ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/8

Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Colgate-Palmolive Company v OHIM — dm-drogerie markt (360° SONIC ENERGY)

(Case T-467/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark 360° SONIC ENERGY - Earlier international word mark SONIC POWER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 31/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Company (New York, New York, United States of America) (represented by: M. Zintler and G. Schindler, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2011 (Case R 1094/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Colgate-Palmolive Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Colgate-Palmolive Company to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 319 of 29.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/8

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — Viejo Valle v OHIM Établissements Coquet (Cup and saucer with grooves and soup dish with grooves)

(Joined cases T-566/11 and T-567/11) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cup and saucer with grooves and a soup dish with grooves - Ground for invalidity - Unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State - Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

2013/C 359/13

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Viejo Valle, SA (L’Olleria, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Établissements Coquet (Saint-Léonard-de-Noblat, France) (represented by: C. Bouchenard, lawyer)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 July 2011 (Cases R 1054/2010-3 and R 1055/2010-3), relating to opposition proceedings between Établissements Coquet and Viejo Valle, SA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-566/11 and T-567/11 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders Viejo Valle, SA to bear its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of Établissements Coquets.

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/31

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Buzzi Unicem v Commission

(Case T-297/11) (1)

((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Principle of sound administration - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))

2014/C 135/37

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Buzzi Unicem SpA (Casale Monferrato, Italy) (represented by: C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Gencarelli, L. Malferrari and C. Hödlmayer, and subsequently by: L. Malferrari and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and M. Merola, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2356 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Buzzi Unicem SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/32

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Ezz and Others v Council

(Case T-256/11) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Egypt - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Obligation to state reasons - Error of fact - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business))

2014/C 102/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt); Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed (London, United Kingdom); Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (London); and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza) (represented: initially by M. Lester, Barrister, and J. Binns, Solicitor, and subsequently by J. Binns, J. Lewis QC, B. Kennelly, Barrister, and I. Burton, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Gurov, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, M. Konstantinidis and A. Bordes, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Ms Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Ms Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin and Ms Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/25

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2014 — Guangdong Kito Ceramics and Others v Council

(Case T-633/11) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Non-cooperation - Necessary information - Time-limits provided - Facts available - Article 18(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

2014/C 212/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Guangdong Kito Ceramics Co. Ltd (Foshan, China); Jingdezhen Kito Ceramic Co. Ltd (Jingdezhen, China); Jingdezhen Lehua Ceramic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd (Jingdezhen); Zhaoqing Lehua Ceramic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd (Sihui, China) (represented by: M. Sánchez Rydelski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and initially by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister, and subsequently by D. Geradin, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents); Cerame-Unie AISBL, (Brussels, Belgium); Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Azulejos y Pavimentos Cerámicos (ASCER) (Castellón de la Plana, Spain); Confindustria Ceramica (Sassuolo, Italy); Casalgrande Padana SpA (Casalgrande, Italy); and Etruria Design Srl (Modena, Italy) (represented by V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

4. Orders Cerame-Unie AISBL, Associación Española de Fabricantes de Azulejos y Pavimentos Cerámicos (ASCER), Confindustria Ceramica, Casalgrande Padana SpA and Etruria Design Srl to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/29

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Portovesme v Commission

(Case T-291/11) (1)

((State aid - Electricity - Preferential tariff - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - New aid - Equal treatment - Reasonable period))

2014/C 421/39

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Portovesme Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Ciulli, G. Dore, M. Liberati and A. Vinci, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, primarily, for the annulment in whole or in part ‘to the extent deemed reasonable’ 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) or, in the alternative, for annulment of that decision in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid in question.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Portovesme Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 388/9

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 — Ipatau v Council

(Case T-646/11) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on the entry into and transit through the European Union - Action for annulment - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment))

2014/C 388/09

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vadzim Ipatau (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2011 L 265, p. 17), in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 265, p. 8) in so far as it concerns the applicant, the Council decision of 14 November 2011 rejecting the applicant’s request to have his name removed from Council Decision 2011/69/CFSP of 31 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 40) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 of 31 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 17), and annulment of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 7), in so far they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Vadzim Ipatau to bear, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/32

Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2014 — Novartis v OHIM — Dr Organic (BIOCERT)

(Case T-605/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BIOCERT - Earlier national word mark BIOCEF - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 034/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dr Organic Ltd (Swansea, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2011 (Case R 1030/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Dr Organic Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 September 2011 (Case R 1030/2010-4).

2) Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council

(Case T-384/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Claim for damages)

(2015/C 016/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. (Ispahan, Iran) (represented by: A. Bahrami, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by A. Vitro and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, and subsequently by R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for (i) annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and (ii) compensation for damage.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls, in so far as they concern Safa Nicu Sepahan Co.: — point 19 of Part I.B of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran; — point 61 of Part I.B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay Safa Nicu Sepahan compensation of EUR 50 000 in respect of the non-material damage sustained by the latter;

3. Orders that the compensation to be paid to Safa Nicu Sepahan be paid with default interest, as from the delivery of the present judgment to full payment of that compensation, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

4. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

5. Orders the Council to bear its own costs relating to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief and to pay half the costs incurred by Safa Nicu Sepahan in both those proceedings; orders Safa Nicu Sepahan to bear half the costs it has incurred in the main proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/22

Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-538/11) (1)

((State aid - Public health - Aid granted to finance screening tests for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals - Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Adversely affecting act - Admissibility - Notion of advantage - Notion of selectivity))

(2015/C 155/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, assisted by L. Van den Hende, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by H. van Vliet and S. Thomas, and subsequently by H. van Vliet and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04)) (OJ 2011 L 274, p. 36).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-509/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Right to privacy - Proportionality)

(2015/C 073/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 199, p. 74), Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56) and Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Mohammad Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/39

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France-KLM v Commission

(Case T-62/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Air France-KLM (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Giolito, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and B. Lebrun, lawyer, and subsequently by C. Giolito and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón, M. Simm and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, or, at the very least, for annulment of Article 5(b) of that decision, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant, or for the reduction of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air France-KLM;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Air France-KLM;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/29

Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NANU)

(Case T-89/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark NANU - Earlier Community word mark NAMMU - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 279/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann and T. Boddien, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vincci Hoteles, SA (Alcobendas, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November 2010 (Case R 641/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Vincci Hoteles, SA and Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/24

Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2018 — Alouminion tis Ellados v Commission

(Case T-542/11 RENV) (1)

((State aid - Electricity - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Preferential electricity tariff granted by a contract entered into with the incumbent supplier - Termination of the contract by the incumbent supplier - Judicial suspension, by way of interim measures, of the effects of termination of the contract - Annulment of the Commission’s decision by the General Court - Judgment of the General Court set aside by the Court of Justice - Referral of the case back to the General Court - Scope of the action after being referred back - Classification of the order granting interim measures as constituting new aid - Competence of the Commission - Effective judicial protection - Classification of the preferential tariff as State aid - Advantage - Legitimate expectations - Rights of defence of the recipient - Obligation to recover - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 152/28)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, formerly Alouminion AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: G. Dellis, N. Korogiannakis, E. Chrysafis, D. Diakopoulos and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, C. Synodinos, A. Oikonomou and H. Tagaras, lawyers)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2012/339/EU of 13 July 2011 on State aid SA.26117 — C 2/2010 (ex NN 62/2009) implemented by Greece in favour of Aluminium of Greece SA (OJ 2012 L 166, p. 83).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI).

(1) OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.