Urteile nach Gerichten

EuGH_en , Urteil v. 06.11.2003 - Az.: C-243/01: Leitsatz:
National legislation which prohibits on pain of criminal penalties the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular on sporting events, without a licence or authorisation from the Member State concerned constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively, which, to be justified, must be based on imperative requirements in the general interest, be suitable for achieving the objective which they pursue and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it and be applied without discrimination.
In that connection, it is for the national court to determine whether such legislation, taking account of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the aims which might justify it, and whether the restrictions it imposes are disproportionate in the light of those objectives.
In particular, in so far as the authorities of a Member State incite and encourage consumers to participate in lotteries, games of chance and betting to the financial benefit of the public purse, the authorities of that State cannot invoke public order concerns relating to the need to reduce opportunities for betting in order to justify measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings. Furthermore, where a criminal penalty was imposed on any person who from his home in a Member State connects by internet to a bookmaker established in another Member State the national court must consider whether this constitutes a disproportionate penalty.
see paras 65, 69, 72, 76, operative part
EuGH_en , Gutachten v. 11.03.2003 - Az.: C-322/01
EuGH_en , Urteil v. 11.12.2003 - Az.: C-322/01: Leitsatz:
1. Commercial rules which govern the arrangements for the sale of products constitute measures of equivalent effect for the purposes of Article 28 EC if they do not apply to all relevant traders operating in national territory and if they do not affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of both domestic products and those from other Member States.
A national prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products the sale of which is restricted to pharmacies in the Member State concerned is in that regard a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction where the prohibition has a greater impact on pharmacies established outside the national territory and could impede access to the market for products from other Member States more than it impedes access for domestic products.
Article 30 EC may, however, be relied on to justify such a national prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products in so far as the prohibition covers medicinal products subject to prescription. Given that there may be risks attaching to the use of these medicinal products, the need to be able to check effectively and responsibly the authenticity of doctors? prescriptions and to ensure that the medicine is handed over either to the customer himself, or to a person to whom its collection has been entrusted by the customer, is such as to justify a prohibition on mail-order sales. However, Article 30 EC cannot be relied on to justify an absolute prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products which are not subject to prescription in the Member State concerned.
Those findings do not need to be assessed differently where medicinal products are imported into a Member State in which they are authorised, having been previously obtained by a pharmacy in another Member State from a wholesaler in the importing Member State.
see paras 68, 74, 76, 112, 119, 124, 134, operative part 1
2. Article 88(1) of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, which prohibits advertising for prescription medicines, precludes a national prohibition on advertising the sale by mail order of medicinal products which may be supplied only in pharmacies in the Member State concerned in so far as the prohibition covers medicinal products which are not subject to prescription.
Article 88(2) of the Community Code, which allows medicinal products not subject to prescription to be advertised to the general public, cannot be interpreted as precluding advertising for the sale by mail order of medicines on the basis of the alleged need for a pharmacist to be physically present, since the prohibition on the sale by mail order cannot itself be justified, in relation to non-prescription medicines, by that alleged need.
see paras 143-144, 148, operative part 2
EuGH_en , Gutachten v. 13.03.2003 - Az.: C-243/01
EuGH_en , Beschluss v. 13.09.2001 - Az.: C-467/00: Leitsatz:
1. It is clear from Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank that the Community judicature is to have jurisdiction in disputes between the European Central Bank and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the conditions of employment applicable to the servants of the European Central Bank. The conditions for bringing an action before the Community judicature, which are laid down in Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment and amplified in Article 8.2 of the Staff Rules, require, in particular, that actions be brought within two months.
( see paras 15-16 )
2. A plea in law put forward for the first time in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice must be rejected as inadmissible. To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the Court of First Instance would be to allow it to bring before the Court a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the Court?s jurisdiction is confined to review of the findings of the Court of First Instance on the pleas argued before it.
( see paras 22-23 )
3. It is clear from Article 225 EC and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that an appeal is to be limited to points of law. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance has sole jurisdiction to find and appraise the facts, except in a case where the factual inaccuracy of its findings is revealed by the evidence adduced before it. The appraisal of the facts does not constitute, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced before it is distorted, a question of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.
( see para. 26 )
EuGH_en , Gutachten v. 19.09.2002 - Az.: C-101/01
EFTA_Gerichtshof , Urteil v. 27.01.2010 - Az.: E-4/09: Leitsatz:
Eine Webseite kann als "dauerhafter Datenträger" im Sinne der Versicherungsvermittlungs-Richtlinie angesehen werden, wenn die Informationen in einem angemessenen Zeitraum abgerufen werden können.
DPMA , Beschluss v. 18.02.2010 - Az.: 30 2008 071 916 - S 130/09: Leitsatz:
Der Begriff "DEEJAY PLUS" ist als Marke für die Bereiche Musik, CDs und DVDs nicht eintragbar. Es handelt sich um eine gebräuchliche Wortzusammensetzung, deren Sinn sich im Zusammenhang mit den in Frage stehenden Waren ohne weiteres erschließt und daher für jeden durchschnittlichen Verbraucher als beschreibender Hinweis angesehen wird.
Deutsches_Patent_und_Markenamt , Beschluss v. 14.01.2010 - Az.: 305 24 784 - S 157/08: Leitsatz:
Die im Jahr 2005 eingetragene Marke "law blog" ist nicht unterscheidungskräftig und wird daher gelöscht. Der durchschnittliche Verbraucher verbindet mit dem Begriff den Hinweis einen Blog, in dem es um das Thema Recht geht.
Bundesverwaltungsgericht , Urteil v. 09.03.2005 - Az.: 6 C 11/04: Leitsatz:
Stellt ein Gewerbetreibender in seinen Räumen Computer auf, die sowohl zu Spielzwecken als auch zu anderen Zwecken genutzt werden können, so bedarf er der Spielhallenerlaubnis nach § 33i Abs. 1 Satz 1 GewO, wenn der Schwerpunkt des Betriebs in der Nutzung der Computer zu Spielzwecken liegt.