ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/13

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA

(Case T-638/11) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure of the EMA - Provision of software application support services - Rejection of a tender - Award criteria - Statement of reasons - Observance of the award criteria set out in the tendering specifications - Establishment of subheadings for the award criteria - Access to documents)

2013/C 352/24

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium); European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), and European Dynamics UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by V. Salvatore and subsequently by T. Jabłoński and C. Maignen, acting as Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamann and E. Arsenidou, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of, first, decision EMA/787935/2011 of the European Medicines Agency of 3 October 2011, by which the tender submitted by the applicants in tender procedure EMA/2011/05/DV was rejected and, second, annulment of decision EMA/882467/2011 of the acting Executive Director of the EMA of 9 November 2011, by which the applicants’ confirmatory application for access to the tender procedure documents relating to the composition of the evaluation committee was rejected.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls decision EMA/787935/2011 of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 3 October 2011, by which the tender submitted by European Dynamics Belgium SA; European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics UK Ltd in connection with tender procedure EMA/2011/05/DV was rejected;

2. Holds that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the pleas seeking annulment of decision EMA/882467/2011 of the acting Executive Director of the EMA of 9 November 2011, by which the applicants’ confirmatory application for access to the tender procedure documents relating to the composition of the evaluation committee was rejected;

3. Orders the EMA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/21

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA

(Case T-214/11) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Names of experts who submitted comments on a guidance document relating to the scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products and the active substances contained in those products on the market - Refusal of access - Exception concerning protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 313/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Re:

Application, initially, for annulment of the EFSA decision of 10 February 2011 refusing an application for access, under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), to certain working documents relating to a guidance document, prepared by EFSA, for the benefit of applicants for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market and, subsequently, for annulment of EFSA’s decision of 12 December 2011 withdrawing the earlier decision and granting the applicants access to all the information requested, except for the names of the external experts who made certain comments on the draft guidance document.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/8

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)

(Joined Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MAGNEXT and word mark MAGNEXT - Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 78/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Switzerland) [represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer (Case T-604/11) and T. Boddien, lawyer (Case T-292/12)]

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) and of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4) concerning two sets of opposition proceedings between Diset SA and Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders that Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

2. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) in Case T-604/11;

3. Dismisses the action in Case T-604/11 as to the remainder;

4. Dismisses the action in Case T-292/12;

5. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug in Case T-604/11;

6. Orders Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM in Case T-292/12.

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/19

Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2013 — JAS v Commission

(Case T-573/11) (1)

(Customs union - Imports of denim jeans - Fraud - Recovery a posteriori of the import duties - Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - Article 239 of the Customs Code - Application for remission of import duties - Particular case - Equity clause - Commission Decision)

2014/C 24/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JAS Jet Air Service France (JAS) (Mesnil-Amelot, France) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, L. Keppenne and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 5 August 2011 finding that the remission of import duties is not justified in a particular case (Case REM 01/2008).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Jet Air Services France (JAS) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/26

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2014 — Asos v OHIM — Maier (ASOS)

(Case T-647/11) (1)

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

2014/C 184/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Asos plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kavanagh, Solicitor, and A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Roger Maier (San Pietro di Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2011 (Case R 2215/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Roger Maier and Asos plc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses Mr Roger Maier’s application;

3. Orders Asos plc to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

4. Orders Mr Maier to bear his own costs.

(1) OJ C 58, 25. 2. 2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/31

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — HeidelbergCement v Commission

(Case T-302/11) (1)

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

2014/C 135/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, T. Holzmüller and P. Pichler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 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 HeidelbergCement AG to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/5

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-425/11) (1)

((State aid - Greek casinos - System providing for a levy of 80 % of the admissions of different amounts - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Concept of State aid - Advantage))

2014/C 380/06

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, H. van Vliet and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011, on State aid to certain Greek casinos C–16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. annuls Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011, on State aid to certain Greek casinos C–16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic;

2. orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/25

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-16/11) (1)

((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))

2014/C 282/32

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Ree, M. Noort, M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg, F. Wilman and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

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 2 8 9 47 149.31.

Operative part of the judgment

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;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/30

Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014 — Alouminion v Commission

(Case T-542/11) (1)

((State aid - Aluminium - Preferential electricity tariff granted by contract - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Termination of the contract - Judicial suspension, in interlocutory proceedings, of the effects of the termination of the contract - New aid))

2014/C 421/41

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Alouminion AE (Maroussi, Greece) (representanted by: G. Dellis, N. Korogiannakis, E. Chrysafis, D. Diakopoulos and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, É. Gippini Fournier, Agents, and by V. Chatzopoulos, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (representanted by: E. Bourtzalas, D. Waelbroeck, A. Oikonomou, E. Salaka and C. Synodinos, lawyers)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2012/339/EU of 13 July 2011 on the State aid No SA.26117 — C 2/10 (ex NN 62/09) implemented by Greece in favour of Aluminium of Greece SA (OJ 2012 L 166, p. 83).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2012/339/EU of 13 July 2011 on the State aid No SA.26117 — C 2/10 (ex NN 62/09) implemented by Greece in favour of Aluminium of Greece SA;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Alouminion AE;

3. Orders Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/42

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Xeda International v Commission

(Case T-269/11) (1)

((Plant protection products - Active substance ethoxyquin - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance - Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 - Accelerated assessment procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations))

(2015/C 046/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xeda International SA (Saint-Andiol, France) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/143/EU of 3 March 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC (OJ 2011 L 59, p. 71).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Xeda International SA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/25

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2014 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-661/11) (1)

((EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Milk products - Assigned revenue - Key controls - Lateness - Flat-rate financial correction - Legal basis - Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 - Recurrence))

(2015/C 026/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Aiello and P. Grasso, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2011/689/EC of 14 October 2011 on 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 2011 L 270, p. 33), in so far as it imposes on the Italian Republic a flat-rate financial correction of EUR 7 0 9 12 382 in respect of irregularities in controls concerning milk quotas, found in the Italian regions of Abruzzo, Lazio, Marche, Puglia, Sardinia, Calabria, Friuli Venezia Guilia and Valle d’Aosta, in the years 2004/2005, 2005/2006 and 2006/2007.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/13

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-3/11) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Deficiencies in the Land Parcel Identification System and the Geographic Information System (LPIS-GIS), performance of on-the-spot checks and in calculation of sanctions (financial years 2005 to 2007)))

(2015/C 262/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action 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), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24), in so far as it applied financial corrections on the Portuguese Republic totalling EUR 4 0 6 90 655,11 on account of ‘[w]eaknesses in LPIS-GIS [Land Parcel Identification System and Geographic Information System] system, performance of on-the-spot checks and in calculation of sanctions’ in the financial years 2005 to 2007.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/17

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2015 — Bial-Portela v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR)

(Case T-366/11 RENV) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZEBEXIR - Earlier Community word mark ZEBINIX - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 127/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bial-Portela & Ca, SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Bial-Portela & Ca, SA and Isdin, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

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 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bial-Portela & Ca, SA;

3. Orders Isdin, SA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/34

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission

(Case T-40/11) (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 048/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Latam Airlines Group SA, formerly Lan Airlines SA (Santiago, Chile); and Lan Cargo SA (Santiago) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, and O. Geiss, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and G. Koleva, and subsequently by G. Koleva and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz, Barrister)

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

Re:

Application 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 applicants, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

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 Latam Airlines Group SA, formerly Lan Airlines SA, and Lan Cargo SA;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo;

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

(1) OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.