ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 —Netherlands v Commission

(Case T‑16/11)

‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch — Rights of the defence’

1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Definitive refusal to accept responsibility for certain expenses — Need for prior inter partes procedure — Infringement of the rights of the defence (Council Regulations No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), and No 1290/2005, Art. 31; Commission Regulations No 1663/95, Art. 8, and No 885/2006, Art. 11) (see paras 69, 97, 100, 102)

2. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Elaboration of decisions — Written communication by the Commission to Member States of the results of its checks — Content — Conditions — Non-compliance — Effect (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), fifth para.; Commission Regulations No 1663/95, Art. 8(1), and No 885/2006, Art. 11) (see paras 70‑78, 91)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24) in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch for 2003 to 2008 in the total amount of EUR 28 947 149.31.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch for 2003 to 2008;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision on State aid — Judicial review (Arts 107(1) TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 32, 43-45, 48, 50, 51)

2. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality (Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 33, 36)

3. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of Article 108 TFEU — Legitimate expectations entertained by the recipients — None save in exceptional circumstances (Arts 107(1) TFEU and 108 TFEU) (see paras 58-62)

4. State aid — Concept — Granting of an advantage to beneficiaries — Criteria for assessment (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 66-71)

5. State aid — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Criteria for assessment (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 72-80)

6. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid benefiting from the derogation under Article 87(3)(c) TFEU — Operating aid — Not included (Art. 107(3)(c) TFEU; Commission Notice 98/C 74/06) (see paras 84-86)

7. EU law — Principles — Principle of sound administration — Duty of diligence — Administrative procedure (see para. 100)

Subject of the case

Re:

By way of principal claim, application for annulment, in so far as it concerns the applicant, of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05) (OJ 2011 L 309, p. 1) and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, the latter in so far as an order is made for restitution of the aid granted to the applicant and, in the further alternative, application for annulment of Article 3 of that same decision, again in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eurallumina SpA to pay the costs.
1.

Annuls Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP, and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, in so far as those acts concern Mr Tarif Akhras;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2012 —

Ewald v OHIM — Kin Cosmetics (Keen)



(Case T‑280/11)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Keen — Community figurative mark KIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2011 (Case R 1383/2010‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Kin Cosmetics, SA and Ms Rita Ewald.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
54

However, in the present case, it should be noted in that regard that OLAF set out in the letter of its Director General of 10 June 2011 the reasons why disclosure of the documents to which access was sought would harm the interest protected. Thus, in addition to the fact that documents 1 to 8 did in fact relate to the ongoing investigation, a number of documents revealed evidence gathered from various sources and disclosure could have alerted the persons or entities under investigation before all the evidence had been gathered. Similarly, those documents might also be used as evidence in proceedings before the national courts and their disclosure might compromise any effective use of those documents by those courts. Furthermore, documents 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 disclose OLAF’s strategy and the manner in which it conducted the investigation. Disclosure of those documents could provide information on its working methods in the present case and thus undermine the effectiveness of OLAF in the performance of its tasks. Documents 2, 4 and 5 all relate to information exchanged with the national authorities in the investigation under consideration and their disclosure could have an adverse effect on the climate of mutual trust essential to effective cooperation with the national authorities in the investigation. Moreover, disclosure of those documents would also reveal the investigation strategies, action taken and the interpretation of procedures. Finally, public disclosure of those documents, such as document 6 — a letter from an economic operator providing information to OLAF — would expose the informant and his anonymity would therefore no longer be protected, which would have the effect of discouraging individuals from providing information concerning possible cases of fraud and thereby deprive OLAF and the Commission of information that is of use for the purpose of undertaking investigations for the protection of the financial interests of the European Union.
44

According to the applicant, even though the Commission enjoys a broad ‘discretionary’ power under Article 107(1) TFEU, it is nevertheless required to conduct a careful and impartial examination of all the relevant information in a case. Thus, the Commission must carry out a proper analysis of the situation of the market, the position of the recipient and its competitors in that market and the patterns of trade between Member States, and ‘indicate the advantage conferred by the [aid] measure in [such] trade’ in the light of the facts and law existing when its decision was adopted. In the present case, the applicant claims that the Commission applied the law incorrectly to the facts and did not take into account that BPP had not pursued a trade activity corresponding to its ordinary corporate objects since 24 November 2008, or that the State guarantee was exclusively intended to provide funding to meet certain balance sheet liabilities predating the grant of the guarantee. Thus, the Commission failed to have regard to the fact that, as from that date, BPP was no longer in competition with other credit institutions, although by finding that BPP ‘could have entered or re-entered the market at short notice’, the Commission acknowledged that BPP was no longer trading on the market. Furthermore, the Commission did not take account of the fact that the purpose of the State guarantee was exclusively to provide funding to meet BPP’s liabilities as recorded in the balance sheet on 24 November 2008 and could only be used to reimburse depositors and other creditors. It could not to be used to trade on the market or cover liabilities of other subsidiaries of the holding company, either non-pecuniary liabilities or liabilities stemming from other trade activities or financial services provided, directly or indirectly, by BPP. Therefore, the grant of the guarantee did not enable BPP to carry on the normal business of a credit institution on the market, as an actual or potential competitor, nor did it confer an advantage on BPP which distorted competition in relation to other credit institutions or affected trade between Member States. Recital 72 in the preamble to the contested decision confirms that conclusion in so far as the Commission found that the liquidation of BPP demonstrated that there was no distortion of competition. …
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

7 March 2013

Case T‑39/12 P

Roberto Di Tullio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Leave for national service — Article 18, first paragraph, of the CEOS — Temporal effects of a judgment)

Appeal:

against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2011 in Case F‑119/10 Di Tullio v Commission [2011] ECR-SC, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Roberto Di Tullio is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings.

Summary

EU law—Principles—Protection of legitimate expectations—Conditions—Precise assurances given by the administration—Conformity of the assurances with the relevant rules Appeals—Grounds—Ground alleging failure to make a temporal adjustment to the effects of a judgment—Judgment dismissing an action for annulment—Ground of appeal unfounded (Art. 264 TFEU)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, A rt. 65) (see para. 11)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see paras 16-19)

3. 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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 29-31, 34, 43, 45)

4. 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 — Concept — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 32, 33)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark MEDIGYM (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 36, 49, 52, 53, 56, 57)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2011 (Case R 734/2011-4) concerning an international registration designating the European Community of the word sign MEDIGYM.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Elke Piotrowski to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Verus v OHIM — Performance Industries Manufacturing (VORTEX)

(Case T-104/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark VORTEX — Earlier Community word mark VORTEX — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right of priority — Article 29 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Partial surrender — Article 50 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Infringement of the right to be heard — Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1)) (see para. 33)

2. Community trade mark — Lodging of the application for a Community trade mark — Right of priority — Trade mark application accompanied by a claim for priority — Examination of the formal and substantive conditions by OHIM (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 29) (see paras 36-38)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks VORTEX (Council Regulation Noo207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 52-65)

4. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 69-72)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2011 (Case R 512/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Verus Eood and Performance Industries Manufacturing Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 24-26)

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 X and X (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 32, 51, 58, 60-62, 66)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Sign constituted by a single letter (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 38-43)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 54)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 68)

6. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Plea raised for the first time at the hearing — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2), first para.) (see para. 72)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2012 (Case R 1524/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Leineweber GmbH & Co. KG and Capitalizaciones Mercantiles Ltda.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Capitalizaciones Mercantiles Ltda to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 October 2013 —Cartoon Network v OHIM — Boomerang TV (BOOMERANG)

(Case T-285/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BOOMERANG — Earlier Community figurative mark BoomerangTV — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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 16, 41)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 19)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark BOOMERANG and figurative mark BoomerangTV (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 35, 40, 45, 59)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 55, 56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2012 (Case R 699/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Boomerang TV, SA and The Cartoon Network, Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T‑117/12)

‛Arbitration clause — Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration (2007‑2013) — Contracts concerning the Perform and Oasis projects — Suspension of payments — Irregularities found in audits relating to other projects — Late-payment interest’

Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the General Court defined by the arbitration clause — Jurisdiction in derogation from ordinary law — Restrictive interpretation — Application seeking verification of a party’s compliance with the conclusions of an audit report unconnected with the contract in question — Application outside the scope of application of the arbitration clause — General Court not having jurisdiction (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 59‑61)

Re:

ACTION founded on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, seeking, firstly, a declaration from the General Court that the suspension of reimbursement of the sums advanced by the applicant in performance of the contracts relating to the Perform and Oasis projects, which were concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration, contributing to the creation of a European Research and Innovation Area (2007‑2013), constitutes a breach by the Commission of its contractual obligations and, secondly, an order, on the one hand, that the Commission pay the applicant the sum of EUR 637 117.17 under the Perform project, together with interest for late payment and, on the other, that the applicant is not required to reimburse the sum of EUR 56 390 paid to it under the Oasis project.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders the European Commission to pay to ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias the sums of which the payment was suspended on the basis of the third indent of point II.5(3)(d) of the general conditions annexed to the grant agreements relating to the Oasis and Perform projects, concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (2007‑2013), without such payment prejudicing the eligibility of the expenses declared by ANKO Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias or the implementation of the findings of final audit report 11–INFS–0035 by the Commission. The amount of the sums to be paid shall be inside the limits of the balance of the financial aid available at the time of the suspension of the payments and those sums must be increased by late-payment interest which shall start to run, in respect of each period, on expiry of the 105-day time-limit for payment following receipt of the corresponding reports by the Commission. The interest rate applicable shall be that in force on the first day of the month in which the payment fell due, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union, Series C;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to bear a third of its own costs;