ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Commission regulation setting two additional levy coefficients – Legal basis – Regulation No 1260/2001 – Not permissible (Council Regulation No 1260/2001, Art. 16(2) and (5); Commission Regulation No 1686/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1193/2009, Art. 2) (see paras 61-65)

2. Accession of new Member States to the Communities – Act of Accession 2003 – Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Transitional measures in the sugar sector – Commission regulation setting two additional levy coefficients – Legal basis – Article 41, first paragraph, Act of Accession – Lawfulness (Act of Accession 2003, Art. 41, first para.; Commission Regulations No 60/2004 and No 1686/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1193/2009, Art. 2) (see paras 70-72, 77-79)

3. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Commission regulation setting two additional levy coefficients – Legal basis – Duty to mention expressly in the statement of reasons for the measure – Scope – No express mention without the possibility of determination by recourse to other elements of the statement of reasons – Annulment of the provision concerned (Act of Accession 2003, Art. 41, first para.; Commission Regulation No 1686/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1193/2009, Art. 2) (see paras 80, 82-87, 90-93)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year, as amended by Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year, as amended by Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

EU competition rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries — Evidential obligations of a company seeking to rebut that presumption (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 26-31, 52-55, 65, 76)

2. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Participation in meetings of undertakings having an anti-competitive object — Circumstances from which, where the undertaking concerned has not distanced itself from the decisions adopted, it may be concluded that it participated in the ensuing cartel — Representative of an undertaking not informing the latter of the anti-competitive nature of the meetings — No effect (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 68-69)

3. Competition — Fines — Assessment by reference to the individual conduct of the undertaking — Irrelevant that another economic operator not penalised (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see para. 88)

4. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Undertaking transferred several times during the infringement — Succession of several parent companies — Imputation to each parent company of the same starting amount — Joint and several liability of the parent companies for a total amount exceeding the amount of the fine in imposed on the subsidiary — Lawfulness (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 99-102)

5. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria–Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking — Criteria for assessment (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 3, first indent) (see paras 124-127)

6. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Maximum amount — Calculation — Turnover to be taken into consideration — Cumulative turnover of all the companies constituting the economic unit acting as an undertaking — Limits (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 5) (see paras 135-138, 140)

7. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Deterrent effect — Deterrent effect on both the undertaking in breach and third parties — Possibility of fining an undertaking no longer active on the market concerned at the date of the decision (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 146-147)

8. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Non-imposition or reduction of the fine for cooperation of the undertaking concerned — Conditions — Parent company and subsidiaries — Individual assessment of the cooperation of those companies (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 96/C 207/04, Title D, Section 2) (see paras 163-166, 168-176)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Annulment of a Commission decision finding a breach of the competition rules – Effects in relation to addressees not having brought an action – None (Arts 81 EC, 230 EC and 249 EC) (see para. 20)

2. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – Pleas based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure – Entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon – New fact justifying the introduction of a complaint based on infringement of the presumption of innocence – Not included (Art. 6 TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see paras 27-30)

3. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries – Evidential obligations of a company seeking to rebut that presumption (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 66-71, 92)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Maximum amount – Calculation – Turnover to be taken into consideration – Cumulative turnover of all the companies constituting the economic unit acting as an undertaking – No obligation on the Commission to demonstrate lack of autonomy on the part of each of the subsidiaries of the group (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 106-115)

5. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Determination of the fine in proportion to the factors for assessment of the gravity of the infringement (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 128, 130-131)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and application for amendment of that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Groupe Gascogne SA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 March 2008 – Compagnie générale de diététique v OHIM (GARUM)

(Case T-341/06)

Community trade mark – Application for Community trade mark GARUM – Absolute ground for refusal – Relevant public – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 37-38, 44-45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1401/2005-1) concerning application for registration of the word sign GARUM as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Compagnie générale de diététique SAS Community trade mark sought: Word mark GARUM for goods in Class 29 – Application No 3501939 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





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 7 September 2006 (Case R 1401/2005-1);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 December 2007 – Ireland and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-50/06, T-56/06, T-60/06, T-62/06 and T-69/06)

State aid – Directive 92/81/EEC – Excise duty on mineral oils – Mineral oils used as fuel for the production of alumina – Exemption granted by the French, Irish and Italian authorities – New aid – Existing aid – Duty to state reasons – Finding of the Court of its own motion

State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Decision concerning an exemption from excise duty authorised by the Council on a proposal from the Commission in accordance with Directive 92/81 – No examination of possible classification as existing aid – Lack of reasoning (Arts 88(1) and (2) EC and 253 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1(b)(v); Council Directive 92/81, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 52-64)

Re:

ACTIONS for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 on the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne region, the Shannon region and Sardinia, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T‑50/06, T‑56/06, T‑60/06, T‑62/06 and T-69/06 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Annuls Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the action in Case T‑62/06;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

4 September 2008

Case T-413/06 P

Claudia Gualtieri

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Seconded national expert – Order for referral – Decision against which an appeal may be lodged – Inadmissibility)

Appeal: brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 October 2006 in Case F‑53/06 Gualtieri v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑107 and II‑A‑1‑399, and seeking annulment of that order.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Ms Claudia Gualtieri is to bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

Appeals – Purpose – Annulment of an order of the Civil Service Tribunal declining jurisdiction in favour of the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Arts 8(2) and 9, first and second paras)

An order by which the Civil Service Tribunal, considering itself not to have jurisdiction, refers an action to the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 8(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice does not constitute an act against which an appeal may be lodged, since the order does not satisfy the requirements laid down in the first and second paragraphs of Article 9 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, which state that any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions may bring an appeal against final decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal and decisions of the Tribunal disposing of the substantive issues in part only or disposing of a procedural issue concerning a plea of lack of jurisdiction or inadmissibility. Furthermore, such a referral is not such as to compromise the judicial protection of the parties before the Community judicature, which will, in any event, rule on all the issues raised by the action. Rather than leaving the steps to be taken after the declaration of lack of jurisdiction to the initiative of the parties, which will lodge an appeal if necessary, Article 8(2) provides for the case to be referred to the Community court regarded as having jurisdiction. Subsequently it is for the court to which the action has been referred to assess its own jurisdiction and, if appropriate, to refer the action back, in accordance with the special procedure for that purpose, to the court of first instance, which cannot then decline jurisdiction. That special mechanism settles questions relating to the division of jurisdiction between the courts making up the institution of the Court of Justice, although those questions may also, where appropriate, be the subject of an exchange of arguments between the parties before the Court of First Instance adjudicating following the referral.

(see paras 22-25, 27)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2008 – Mülhens v OHIM – Spa Monopole (MINERAL SPA)

(Case T-93/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark MINERAL SPA – Earlier national word mark SPA – Relative ground for refusal – Reputation – Unfair advantage taken of the repute of the earlier mark – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 41-43)

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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 33)

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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5)) (see para. 38)

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 enjoying a reputation (see para. 39)

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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 825/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV, and Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG Community trade mark sought: Word mark MINERAL SPA for goods in Class 3 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV Mark or sign cited in opposition: Several marks containing the word SPA, registered in Benelux for goods in Class 32 Decision of the Opposition Division: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
1.

Annuls the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2006 (R 353/2006-1, R 354/2006-1, R 355/2006‑1 and R 356/2006-1) in so far as registration of the marks applied for was refused in respect of goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 16, 20, 35, 39 and 42 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended to the exclusion of ‘loading pallets of metal’, ‘loading carriers and loading pallets of metal for packaging and transportation purposes’ and ‘metal transport pallets’, in Class 6; ‘goods pallets not of metal’, ‘loading pallets and loading carriers not of metal for packaging and transportation purposes’ and ‘transport pallets not of metal’, in Class 20; and ‘rental of loading pallets’ services, in Class 39;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – Boston Scientific v OHIM – Terumo (CAPIO)

(Case T-325/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark CAPIO – Earlier national word mark CAPIOX – Relative ground for refusal – Genuine use of the mark – Article 43(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 28-34)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 99-102)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2006 (Case R 61/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha and Boston Scientific Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Boston Scientific Ltd Community trade mark sought: Word mark CAPIO for goods in Class 10 – Application No 2554434 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark CAPIOX for goods in Class 10 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2008 – Torres v OHIM – Navisa Industrial Vinícola Española (MANSO DE VELASCO)

(Case T-259/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark MANSO DE VELASCO – Earlier national word mark VELASCO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 73)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 (Case R 865/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Navisa Industrial Vinícola Española, SA and Miguel Torres, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Miguel Torres, SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark MANSO DE VELASCO for goods in Class 33 — Application No 2261527 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Navisa Industrial Vinícola Española, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark VELASCO for goods in Class 33 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 – Bateaux mouches v OHIM – Castanet (BATEAUX MOUCHES)

(Case T-365/06)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Lack of distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) and Article 51(2) of Regulation No 40/94

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 20, 29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1172/2005-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Jean-Noël Castanet and Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA.

Information relating to the case

Community mark of which cancellation is sought: Word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES for services in Classes 39, 41 and 42 –Community mark No 1336122 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA Party applying for cancellation: Jean-Noël Castanet Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for cancellation dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Cancellation Division set aside





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 22 April 2009 – CESD‑Communautaire v Commission

(Case T-289/06)

Public procurement – Declaration of a serious breach of contract – Article 93(1)(f) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 – Action for annulment – Error of fact and law – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Misuse of powers – Manifest error of assessment – Statement of reasons – Rights of the defence

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 64-71)

2. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Definition (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 82)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope –Plea alleging lack of or insufficient statement of reasons – Plea alleging inaccurate statement of reasons – Distinction (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 106-107)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 11 August 2006 by which it informed the applicant that it had taken the decision to declare, as regards three contracts referred to in that letter, that there had been a serious breach of contract under Article 93(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Centre européen pour la statistique et le développement ASBL (CESD-Communautaire) to pay the costs.