ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)

30 September 2003

Case T-17/01

Georgios Rounis

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Articles 17(2) (a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer of part of remuneration in the currency of a Member State other than the country in which the institution has its seat — Conditions — Loss — Submissions on the question of damages’

Full text in French II-1079

Application for:

determination of the amount of the loss for which the Commission was ordered to compensate the applicant following annulment by the Court of First Instance of the Commission's decision of 24 February 2000 limiting transfer of the applicant's emoluments to the United Kingdom to 19% of his net monthly earnings.

Held:

The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant damages of GBP 17 394.64, with interest for late payment at the annual rate of 5.25% annually until payment. The remainder of the action for damages is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings which gave rise to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2002 in Case T-17/01 Rounis v Commission. In the present proceedings, the Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the applicant.

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Regular transfers outside the country of employment — Commitments proved to have been regularly undertaken in the country to which the transfer was made — Study costs of children of officials — Maximum amount which may be transferred

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 17(2) (b); Rules laying down the procedure for the transfer of part of an official's emoluments, Art. 2, second para., first indent)

The amount which may be transferred in respect of the study costs of children of officials is fixed at a flat rate of three times the amount of the allowance for a dependent child provided for in Article 2(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, plus the amount of the education allowance provided for in Article 3(1) of Annex VII actually received in respect of the child concerned.

In the absence of a specific provision also authorising the transfer, over and above the flat-rate amount, of travel expenses or of an amount corresponding to a maintenance payment for the child concerned, such commitments may not be the subject of a transfer and must be regarded as included in the flat-rate amount.

(see paras 27-29)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Rules — Lacuna — Solution

2. Fisheries — Common organisation of the markets — Compensation for producers of tuna intended for the processing industry — Allocation between producers ' organisations — Change of membership by producers — Effect on the allocation of the allowance — (Council Regulation No 3759/92, Art. 18(4) and (5))

3. Acts of the institutions — Adoption foreseeable by a prudent and circumspect operator — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Inapplicable — Reliance on that principle in order to require the repetition of a misinterpretation of an act — Inadmissible

Summary

1. When there is a lacuna in the rules on the common organisation of a market, a solution must be sought in the light of the aims and objectives of the common organisation of the market, taking account of considerations of a practical and administrative nature.

see para. 77

2. In order to determine the compensation, provided for by Article 18 of Council Regulation No 3759/92 on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products, as amended, due to a producers ' organisation for a given quarter in accordance with Article 18(4), it is necessary to allocate to it the average previous production of all producers who, in that quarter, are members of that producers ' organisation.

If it were held otherwise, unjustified and unfair distortions would arise for the real beneficiaries of the compensatory allowances, that is the producers, whose level of income which the allowances are intended to protect would be likely to be seriously affected by changes of membership of the producers ' organisations.

see paras 89-90

3. Any economic operator to whom an institution has given cause to entertain justified hopes may rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. On the other hand, if a prudent and circumspect economic operator could have foreseen the adoption of a Community measure likely to affect his interests, he cannot plead that principle if the measure is adopted.

Finally, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations cannot be relied on to justify, or to require the repetition of, a misinterpretation of an act.

see paras 100, 103
Case T-224/01





Durferrit GmbH

v

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





«(Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Earlier word mark TUFFTRIDE – Application for Community word mark NU-TRIDE – Risk of confusion – Risk of association – Trade marks contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality – Article 7(1)(f) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 9 April 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusing registration – Opposition by the holder of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Risk of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks TUFFTRIDE and NU-TRIDE

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

2.. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Scope – Relative grounds for refusing registration, not including absolute grounds put forward in third parties' observations

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7, 8, 41, 42 and 43; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 20(6))

3.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusing registration – Trade marks contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality – Scope – Applicant acting in bad faith – Not covered

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

1.

2.

3.
Case T-194/01





Unilever NV

v

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





«(Community trade mark – Three-dimensional mark – Shape of a product for dishwashers – Ovoid tablet – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 5 March 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community Courts – Application made at the hearing to restrict the list of goods and services contained in the trade-mark application refused – Interpreted as partial withdrawal – Alteration of the factual or legal context of the dispute heard by the Board of Appeal – Excluded

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 44; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 13)

2.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of a Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark – Ovoid tablet

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

1.

2.
Case T-208/01





Volkswagen AG

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Competition – Distribution of motor vehicles – Article 81(1) EC – Price agreement – Meaning of agreement – Proof of the existence of an agreement)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 3 December 2003

Summary of the Judgment
Case T-26/01





Fiocchi munizioni SpA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Articles 296 EC and 298 EC – State aid granted to an arms production undertaking – Complaint – Action for declaration of failure to act – Inadmissibility)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), 30 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. General and final provisions – Powers of the Member States to adopt measures intended to ensure national security – Production and trade in armaments – Distortion of competition on the market for products not intended for specifically military purposes – Specific procedural regime established by Article 298 EC – Powers of the Commission – Limits

(Arts 86(3) EC, 88 EC, 296(1)(b) EC and 298 EC)

2.. Actions for failure to act – Failure to act brought to an end before action brought – Inadmissible

(Arts 232 EC and 233, first para., EC)

1.

2.
Case T-282/01





Aslantrans AG

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Customs duties – Repayment of import duties – Shipment of cigarettes stolen during transport – Concept of special situation within the meaning of Article 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Compliance with the time-limit)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 12 February 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. European Communities' own resources – Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Submission of application for reimbursement to the Commission – Information supplied by the national authorities not sufficient – Request for additional information – Extension of time-limit applicable to the Commission's decision – Condition – Potential impact of that information on the decision – Commission required to assess all the relevant facts

(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 905(2), third subpara., and 907, second para.)

2.. European Communities' own resources – Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Fairness clause established by Article 905 of Regulation No 2454/93 – Scope – Commission's decision-making power – Procedures for exercising – Special situation – Concept – Theft of goods during transport – Not covered

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 905)

1.

2.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product — Quick — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

Summary

The word Quick, for which registration was sought for foodstuffs, pre-prepared dishes, coffee, tea, cocoa and artificial coffee in Classes 29 to 31 of the Nice Agreement, cannot constitute a Community trade mark.

The link between the word and the products concerned appears sufficiently close to be caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, inasmuch as the word " quick" immediately suggests to an English-speaking consumer in the Community that the products are ones which can be prepared and served quickly.

see paras 32, 35-36
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

30 September 2003

Case T-214/02

Marie-Angeles Martinez Valls

v

European Parliament

‛Community officials — Competition — Non-admission to oral tests — Access to documents’

Full text in French II-1117

Application for:

annulment of the letters of 3 April and 31 May 2002 by which the Selection Board found that the applicant had obtained insufficient marks in the written tests in competition PE/90/A and, with respect to the letter of 31 May 2002, by which the Selection Board rejected the applicant's request seeking access to certain documents and, second, for compensation for the loss suffered as a result of those letters.

Held:

That there is no need to rule on the application for annulment of the letter of 31 May 2002 in so far as it rejects the request for access to documents. The Parliament is ordered to pay the applicant EUR 1 by way of damages for nonmaterial damage. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Parliament is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the applicant. The applicant is ordered to bear one half of her own costs.

Summary
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional trade marks – Form of drinks packaging

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

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character, descriptive or customary marks – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use – Assessment criteria

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3))

Summary

1. A three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a clear bottle, filled with a yellow liquid, with a long neck in which a slice of lemon with a green skin has been plugged, for which registration is sought for beers, mineral and aerated waters and fruit juices within Class 32 of the Nice Agreement, and for restaurants, bars and snack bars within Class 42 of that agreement, is devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark where the mark consists of a combination of features, each of which is capable of being commonly used, in trade, for the presentation of the products and services referred to in the application for registration, and therefore lacks any distinctive character in relation to those products and services, and the manner in which those elements are combined is also not capable of giving the mark a distinctive character.

(see paras 30, 32, 35-36)

2. The acquisition of a distinctive character through use of the Community trade mark referred to in Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 requires, first, that at least a significant proportion of the relevant section of the public identifies products or services as originating from a particular undertaking because of the mark. However, the circumstances in which the condition as to the acquisition of a distinctive character through use may be regarded as satisfied cannot be shown to exist by reference to general, abstract data such as predetermined percentages.

Secondly, in order to have the registration of a mark accepted under Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, the distinctive character acquired in consequence of the use of that mark must be demonstrated in the substantial part of the Community where it was devoid of any such character under Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation.

Thirdly, in assessing, in a particular case, whether a mark has become distinctive through use, account must be taken of factors such as inter alia the market share held by the mark, how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the mark has been, and the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark. Appropriate evidence in that regard includes statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations and opinion polls.

Fourthly, a mark must have become distinctive through use before the application for registration was filed.

(see paras 42-45)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings – Challenge in reliance on new elements of law or fact – Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 63 and 74(1))

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 – Figurative marks NEGRA MODELO and Modelo

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

Summary

1. Under Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the examination is to be restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. It follows that, in relation to a relative ground for refusal of registration, elements of law and of fact which are pleaded before the Court without having previously been raised before the departments of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) cannot affect the legality of a decision of the Office’s Board of Appeal.

Consequently, in the context of the review of the legality of decisions of the Office’s Boards of Appeal, for which the Court has jurisdiction under Article 63 of Regulation No 40/94, those elements of fact and of law cannot be examined for the purpose of assessing the legality of the decision of the Board of Appeal and must therefore be declared inadmissible.

(see paras 22-23)

2. There is, for the average Portuguese consumer, a likelihood of confusion between the figurative sign representing a bottle of beer bearing various colours and including the verbal element ‘negra modelo’, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought in respect of ‘Beer’ within class 32 within the meaning of the Nice arrangement, and the figurative mark ‘Modelo’, previously registered in Portugal for ‘syrups, beers, refreshing drinks and non-alcoholic beverages’ in the same class, in so far as the aural and conceptual identity between the dominant component ‘modelo’ of the mark proposed for registration and the earlier mark neutralises the visual differences deriving from the graphic particularities of the mark proposed for registration, so that those differences do not serve to dispel a likelihood of confusion. The identity of the good designated by the conflicting signs merely reinforces the similarity between them.

(see paras 40, 43, 46)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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))

Summary

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)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicants, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission and by the interveners.
Case T-300/02

Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA (AMGA)

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Actions for annulment — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition), 11 June 2009 II ‐ 1739

Summary of the Judgment

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action brought by an undertaking which did not receive individual aid granted under the scheme

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Natural or legal persons other than the addressee may claim that a decision is of individual concern to them only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them, or by reason of factual circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons and thereby distinguish them individually in the same way as the person addressed.

An undertaking cannot, as a general rule, bring an action for the annulment of a Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme if it is concerned by that decision solely by virtue of the fact that it belongs to the sector in question and is a potential beneficiary of the scheme. Such a decision is, vis-à-vis such an undertaking, a measure of general application covering situations which are determined objectively and entails legal effects for a class of persons envisaged in a general and abstract manner.

However, an undertaking which is concerned by the decision at issue not only as an undertaking in the sector in question and a potential beneficiary of the aid scheme concerned but also as an actual recipient of individual aid granted under that scheme, recovery of which had been ordered by the Commission, is individually concerned by the decision and the action which it brings against it is admissible.

An undertaking which made only losses and did not therefore benefit from a three-year income tax exemption is not individually concerned by a Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme consisting in such an exemption. An action brought by such an undertaking against such a decision is inadmissible.

(see paras 46-48, 50)