ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2008 – Scippacercola and Terezakis v Commission

(Case T-306/05)

Competition – Abuse of dominant position – Allegation of excessive charges applied by the operator of Athens International Airport – Rejection of the complaint – No Community interest

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision closing a proceeding on a complaint for infringement of the competition rules (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 3(2)(b), and 1/2003, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 66-70)

2. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Determination of priorities by the Commission (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC, 85(1) EC and 253 EC; Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 3(2), and 1/2003, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 91-97, 129-130, 149, 174, 180, 191-192)

3. Actions for annulment – Action against a decision to take no action on a complaint in competition matters – Plea based on failure to take a position on one of the aspects of the complaint – Omission falling within the action for failure to act – Action devoid of purpose in relation to that plea (Arts 230 EC and 232 EC) (see para. 160)

4. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 3(2), and 1/2003, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 133-134, 148, 187, 189)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of the Commission’s decision of 2 May 2005 pursuant to Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 EC and 82 EC (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18), rejecting complaint No COMP/D3/38469 concerning the levy of certain charges by the operator of Athens International Airport at Spata and by Olympic Fuel Company.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 19 November 2008 – Greece v Commission

(Case T-404/05)

Cohesion Fund – Athens International Airport – Reduction of financial assistance – Principle of proportionality

1. Acts of the institutions – Temporal application – Immediate application of the new rule (see para. 77)

2. Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Reduction of financial assistance where essential obligations infringed – Lawfulness (see para. 89)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3243 final of 1 September 2005 reducing the financial assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/09/65/040 (new Athens International Airport at Spata) by Commission Decision C(96) 1356 final of 24 May 1996.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2009 – Austria v Commission

(Case T-368/05)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Cattle premium – Suckler cow premium – Payment for extensification – Key controls – Duty to use a computerised geographical information system – Control of Alpine forage areas – Duty to cooperate – Duty to state reasons – Type of financial correction applied – Extrapolation of the findings of default

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 71-72, 116-117)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation of Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks – Scope (Art. 10 EC; Council Regulations Nos 3508/92, Art. 8, and 1258/1999, Art. 8(1); Commission Regulation No 3887/92, Arts 6(1) and 9(2)) (see paras 78-88)

3. Member States – Obligations – Duty of loyal cooperation with the Community institutions – Reciprocity (Art. 10 EC; Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 128-131)

4. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Accounts clearance procedure – Conciliation procedure – Opinion of the conciliation body – No binding effect (see para. 141)

5. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 148-149)

6. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Financial correction – Assessment of the level of failure to act and the degree of risk for the Fund (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 181-184)

7. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of Community rules – Extrapolation of findings of deficiencies in the control system of a Member State from one region to other regions (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 199-201)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2005/555/EC of 15 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the ‘Guarantee’ Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2005 L 188, p. 36), inasmuch as it excluded certain expenditure by the Republic of Austria.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2009 – NHL Enterprises v OHIM – Glory & Pompea (LA KINGS)

(Case T-414/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark LA KINGS – Earlier national figurative mark KING – Relative ground for refusal – No 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 24, 35, 51, 57-58, 75-77)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2005 (Case R 371/2003-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Glory & Pompea, SA and NHL Enterprises BV.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: NHL Enterprises BV Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark LA KINGS for goods in Classes 16, 25 and 41 – Application No 1041102 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Manufacturas Antonio Gassol SA. The mark cited in the opposition was later assigned to Glory & Pompea, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark KING for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the goods applied for in Class 25 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

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 6 July 2005 (Case R 371/2003-4);
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the Community judicature (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 135(4)) (see para. 14)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b), (2) and (3)) (see paras 19-23, 32-40)

3. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Absence of distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 35-38)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2006 (Case R 0986/2004-4), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative mark representing the texture of a glass surface.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Glaverbel SA to pay the costs.
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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 61

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2005 (Case R 752/2004-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. and Antartica Srl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Antartica Srl to pay the costs.
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 84-86, 90, 92

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2006 (Case R 790/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Cabrera Sánchez and Industrias Cárnicas Valle, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;.

2. Orders Miguel Cabrera Sánchez to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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))

Summary

From the point of view of the average German-speaking consumer, the word mark VOM URSPRUNG HER VOLLKOMMEN, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages; mixtures of these drinks’ and ‘alcoholic beverages (except beers)’, falling within Classes 32 and 33 of the Nice Agreement, is descriptive of the products concerned for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

The slogan clearly refers to the purity and perfection of the ingredients of the drinks, and in particular to that of the water used. The purity and perfection of the ingredients are of particular significance for goods falling within Classes 32 and 33. With regard to mineral waters, the perfect state of the source water used is decisive in determining the quality of the drink, both as regards the taste and as regards health. So far as fruit juices, beers and other alcoholic drinks are concerned, the origin of their ingredients is also a factor of great significance in determining the quality of those products.

Thus, those words, alone or in combination, refer directly and clearly to the characteristics of the goods in question. It is reasonable to acknowledge that the purity and the original perfection of the ingredients of the drinks are characteristics which are taken into consideration by the consumer addressed when making his choice. From the viewpoint of the public addressed, there is therefore a sufficiently direct and concrete relationship between the word combination concerned and the goods falling within Classes 32 and 33.

(see paras 37-40)
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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 41-43)

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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 33)

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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5)) (see para. 38)

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 enjoying a reputation (see para. 39)

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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 40)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 825/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV, and Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
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 37-38, 44-45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1401/2005-1) concerning application for registration of the word sign GARUM as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1401/2005-1);

2. Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and the costs of Compagnie générale de diététique SAS.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Officials – Reimbursement of expenses – Seconded national experts – Daily subsistence allowance (Art. 141 EC) (see paras 28-31)

2. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations (see paras 41-43)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of the decision of the Commission of 30 January 2006 dismissing the applicant’s claim for adjustment, following her divorce, of the amount of the allowances payable under Article 17 of Commission Decision C(2002) 1559 of 30 April 2002 laying down the rules applicable to Seconded national experts, as amended.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Claudia Gualtieri to pay the costs.
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 37

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2006 (Case R 116/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Information Builders (Netherlands) BV and Tomorrow Focus AG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tomorrow Focus AG to pay the costs.
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 56

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2006 (Case R 235/2005‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Sara Lee/DE NV and Cooperativa italiana di ristorazione Soc. Coop. rl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sara Lee/DE NV to pay the costs.
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 69

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2006 (Case R 421/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Vinícola de Tomelloso, SCL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 64-71)

2. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Definition (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 82)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Plea alleging lack of or insufficient statement of reasons – Plea alleging inaccurate statement of reasons – Distinction (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 106-107)

Subject of the case

Re:

Operative part

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 11 August 2006 by which it informed the applicant that it had taken the decision to declare, as regards three contracts referred to in that letter, that there had been a serious breach of contract under Article 93(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Centre européen pour la statistique et le développement ASBL (CESD-Communautaire) to pay the costs.
In not prescribing a transitional period for the purpose of review of existing national authorisations, following an amendment of the entry for an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, the Commission infringes neither Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 nor Article 8(3)(a) of Regulation No 3600/92 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 and does not depart from its previous practice.

The retroactive application of a new, less strict, specification, introduced in amending the entry for an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, does not infringe the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations.

The principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication, save exceptionally where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected.

As regards the first condition, in providing that the amended specification for the active substance chlorothalonil, brought about by Directive 2006/76 amending Directive 91/414, is to have retroactive effect, the Commission intends to prevent the Member States from being required to apply, even if only very briefly, the stricter specification prescribed by Directive 2005/53. It is therefore clear that the purpose to be achieved demands that the Commission provide for retroactive application of the new, less strict, specification.

As regards the second condition, since the amended specification laid down has the effect solely of making the conditions upon which chlorothalonil is included less exacting, its retroactive effect, as such, is not capable of interfering with the legitimate expectations of the economic operators concerned. Inasmuch as an applicant is himself at the origin of an amendment which reduces the requirements for authorisation of his products, it cannot be contrary to the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations not to prescribe a transitional period in order to enable him to adapt to the new requirements.

(see paras 82, 86-88, 91, 99)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Presumption of innocence and defence rights – Procedures in competition matters – Applicability (Art. 6(2) EU; Art. 81(1) EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48) (see paras 23-24)

2. Competition – Community 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 – No obligation on the Commission to demonstrate the involvement of the parent company in the infringing conduct – (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 25-30)

3. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of dominant influence by the parent company over its wholly-owned or almost wholly-owned subsidiaries – Commission’s option to attribute to the parent company liability for the infringing conduct of its subsidiary (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 35)

Subject of the case

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, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Armando Álvarez, SA to pay the costs.