory of another state – subrogation of the institution liable for payment of benefit – legal proceedings before the national court of that institution – conformity with the application of article 52 of regulation no 3. 4. Social security for migrant workers – benefit payable under the legislation of one member state in respect of an injury sustained in the territory of another state – purpose of article 52 of regulation no 3 – direct application of the first paragraph of that article – bilateral agreements within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 52 – function. 1. Regulation no 3 is applicable to any wage – earner or assimilated worker who finds himself in one of the situations involving international elements as provided for in the said regulation, as well as to his survivors. 2. The provisions of article 52 of regulation no 3 are applicable even when the injury sustained by the worker has no connection with his professional or trade activity. 3. Article 52 of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC is also applicable to cases in which the institution liable for payment of benefit commences proceedings before its national court. 4. The object of article 52 is to secure the recognition by each member state of any right of action pursued by the others in favour of the institution liable for payment of benefit acting against the third party liable, either by means of subrogation or any other legal method. The provisions of the first paragraph of article 52 are worded in peremptory terms and are capable of direct application. The sole function of bilateral agreements as referred to in the second paragraph of that article is to provide for their implementation, where necessary, without however rendering the direct effect of the provision in question subordinate to them.