ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 — J v Parliament

(Case T-160/10)

‛Right of petition — Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to take no further action — Action for annulment — Duty to state reasons — Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union’

1. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Infringement of the duty to state reasons — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 17-18)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision by Committee on Petitions of the Parliament to take no further action (Arts 227 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 20-22, 26-28)

3. Acts of the institutions — Decision by Committee on Petitions of the Parliament to take no further action — Petition concerning alleged infringement, by a Member State, of the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Petition unrelated to the application of EU law — Whether decision to take no further action well founded (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 17 and 51) (see paras 30-32)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 2 March 2010 to take no further action in relation to the petition lodged by the applicant on 19 November 2009 (petition No 1673/2009).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr J to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 — J v Parliament

(Case T-160/10)

‛Right of petition — Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to take no further action — Action for annulment — Duty to state reasons — Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union’

1. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Infringement of the duty to state reasons — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 17-18)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision by Committee on Petitions of the Parliament to take no further action (Arts 227 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 20-22, 26-28)

3. Acts of the institutions — Decision by Committee on Petitions of the Parliament to take no further action — Petition concerning alleged infringement, by a Member State, of the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Petition unrelated to the application of EU law — Whether decision to take no further action well founded (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 17 and 51) (see paras 30-32)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 2 March 2010 to take no further action in relation to the petition lodged by the applicant on 19 November 2009 (petition No 1673/2009).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2012 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañia Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)

(Case T-357/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark CORONA — Earlier national word marks KARUNA and KARŪNA — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation 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 — Figurative mark CORONA — Word marks KARUNA and KARŪNA (see paras 23, 39, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2010 (Case R 696/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH and Compañia Nacional de Chocolates, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2012 — Commission v EU Research Projects

(Case T-220/10)

‛Arbitration clause — Contract concluded in the framework of the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on a ‘User-friendly information society’ — Withdrawal from the project — Reimbursement of part of the amount advanced by the Commission — Default interest — Procedure by default’

1. EU budget — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Financing covering only expenses actually incurred — No proof of the reality of the expenses declared — Ineligible expenses (Art. 317 TFEU) (see paras 28, 29)

2. Proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contract providing for Community financial assistance for a research and development project — Claim for repayment of certain costs — Reduction of the eligible costs — Commission’s right to repayment of the advance, plus default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 30-47)

Re:

ACTION under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the defendant reimburse part of the amount advanced by the Commission, together with default interest, under contract IST-2001-34850.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders EU Research Projects Ltd to repay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 102 039.32, plus accrued default interest calculated at the rate of 4.80% per annum from 29 December 2006 until the date of full payment of the amount due;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2012 — ELE.SI.A v Commission

(Case T-312/10)

‛Arbitration clause — Sixth multiannual framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) — Contract concerning the ‘I Way, Intelligent, co-operative system in cars for road safety’ project — Termination of the contract — Request for repayment of the financial contribution paid — Damages — Action seeking to obtain the full financial contribution requested and to challenge the request for repayment — Counterclaim’

1. Proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary statement of pleas — Plea not accompanied by any explanation enabling its merit to be assessed — Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 76)

2. EU budget — EU financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Contracts concluded under a specific research, technical development and demonstration programme — Procedure for verifying irregularities — Audit of accounting and management principles, jointly carried out by Commission staff and external consultants — No obligation to provide employees questioned with the assistance of an interpreter — Audit not falling within the scope of Regulation No 2185/96 (Council Regulation No 2185/96) (see paras 77-93)

3. Proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contracts concluded under a specific research, technical development and demonstration programme — Termination of a contract by reason of irregularities committed by the co-contractor — Claims for repayment of the financial contribution paid plus damages — Action seeking payment of the whole of the financial contribution sought and challenging the claim for repayment — Counterclaim — Finding of non-compliance with contractual obligations — Right of the Commission to repayment of the advance plus interest (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 103-123, 153-158)

Re:

APPLICATION seeking payment of the financial contribution to which the applicant considers that it is entitled under the terms of Contract No 27195, entered into on 13 December 2005 between the Commission and the applicant, relating to the research project entitled ‘I Way, Intelligent, co-operative system in cars for road safety’, and a counterclaim for repayment of a part of the financial contribution paid and for payment of damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action brought by Elettronica e sistemi per automazione (ELE.SI.A) SpA;

2. Orders ELE.SI.A to pay to the European Commission a sum of EUR 184 129.74, plus interest from 18 May 2010, together with a sum of EUR 7 344.46, plus interest from 18 June 2010;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 24, 25)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Determination of the normal value — Recourse to the constructed value — Production costs taken into account — Calculation of the costs on the basis of accounting registers — Costs affected by a distortion of the market — Adjustment — Lawfulness — Criteria (Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 2(3) and (5), and No 1225/2009, Art. 2(3) and (5)) (see paras 38-55)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Rules for calculation of the anti-dumping margin contained in the 1994 GATT Anti-dumping Agreement — Transposition into EU law by the basic anti-dumping regulation — Interpretation of Article 2(5) of that regulation in the light of that anti-dumping agreement (Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ‘1994 Anti-dumping Agreement 1994’, Art. 2.2.1.1; Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 2(5), and No 1225/2009, Art. 2(5)) (see paras 65-67, 70-72)

4. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Amplification of an existing plea — Lawfulness (see para. 92)

5. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Decision on determination of the normal value — Statement of reasons — Taking into account of information communicated to the undertakings concerned during the administrative procedure (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 2, and No 1225/2009, Art. 2) (see para. 100)

6. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Reexamination as a new exporter — Dumping margin — Determination of the normal value — Profit margin — Calculation of sales, administrative and other general expenses — Application of the method followed in the initial procedure (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 2(6)(c), and 11(9), and No 1225/2009, Arts 2(6)(c), and 11(9)) (see paras 111, 112, 115, 116, 121-123)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1251/2009 of 18 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, in Russia (OJ 2009 L 338, p. 5).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Acron OAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Fertilizers Europe;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2012 — Laboratoire Garnier v OHIM (natural beauty)

(Case T-559/10)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark natural beauty — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 — Figurative mark natural beauty (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19-23, 26-28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 971/2010-1) concerning registration of the figurative sign natural beauty as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community designs — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 62, first sentence, of Regulation No 6/2002 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62) (see paras 37, 38)

2. Community designs — Appeals procedure — Action against a decision by an OHIM body — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 60(1)) (see paras 43-47)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Condition of admissibility — Grounds of appeal directed only against decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61) (see para. 55)

4. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 100-104)

5. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 107, 111-113)

6. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Representation of a wristwatch case (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 110, 125, 137-139, 159)

7. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Intellectual property litigation — Recoverable costs — Costs necessarily incurred by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 136(2)) (see para. 164)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2009 (Case R 1285/2008-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Klockgrossisten i Norden AB and Bell & Ross BV.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bell & Ross BV to pay the costs, including those incurred by KIN AB in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Grebenshikova v OHIM — Volvo Trademark (SOLVO)

(Case T‑394/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark SOLVO — Earlier Community word mark VOLVO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16, 27)

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 mark SOLVO and word mark VOLVO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17-22, 38, 39)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Likelihood of visual differences being more important than phonetic similarities (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 30, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 861/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Ms Elena Grebenshikova.

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 9 June 2010 in Case R 861/2010-1;

2. Orders OHIM to pay, in addition to its own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by Ms Elena Grebenshikova;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality

(Arts 230 EC and 253 EC)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision on State aid

(Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC)

3. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules under Article 88 EC — Legitimate expectations entertained by the recipients — None save in exceptional circumstances

(Arts 87(1) EC and 88 EC)

4. State aid — Concept — Granting of an advantage to beneficiaries — Criteria for assessment — Non-application of criteria laid down in an earlier decision — Economic and legal changes since the adoption of the earlier decision

(Art. 87(1) EC)

5. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Calculation of the amount of aid to be recovered — Method indicated by the Commission

(Art. 88(2) EC)

6. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid eligible for the derogation provided for by Article 87(3)(c) EC — Operating aid — Not included

(Art. 87(3)(c) EC; Commission Notice 98/C 74/06)

7. EU law — Principles — Principle of sound administration — Duty of diligence — Administrative procedure

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 43, 46)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 47-55)

3. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 60, 61, 72)

4. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 81-84)

5. In the field of State aid, no provision of EU law requires the Commission, when ordering the recovery of aid declared incompatible with the common market, to fix the exact amount of the aid to be recovered. It is sufficient for the Commission’s decision to include information enabling the Member State to determine the amount, without too much difficulty. Those requirements are met where, without specifying the exact amount of the aid to be recovered, the decision sets out the method by which that amount should be calculated.

(see paras 88, 89)

6. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 92-98)

7. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 101)
With regard to the calculation of fines imposed for infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the objective sought by the establishment, in Article 23(2), of an upper limit of 10% of the turnover of each undertaking participating in an infringement is to avoid the imposition of a fine exceeding the capacity of an undertaking to make payment at the time when it is identified as responsible for the infringement and a financial penalty is imposed on it. Application of that ceiling presupposes, first, that the Commission has at its disposal the turnover figure for the last business year preceding the date of adoption of the decision and, second, that those data represent a full year of normal economic activity over a period of 12 months.

In that regard, where, in exceptional circumstances, the turnover for the business year preceding the adoption of the Commission’s decision imposing fines does not meet those criteria and thus does not provide any useful indication as to the real economic situation of the undertaking concerned, the Commission is obliged, for the purposes of calculating the upper limit of the fine, to refer to the last full business year corresponding to a full year of normal activity. The reference to a ‘full year of normal economic activity’ is intended to exclude from consideration a year in which the market conduct of the undertaking concerned did not correspond to that of an undertaking carrying on an economic activity on the usual terms. On the other hand, the mere fact that the turnover or the profits generated in a particular year are significantly lower, or higher, than in previous years does not mean that the year in question does not constitute a full year of normal economic activity.

Consequently, resumption of activity by a competitor and increase of the turnover are not exceptional circumstances of such a kind as to justify the Commission’s referring to an earlier business year. More particularly, it is not necessary for the turnover taken into consideration to reflect the real economic situation of the undertaking concerned during the period in which the infringement was committed.

(see paras 92, 94, 95, 97, 102, 104)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 – Cree v OHIM (TRUEWHITE)

(Case T-208/10)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark TRUEWHITE – Absolute grounds for refusal – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Descriptive mark

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 25, 31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2010 (Case R 985/2009‑2) concerning registration of the sign TRUEWHITE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 May 2011 – Flaco‑Geräte v OHIM – Delgado Sánchez (FLACO)

(Case T-74/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark FLACO – Earlier national word mark FLACO – Relative ground for refusal – Identical goods – Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Request for proof of genuine use of the earlier mark submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical earlier mark registered for identical goods and services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(a)) (see paras 37, 48)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical earlier 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 37, 57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 November 2009 (Case R 86/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Jesús Delgado Sánchez and Flaco Geräte GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Flaco-Geräte GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark FLACO for goods in Classes 7 to 9 and 11 – Application No 4108502 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Jesús Delgado Sánchez Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration of the mark FLACO for goods in Class 7 Decision of the Opposition Division: Application for Community trade mark dismissed in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;