European Court of Justice Case Sample Clauses

European Court of Justice Case. Law In two judgements of 18 February 1992244, The European Court of Justice established that compulsory licensing of patents or plant variety rights on the grounds that the property right is exploited by imports from another member state and not through production on national territory is incompatible with the rules of free movement of goods. The Court found that since the patent law of the Member States has not been unified at a Community level, the power to determine the conditions and rules regarding the protection conferred by patents is still vested in national legislature according to Article 295 of the Treaty.245 However, Article 295 238 Ibidem p. 9. 239 Ibidem p. 9.‌ 240 Ibidem pp. 13-15. 241 Ibidem pp. 46-47 and Article 21. 242 NL 2004, The Dutch Presidency of the Council of the European Union: Priorities, p. 12.‌ 243 Ibidem p. 12-13. 244 Case C-235/89 Commission v. Italian Republic [1992] ECR I-777, and Case C-30/90 Commission v. United Kingdom and Northern Ireland [1992] ECR I-829.‌ 245 Case C-235/89 paragraph 12 and 13 and Case-39/90 paragraph 16 and 17. does not mandate the Member States to adopt measures obstructing the principle of free movement of goods within the common market. Restrictions on intra-community trade can be justified for the purpose of safeguarding the protection of the specific subject matter of industrial and commercial property rights unless they constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the trade between Member States.246 The specific subject-matter of patents consists of three actions by the patentee; the exclusive right to use an invention with a view to manufacturing industrial products, to put these inventions into circulation for the first time, either directly or by the grant of licenses to third parties and the right to oppose infringements.247 The Court found the subject-matter of new plant varieties to be essentially the same.248 The Court also found that the patentee, through the obligation to work the patent nationally, was encouraged to manufacture on the territory of the state where the patent had been granted rather than to import the patented product from the territory of other Member States.249 The legislation at issue was therefore a measure having the effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction in the meaning of Article 28.250 It was rather the encouragement of domestic production than the specific requirements of the propriety rights at hand that motivated such ru...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to European Court of Justice Case

  • MAGISTRATE’S COURT JURISDICTION The Parties hereto consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court in terms of Section 45 read with Section 28 of the Magistrates’ Court Act of 1944 as amended. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, this shall not preclude either Party from approaching the High Court of South Africa for any relief sought. This Agreement shall further be governed in terms of the law of the Republic of South Africa.

  • Department of Justice Xxxx X. Xxxxxxx Student Loan Repayment Program (JRJSLRP) Service Agreement – Secondary Term of Service NAME: In consideration of the student loan repayment incentive for which I may qualify under 34 U.S.C. §10671, such incentive having been offered above and beyond the incentive(s) from which I have already benefitted from in exchange for a term of service that I have fulfilled, I hereby agree as follows:

  • Court Cases Any employee who is duly subpoenaed as a witness in any case in court shall be entitled to leave with pay for that purpose provided that the employee is not a party in the case, and provided that the case is not the result of litigation undertaken by the employee or the Union against the District. In cases where the Board is a party in the litigation, the employee shall be entitled to pay while attending as a witness at the request of the Board or as a co-defendant in the case.

  • Office of Justice Programs The Provider must report suspected fraud, waste and abuse to the OAG’s Office of the Inspector General at 000-000-0000.

  • Access to the Courts of Justice Each Contracting Party shall in its Area accord to investors of the other Contracting Party treatment no less favourable than the treatment which it accords in like circumstances to its own investors or investors of a non- Contracting Party with respect to access to the courts of justice and administrative tribunals and agencies in all degrees of jurisdiction, both in pursuit and in defence of such investors’ rights.

  • THE COURT’S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you don’t have to.

  • Justice To be fair in the treatment of all clients; to provide appropriate services to all.

  • Court of Jurisdiction Both DBS and the Member agree that the Tokyo District Court will be the exclusive court of jurisdiction in the first instance in any dispute and/ or legal action relating to the rights and obligations under this Agreement or an Individual Contract. Attachment 1 Contact Information

  • Arbitration Board Hearings Where operational requirements permit, the Employer shall grant leave without loss of pay to a reasonable number of employees representing the Union before an Arbitration Board, provided the dispute involves the Employer.

  • SCOPE OF ARBITRATOR'S AUTHORITY The Arbitrator shall have no power to alter, amend, add to or subtract from the provisions of this Article or any other terms of this Agreement. If the Arbitrator finds that none of the charges contained in the Notice of Disciplinary Action are true, then he shall set aside the action taken by the appointing authority. If the Arbitrator finds that some or all of the charges are true, then he shall make a decision confirming or modifying the action of the appointing authority provided, however, that his authority to modify the appointing authority's action is limited to those disciplinary actions described in Section 3102. The Arbitrator shall have no authority to increase the discipline imposed by the appointing authority. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3105, nothing shall preclude the Arbitrator from ordering the reinstatement of an employee with or without back pay. The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding, subject to judicial review pursuant to Title 9 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, upon the employee, the County, and if applicable, VCPPOA.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.