Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

CJEU Case C-183/20 P / Order

Fabryki Mebli "Forte" S.A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed)
Type
Decision
Decision date
16/07/2020
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2020:562

Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da UE

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Case C-183/20 P / Order

    Key facts of the case:

    Appeal — Community design — Whether appeals may be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed.

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) hereby orders:

    1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
    2. Fabryki Mebli “Forte” S.A. shall bear its own costs.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    12) In the third place, by its fifth argument, the appellant submits that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the consistency of EU law as a result of the infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), in so far as the General Court did not specifically and expressly examine the plea based on the evidence provided by the appellant. The appellant claims that such an error of law results in the proceedings being unfair.

    ...

    25) As regards, in the third and final place, the fifth argument, referred to in paragraph 12 of the present order, according to which the General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter, suffice it to note that the appellant has failed to demonstrate how the alleged infringement of the abovementioned provision, assuming it to be established, raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law, but merely asserts the significance of that article of the Charter and that the case-law of the Courts of the European Union should be consistent with that provision. In advancing such generic assertions, however, the appellant fails to demonstrate, in the light of the case-law set out in paragraphs 14 to 16 of the present order, that that argument raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.