ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Competition — EU 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 — Holding company holding 100% of the capital of an interposed company holding all the capital of a group subsidiary — Evidential obligations of the company seeking to rebut that presumption (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 22-24, 26-40)

2. Competition — Fines — Assessment by reference to the individual conduct of the undertaking — Irrelevant that no sanction brought against another economic operator (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see para. 35)

3. 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 57-59, 63)

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 — Limits (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 5) (see paras 78-79)

5. 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 83-86, 88-96)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Commission v Internet Commerce Network and Dane-Elec Memory

(Case T-184/06)

Arbitration clause – Contract concluded in the framework of a special programme in the field of information society technologies (Crossmarc project) – Non-performance of the contract – Repayment of the advance paid by the Community – At-first-demand guarantee of the contractual obligations – Default procedure

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (see paras 25-29, 31-36)

Re:

ACTION, based on an arbitration clause, for an order that the defendants repay the amount of the advance paid by the Community, and interest for late payment, following the non-performance of Contract No 2000-25366 concluded in the framework of a special programme for research, technological development and demonstration in the field of information society technologies (IST) (1998-2002) concerning the Crossmarc project (Cross-lingual Multi Agent Retail Comparison).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Dane-Elec Memory to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the principal sum of EUR 55 878 with interest thereon:

– at the annual rate of 4.75% from 16 March 2004 to 31 December 2005;

– at the annual rate of 5% from 1 January to 31 December 2006;

– at the annual rate of 5.25% from 1 January 2007 until the debt is paid in full;

2. Decides that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim against Internet Commerce Network;

3. Orders Dane-Elec Memory to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission;
A Member State whose authorities have granted aid contrary to the procedural rules laid down in Article 88 EC may rely on the legitimate expectations of the recipient undertaking to challenge before the EU judicature the validity of a Commission decision instructing it to recover the aid, but not to justify a failure to comply with the obligation to take the steps necessary to implement it. However, in view of the fundamental role played by the notification obligation to render effective the review of State aid by the Commission, which is mandatory, the recipients of aid may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure provided for in Article 88 EC and a diligent business operator must normally be in a position to confirm that that procedure has been followed.

In those circumstances, a delay by the Commission in deciding that aid is unlawful and that it must be abolished and recovered by a Member State may, in certain circumstances, establish a legitimate expectation on the recipients’part so as to prevent the Commission from requiring that Member State to order the refund of that aid. However, in view of the requirements resulting from the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty, such an equivocal situation created by the wording of Council decisions, adopted on a proposal from the Commission, to authorise a Member State to introduce exemptions from or reductions in excise duty pursuant to Directive 92/81 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, precludes recovery of the aid granted on the basis of the exemption at issue only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure. By contrast, as of that publication, the aid beneficiary must know that, if the latter constitutes State aid, it has to be authorised by the Commission, in accordance with Article 88 EC. It follows that the publication of the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure puts an end to the legitimate expectations that the aid beneficiary might previously have that such an exemption was lawful. That publication eliminates any uncertainty, linked to the wording of the Council’s authorisation decisions, as to the fact that the measures in question, if they constitute State aid, have to be approved by the Commission in accordance with Article 88 EC.

Concerning, finally, exceptional circumstances on the basis of which the recipient of unlawful aid could legitimately assume such aid to be lawful, any apparent failure to act on the part of the Commission is irrelevant when an aid scheme had not been notified to it. Such a solution also applies where an aid scheme has been implemented without the prior notice of implementation required by the judgment in Case 120/73 Lorenz being given and thus without the procedure laid down by Article 88 EC being followed in full.

(see paras 43, 45, 54-56, 81, 84)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2008 – Stradivarius España v OHIM – Ricci (Stradivari 1715)

(Case T-340/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Stradivari 1715 – Earlier Community figurative Stradivarius trade marks – 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 51-57, 60-61)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1024/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Stradivarius España, SA and Cristina Ricci.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Cristina Ricci Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Stradivari 1715 for goods in Classes 14, 16 and 18 – Application No 2269256 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Stradivarius España, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark Stradivarius for goods in Classes 14, 16 (No 1246164) and 18 (No 506469) Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
APPLICATION to annul the Commission decision of 14 July 2006 to annul the tender procedure in respect of Europe Aid/122742/C/SUP/RU relating to the supply of IT and office equipment for the information network and of social integration and rehabilitation-related equipment for the disabled in the federal district of the Volga (Russian Federation).
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – Promat v OHIM – Puertas Proma (Promat)

(Case T-300/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community figurative mark PROMAT – Earlier Community figurative mark PROMA – 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 para. 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1058/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Puertas Proma SAL and Promat GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Promat GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark Promat relating to goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 6, 17, 19, 20 and 42 – Application No 803825 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Puertas Proma, SAL Mark or sign cited in opposition: In particular, figurative mark PROMA designating goods and services in Classes 6, 20 and 39 – Application No 239384. Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 5 November 2008 – Neoperl Servisys v OHIM (HONEYCOMB)

(Case T-256/06)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark HONEYCOMB – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 29-33, 39)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2006 (Case R 1388/2005-4) concerning an application to register the word mark HONEYCOMB as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Neoperl Servisys AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark HONEYCOMB for goods in Class 11 – Application No 2906139 Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused 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 23 September 2009 – Arcandor v OHIM – dm drogerie markt (S-HE)

(Case T-391/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark S-HE – Earlier national word mark SHE, earlier national and international figurative trade mark She – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Lack of similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-33, 55-68)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM No R 301/2006-1 of 26 September 2006 concerning opposition proceedings between Karstadt Quelle AG and dm drogerie market GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: dm drogerie markt GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark ‘S-HE’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 32, 38, 41 and 42 – Application No – 2766723 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Arcandor AG, formerly Karstadt Quelle AG Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘SHE’ for goods in Classes 3 and 25, German figurative mark ‘She’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 16, 18 and 25, and international figurative mark ‘She’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 16, 18 and 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2009 – Commission v Burie Onderzoek en Advies

(Case T-179/06)

Arbitration clause – Contracts concluded under the RACE II programme and a specific programme in the field of telematic applications of common interest – Repayment of part of the advances paid – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Partial inadmissibility – Principle of sound administration – Counterclaim

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 59-62, 100)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC seeking an order that Burie Onderzoek en Advies BV repay part of the advances paid by the European Community, together with default interest, in implementation of two financing contracts in the field of advanced communications technologies in Europe and of telematic applications.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses as inadmissible the action concerning the repayment of advances paid by the Commission under the Barbara (Broad Range of Community Based Telematics Applications in Rural Areas) contract with reference number ‘Project R 2022’ in so far as that action is directed against Burie Onderzoek en Advies BV, on the ground that it is clear that the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the action;

2. Orders Burie Onderzoek en Advies, under the Telepromise (Telematics to Provide for Missing Services) contract with reference number ‘Project UR 1028’, to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 109 535.62 plus default interest at the applicable statutory rate in the Netherlands from 31 August 2001 until full payment of the debt;

3. Dismisses the counterclaim of Burie Onderzoek en Advies;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 September 2011 – Poland v Commission

(Case T-4/06)

Agriculture – Act of Accession 2003 – Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 – Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 – Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 – 2004/2005 marketing year – Additional levy – Setting of two coefficients – Competence – Legal basis – Empowering measure – Duty to state reasons – Compliance with essential procedural requirements

1. 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)

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

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;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 – Fardem Packaging v Commission

(Case T-51/06)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Plastic industrial bags sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fines – Gravity of the infringement – Attenuating circumstances – Cooperation during the administrative procedure

1. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement – Undertakings that may be held responsible for participating in an overall cartel – Criteria – Commission not obliged, in its decision, to specify the infringement by undertaking and by country (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 42-45)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Market share of the undertaking concerned – Discretion of the Commission (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23; Commission Notice 97/C 372/03) (see paras 54-59)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Commission's margin of discretion – Raising of the general level of fines (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 67, 69)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Division of the undertakings concerned into different categories – Conditions – Respect for the principle of equal treatment – Observance of the principle of proportionality (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 77-78)

5. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Mitigating circumstances – Participation allegedly under constraint at meetings of undertakings having an anti-competitive purpose – No intention to restrict competition – Not relevant (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 95-100)

6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Non-imposition or reduction of the fine for cooperation of the undertaking concerned – Need for conduct which facilitated the Commission's finding of an infringement – Discretion of the Commission – Limits – Respect for the principle of equal treatment (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23; Commission Notice 96/C 207/04) (see paras 145-148)

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 for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
76

In accordance with Article 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), ‘[b]efore taking decisions as provided for in Articles 7, 8, 23 and Article 24(2), the Commission shall give the undertakings or associations of undertakings which are the subject of the proceedings conducted by the Commission the opportunity of being heard on the matters to which the Commission has taken objection’ and ‘[t]he Commission shall base its decisions only on objections on which the parties concerned have been able to comment’. Article 27(2) of that regulation states, moreover, that ‘[t]he rights of defence of the parties concerned shall be fully respected in the proceedings’, that ‘[t]hey shall be entitled to have access to the Commission’s file, subject to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets’ and that ‘[t]he right of access to the file shall not extend to confidential information and internal documents of the Commission or the competition authorities of the Member States’. In its notice on the rules for access to the file in cases pursuant to Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC], Articles 53, 54 and 57 of the EEA Agreement and Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (OJ 2005 C 325, p. 7), the Commission defines in paragraph 8 the ‘Commission file’ as ‘all documents, which have been obtained, produced and/or assembled by the Commission Directorate General for Competition, during the investigation’. In paragraph 27 of that notice, the Commission states that ‘[a]ccess to the file will be granted upon request and, normally, on a single occasion, following the notification of the Commission’s objections to the parties, in order to ensure the principle of equality of arms and to protect their rights of defence’, that, [a]s a general rule, therefore, no access will be granted to other parties’ replies to the Commission’s objections’, that ‘[a] party will, however, be granted access to documents received after notification of the objections at later stages of the administrative procedure, where such documents may constitute new evidence – whether of an incriminating or of an exculpatory nature –, pertaining to the allegations concerning that party in the Commission’s statement of objections’ and that ‘[t]his is particularly the case where the Commission intends to rely on new evidence’.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 27-29

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2007 (Case R 811/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of the mark Delivering the essentials of life as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Suez to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative ground 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 30, 33, 36-37, 40, 52)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 57-58)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2007 in Case R 768/2006-1 relating to opposition proceedings between Camper, SL and Calzaturificio Frau SpA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>14

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Calzaturificio Frau SpA to pay the costs.