ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament

(Case T-668/11)

‛Non-contractual liability — Public service contracts — Community procurement procedure — Transport of Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during sessions at Strasbourg — Rejection of the bid of a tenderer — Annulment by the General Court of the rejection decision — Loss allegedly suffered following the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid — Action for damages’

1. Actions for damages — Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment — Limits — Misuse of procedure — Burden of proof (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 18)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Action for compensation for damage caused by an EU institution (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 28)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of the conditions not satisfied — Action dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 34, 35, 38)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Annulment for lack of reasoning of a decision of the European Parliament having rejected a tender under the procedure for awarding a public service contract — Reality of the unlawfulness and the causal link dependent on the examination of pleas having to be directed against the decision replacing the annulled decision (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 39, 40)

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the loss which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the Parliament’s decision of 24 January 2007 rejecting its tender submitted in the context of the tender procedure relating to transport for Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during part-sessions in Strasbourg (PE/2006/06/UTD/1), subsequently annulled by the judgment in Case T-89/07 VIP Car Solutions v Parliament [2009] ECR II-1403.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 December 2013 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm-drogerie markt (360o SONIC ENERGY)

(Case T‑467/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark 360° SONIC ENERGY — Earlier international word mark SONIC POWER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal — Consequences (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(1)) (see paras 16-18)

2. 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32, 68)

3. 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 marks 360o SONIC ENERGY and SONIC POWER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 67, 69, 70)

4. 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Analysis in relation to the perception of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35-38, 59)

5. 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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 75)

6. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 76)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2011 (Case R 1094/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Colgate-Palmolive Company.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
4.

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Obligation to communicate the reasoning to the person concerned at the same time as the measure adversely affecting him or immediately thereafter — Limits — Safety of the Union and the Member States or conduct of their international relations — Right of access to documents subject to a request in that behalf to the Council (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, Art. 24(3); Council Regulations No 423/2007, Art. 15(3), No 961/2010, Art. 36(3), and No 267/2012, Art. 46(3)) (see paras 62-64, 67, 68, 82, 83, 89)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission

(Case T‑380/11)

‛Application for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Tariff classification rules — Included — Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 289(1) to (3), TFEU; Commission Regulation No 447/2011) (see paras 27-32, 42-45)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2011 of 6 May 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 63).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
The institutions of the European Union enjoy a wide discretion in the implementation of measures to be taken for the protection of public health, particularly as regards the definition of the objectives to be pursued and choice of the appropriate means of action. That wide discretion implies a limited power of review on the part of the EU judicature, with the effect that review by the Courts as to the substance is limited to verifying whether the exercise by the institutions of their powers is vitiated by a manifest error of appraisal, whether there has been a misuse of powers, or whether the institutions have manifestly exceeded the limits of their discretion.

In order to establish that an institution committed a manifest error in assessing complex facts so as to justify the annulment of that act, the evidence adduced by the applicant must be sufficient to make the factual assessments used in the act implausible. Subject to that review of plausibility, it is not the Court’s role to substitute its assessment of complex facts for that made by the institution which adopted the decision. However, the limits to review by the Courts of the European Union do not affect their duty to establish whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent, whether that evidence contains all the information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation, and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it.

(see paras 30-33)
Respect for the rights of the defence constitutes a fundamental principle of EU law, and the right to be heard in any proceedings forms an integral part of it, which applies to any person.

More particularly, in the context of anti-dumping investigations, it has been held that respect for the rights of the defence and the right to be heard in those investigations was of crucial importance. Respect for those rights presupposes that the undertakings concerned should have been placed in a position during the administrative procedure in which they could effectively make known their views on the correctness and relevance of the facts and circumstances alleged and on the evidence presented by the Commission in support of its allegation concerning the existence of dumping and the resultant injury.

However, respect for those rights cannot require the EU institutions to adhere to the point of view of the undertakings concerned. In order for the undertakings’ submission of views to be effective it is necessary only that they have been submitted in good time so that the EU institutions may take cognisance of them and assess, with all the requisite attention, their relevance for the content of the measure being adopted.

(see paras 38, 40, 41, 43)
Case T‑480/11

Technion — Israel Institute of Technology

and

Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd

v

European Commission

‛Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents taken into consideration in the context of a financial audit on the performance of certain research contracts concluded during the course of the sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Overriding public interest’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 12 May 2015

EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Requirement that the institution should examine the documents specifically and individually — Scope — Exclusion of the obligation — Conditions (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4) EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the objectives of inspection, investigation and audit activities — Scope — Application after the closure of those activities (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2)) EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents — Concept — Individual interest of the applicant — Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 2(1), and 4(2)) EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents — Distinction from the principle of transparency (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2))
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 February 2012 —

Run2Day Franchise v OHIM — Runners Point (Run²)



(Case T‑64/11)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Run2 — Earlier Community word and figurative marks RUN2DAY — Earlier Benelux figurative mark RUN2DATE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 45-51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2010 (Case R 349/2010‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Run2Day Franchise BV and Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 November 2010 (Case R 349/2010‑1);
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 –

Sigma Alimentos Exterior v Commission

(Case T‑239/11)

(State aid — Corporate income tax provisions allowing companies domiciled in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from acquisitions of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Reference system — Derogation — Differential treatment — Justification of differential treatment)

1. Judicial proceedings — Examination of the substance before examination of admissibility — Lawfulness (see paras 26, 27)

2. State aid — Definition — Selective nature of the measure — Measure conferring a tax advantage — Reference framework for determining the existence of an advantage — Material scope — Criteria — Existence of a link between the subject-matter of the measure in question and that of the reference framework — Comparability of the situations covered by the measure in question and those covered by the reference framework (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 47, 48, 82-93)

3. State aid — Definition — Selective nature of the measure — Measure conferring a tax advantage — Measure of a general nature applicable without discrimination to all economic operators — Measure not applicable to operations comparable to those governing its granting — Measure that can be qualified as selective (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see para. 69)

4. State aid — Definition — Selective nature of the measure — Measure conferring a tax advantage — Reference framework for determining the existence of an advantage — Material scope — Measure constituting its own reference framework — Conditions — Clearly delineated tax regime with specific objectives — None — Systematic and general nature of the measure (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 113-117)

5. State aid — Definition — Selective nature of the measure — Derogation from the general tax system — Differentiation between undertakings in a comparable factual and legal situation — Criteria for assessment — Comparison with the objective pursued by the common tax system as a whole (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 128-134)

6. State aid — Definition — Selective nature of the measure — Derogation from the general tax system — Justification derived from the nature and general scheme of the system — Criteria for assessment — Measure aimed at achieving an objective within the mechanisms inherent in the general tax system — Whether appropriate (Art. 107(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999) (see paras 135-145, 157, 165, 166)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 135, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2012 — Bial Portela v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR)

(Case T-366/11)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ZEBEXIR — Earlier Community word mark ZEBINIX — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal before a Court of the European Union — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction issued to the Office — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 14)

2. 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 38)

3. 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 marks ZEBEXIR and ZEBINIX (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19, 37, 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009 1), concerning opposition proceedings between Bial-Portela & Ca, SA and Isdin, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bial-Portela & Ca, SA;
39

The operative part of the contested decision reads as follows: ‘Article 1 1. The measures financed through fees do not constitute aid. 2. For the period from 31 January 2001 to 31 December 2002 and for the period from 1 July 2004 to 31 December 2005, financing of BSE [screening] tests from State resources constitutes aid compatible with the internal market for farmers, slaughterhouses and other entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing. 3. For the period from 30 January 2003 to 40 June 2004, financing of BSE [screening] tests from State resources constitutes aid compatible with the internal market for farmers, slaughterhouses and other entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing for amounts of up to EUR 40 per test. Amounts in excess of EUR 40 per test are incompatible with the internal market and must be recovered, with the exception of aid granted to specific projects which, at the time the aid was granted, met all the conditions set in the applicable de minimis Regulation. 4. Belgium unlawfully implemented aid to finance BSE [screening] tests in breach of Article 108(3) of the TFEU during the period from 30 January 2001 to 30 June 2004. Article 2 1. Belgium shall take all necessary measures to recover the unlawful and incompatible aid referred to in Article 1(3) and (4) from its beneficiaries. … Article 3 Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1(3) and (4) shall be immediate and effective. Belgium shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within [four] months of the date of its notification. Article 4 1. Within [two] months of notification of this Decision, Belgium shall submit the following information to the Commission: (a) a list of beneficiaries who received the aid referred to in Article 1(3) and (4) and the total amount of aid received by each one; (b) the total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from the beneficiaries; … Article 5 This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.’
Case T‑110/12

(publication by extracts)

Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co.

v

Council of the European Union

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Time-limit for amendment of the form of order sought — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 6 September 2013

Judicial proceedings — Measures repealing and replacing the contested measure in the course of proceedings — Application to amend pleas for annulment formulated in the course of the proceedings — Time-limit for the submission of such an application — Point from which time starts to run — Date of communication of the new measure to the persons concerned (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1) and (2); Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, Art. 24(3); Council Regulation 267/2012, Annex IX)

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Identification of pleas by their substance and not by their formal classification

Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Plea distinct from that of the lawfulness of the contested decision (Art. 263, second para., TFEU)

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him to understand the scope of the measure taken in his regard — Admissibility of a summary statement of reasons (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP, Art. 1; Council Regulations No 1245/2011, Art. 1, and No 267/2012)

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Judicial review of the legality — Obligation to disclose incriminating evidence — Scope (Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP, Art. 1; Council Regulations No 1245/2011, Art. 1, and No 267/2012)
1.

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-29)
1.

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18-22, 49, 58, 59)