ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication – Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant – Subsidiary matter – Measures which, in accordance with standard practice of the institution, are published in the Official Journal (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 29-32)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding State aid incompatible with the common market without opening the formal investigation procedure – Action by a competitor undertaking not showing that its market position substantially affected – Inadmissibility (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 62, 64)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding State aid incompatible with the common market without opening the formal investigation procedure – Action by interested parties for the purposes of Article 88(2) EC – Admissibility – Conditions (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 60, 70-72)

4. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary review and main review – Compatibility of aid with the common market – Decision not to open the formal investigation procedure – Lawfulness – Condition (Art. 88(2) and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 4(4)) (see paras 92-93)

5. State aid – Not allowed – Exceptions – Discretion of the Commission – Possibility of adopting guidelines (Arts 3(g) EC and 87(3) EC) (see paras 143-144)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2002 to raise no objections to aid granted by the German authorities to Zellstoff Stendal for the construction of a production plant for pulp.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, Zellstoff Stendal GmbH, and the Land Sachsen-Anhalt.

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
Case T-168/02

IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Action for annulment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Article 4(5) – No disclosure of a document from a Member State without the prior agreement of that State)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), 30 November 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Documents originating from third parties and documents originating from a Member State – Differential treatment of requests for access – Power of the Member State to request the institution not to disclose documents – Obligation on the institution not to disclose them without prior agreement

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(4) and (5))

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision refusing access to documents originating from a Member State following a request for non-disclosure made by that State

(Art. 253 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(5))

1. Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents places the institutions under an obligation to consult the third party author of the document in respect of which access is sought with a view to assessing whether an exception in Article 4(1) or (2) is applicable, unless it is clear that the document should or should not be disclosed. Accordingly, consultation of the third party is, as a general rule, a precondition for determining whether the exceptions to the right of access provided for in Article 4(1) and (2) of the regulation are applicable in the case of third-party documents.

However, according to Article 4(5) of the regulation, which reflects Declaration No 35 annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of Amsterdam regarding documents from a Member State in possession of an institution, the Member State has the power to request that institution not to disclose that document without its prior agreement. Thus, a request made by a Member State under Article 4(5) does constitute an instruction to the institution not to disclose the document in question.

(see paras 55, 57-58)

2. The restrictions imposed, by Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, on the access to the documents originating from a Member State and in the possession of an institution do not affect the institution’s duty to state sufficient reasons for the decision to refuse the request for access to documents which the Member State has requested not to be disclosed. However, that institution is not required to explain why the Member State had made a request for non-disclosure, since there is no obligation on the Member States themselves to state the reasons for such a request.

(see paras 59, 72)
Case T-56/02

Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Competition – Article 81 EC – Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange services – Germany – Procedure in default)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 14 October 2004

Summary of the Judgment

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Definition – Joint intention as to the conduct to be adopted on the market – Included – Form of the expression of intentions – Not relevant

(Art. 81(1) EC)

In order for there to be an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC, it is sufficient that the undertakings in question should have expressed their joint intention to conduct themselves on the market in a specific way. As regards the form in which that common intention is expressed, it is sufficient for a stipulation to be the expression of the parties’ intention to behave on the market in accordance with its terms. It follows that the concept of an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC centres round the existence of a joint intention between at least two parties, the form in which it is manifested being unimportant so long as it constitutes the faithful expression of the parties’ intention.

(see paras 59-61)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2006 − Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall and Others v Commission

(Case T-92/02)

State aid – Tax emption scheme applied to the reserves established by nuclear installations established in Germany for the purpose of eliminating their radioactive waste and the definitive shutdown of their nuclear installations – Decision finding that there is no State aid at the end of the preliminary examination procedure – Action for annulment

1. State aid – Plans to grant aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary review and main review (Art. 88(2) and (3) EC) (see paras 46-56)

2. State aid – Definition – Selective nature of the measure (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 67-93, 96-102, 108-114)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2001) 3967 final of 11 December 2001 declaring that the German provisions relating to reserves set aside by the operators of nuclear power plants for the safe disposal of radioactive waste and the definitive shutdown of nuclear power plants do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word sign Hai and figurative SHARK marks

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

There is no likelihood of confusion, as regards the average consumer in the European Union and in Austria in particular, between the word mark Hai, for which registration as a Community trade mark was sought inter alia for goods in Classes 5, 32 and 33 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement, and the figurative SHARK marks with special graphics the letters of which have stylised characters so that the whole of the sign calls to mind the form of a shark, which were previously registered in Austria and as a Community trade mark for identical or similar goods, namely ‘non-alcoholic drinks; syrups and other preparations for making beverages’ in Class 32 of that agreement, since, as it has been stated that the earlier marks have a distinctive character per se, the significant visual and aural differences between the marks in question are such as to cancel out, to a large extent, their conceptual similarity which depends on prior translation, so that the degree of similarity between those marks is not sufficiently great for the Court to make a finding that the public might believe that the goods in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from undertakings which are economically linked.

(see paras 38, 46, 60, 62, 64-65)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision 2001/822 on the association of the overseas countries and territories – Decision refusing to grant a derogation from that decision, concerning the rules of origin for sugar from the Netherlands Antilles – Infringement of the duty to give reasons

(Art. 253 EC; Council Decision 2001/822, Annex III, Art. 37; Commission Decision 2003/34)

Summary

The statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community Court to exercise its power of review. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

A Commission Decision refusing to grant a derogation from Decision 2001/822, on the association of the overseas countries and territories (OCTs), as regards the rules of origin for sugar from the Netherlands Antilles, does not satisfy the requirements of Article 253 EC where that decision does not make it possible to determine with sufficient clarity: (i) the reasoning which led the Commission to conclude that the rules relating to cumulation of origin could solve the problem and that using Guyanese sugar would not cause the producer to cease its activities; (ii) whether Article 37(3)(b) of Annex III to the OCT decision was applied by the Commission or not; and (iii) the method of calculation used by the Commission in relation to the value added to Guyanese sugar in the context of a possible application of Article 37(7) of that annex.

(see paras 20, 42-43, 45, 49)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 51

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2003 (Case R 711/2002-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Alecansan, SL, and CompUSA Management Co.

Information relating to the case :

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

3. Orders the intervener to pay its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Decision 2003/245) (see paras 42-46, 49-53)

2. Fisheries – Common structural policy – Multiannual guidance programmes (Council Decision 97/413, Arts 4(2) and 9; Commission Decision 2003/245) (see paras 84-85, 87-89, 117)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), in so far as that decision rejects the request to increase the capacity of the vessel Atlantean .

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall in so far as it applies to the applicant’s vessel Atlantean ;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant;

3. Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 42-50, 57, 105-106)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Need to take account of the turnovers of the undertakings concerned and to ensure that fines are proportional to those turnovers – None – Need to take account of the small size or undiversified nature of the business of the undertaking concerned – None (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 83-85, 88, 93-95)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, point 3) (see paras 119-121,124-125)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Termination of the infringement after the Commission’s intervention – Conditions (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, point 3) (see paras 133-136)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION under Articles 229 EC and 230 EC for the reduction of the fine imposed on Gyproc by Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] against BPB plc, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV (Case No COMP/E‑1/37.152 – Plasterboard) (OJ 2005 L 166, p. 8)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Saint-Gobain Gyproc Belgium NV to pay the costs.
Case T-173/03

Anne Geddes

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Community trade mark – Word mark ‘NURSERYROOM’ – Absolute grounds for refusal – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 30 November 2004

Summary of the Judgment

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods or services – Sign appropriate to designate the intended purpose of the goods covered – Word mark ‘NURSERYROOM’

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

The word sign ‘NURSERYROOM’, registration of which is sought for goods in Classes 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28 of the Nice Agreement including books, stationery, cards, diaper bags, plates and cups, hats, booties, baby clothing, shoes, layettes, plush toys and mobiles, may, from the average anglophone consumer’s point of view, serve to designate, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the intended purpose of the goods covered by the trade mark application, and, by extension, the category of end users, namely babies and young children.

Admittedly, the immediate meaning of the sign in question designates a place in which that category of persons may be. However, that meaning must be analysed in relation to the goods covered in the trade mark application. In that perspective, the word sign in question is perfectly appropriate to designate goods capable of being used in a nursery and, therefore, for use by babies or young children. Since the goods in question are all capable of being intended, exclusively or potentially, for those users, the relevant public will easily establish a direct and specific link between the sign and the goods in question.

(see paras 23, 25)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2006 – Asociación de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid and Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission

(Case T-146/03)

State aid – Spanish law providing for measures in favour of the agricultural sector following an increase in fuel prices – Formal examination procedure under Article 88(2) EC – Decision finding that certain measures did not constitute aid – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Standing to bring proceedings – Duty to state reasons

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 88(2) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 40-47, 49, 51, 54-56)

2. Acts of the Community institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 78-79, 92)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/293/EC of 11 December 2002 on the measures implemented by Spain in the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices (OJ 2003 L 111, p. 24)

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/293/EC of 11 December 2002 on the measures implemented by Spain in the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices is annulled in so far that it finds that the measures to support agricultural cooperatives provided for by Royal Decree Law 10/2000 de medidas urgentes de apoyo a los sectores agrario, pesquero y del transporte (Decree Law on emergency support for agriculture, fisheries and transport) do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicants;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 25 October 2007 – Feralpi Siderurgica v Commission

(Case T-77/03)

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Producers of reinforcing bars – Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS – Decision based on the ECSC Treaty after expiry of that treaty – Lack of competence of the Commission

1. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of that treaty (Art. 65(1), (4) and (5) CS; Council Regulation No 17, Arts 3 and 15(2)) (see paras 55, 57, 72-73, 77)

2. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission’s competence under Article 65(4) and (5) CS to establish and penalise an infringement of Article 65(1) CS – Disappearance on expiry of the ECSC Treaty (Arts 65(1), (4) and (5) CS and 97 CS; Art. 305(1) EC; Merger Treaty) (see paras 89-92, 94, 96)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002, relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 – Reinforcing bars).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 – Reinforcing bars) with regard to Feralpi Siderurgica SpA;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Feralpi Siderurgica;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – Work done for another Member State or for an international organisation – Meaning of ‘work done for another State’ – Member of staff of a permanent representation of a Member State to the European Union – Included

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))

2. Community law – Interpretation – Principles – Independent interpretation – Limits – Reference in certain cases to the law of the Member States

Summary

1. The exception regarding the granting of expatriation allowance laid down in the final sentence of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in favour of an official who during a period of five years ending six months before entry into the service resided in the country in which he is employed where he was in the service of another State or of an international organisation was established in order to take account of the fact that, in those circumstances, an official cannot be deemed to have established a lasting tie with the country in which he is employed due to the temporary nature of the secondment in that country.

The term ‘State’ used in that provision relates only to the State as a legal person and unitary subject of international law and its government bodies. In that regard, it is therefore sufficient that a person works for a body which is part of the State, such as a permanent representation to the European Union, in order to fall fully within the exception laid down in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations regardless of the particular and specific functions carried out by that person within that body.

(see paras 28-29, 42)

2. It follows from the requirement for a uniform application of Community law and the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the Community; that interpretation must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant regulations. In the absence of an express reference, the application of Community law may sometimes necessitate a reference to the laws of the Member States where the Community court cannot identify in Community law or in the general principles of Community law criteria enabling it to define the meaning and scope of such a provision by way of independent interpretation.

(see para. 40)