ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/45

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2007 — Cabrera Sánchez v OHIM — Industrias Cárnicas Valle (el charcutero artesano)

(Case T-242/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark el charcutero artesano - Earlier national figurative mark El Charcutero - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Absence of similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 22/83)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Miguel Cabrera Sánchez (Móstoles, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Industrias Cárnicas Valle, SA (Madrid, Spain)

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.

Operative part of the judgment

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).

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/47

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — Commission v D

(Case T-262/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Annulment at first instance of the Commission's decision - Occupational disease - Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of the disease or of the worsening of the disease from which the applicant is suffering - Admissibility of the appeal - Admissibility of the plea in law examined at first instance - Force of res judicata)

(2008/C 209/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: D (represented by: J. Van Rossum, S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Axa Belgium (represented initially by C. Goossens, P. Meessen and S. Wilmet, then by C. Goossens and P. Meessen, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) in Case F-18/05 D v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-18/05 D v Commission;

2. Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/33

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2008 — Enercon v OHIM (E)

(Case T-329/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark E - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 171/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented initially by R. Böhm, and subsequently by R. Böhm and U. Sander, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2006 (Case R 394/2006-1) concerning the registration of the word mark E as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326 of 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/37

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — DC-Hadler Networks v Commission

(Case T-264/06) (1)

(Public supply contracts - TACIS programme - Decision to annul the call for tenders - Application for annulment - Duty to state reasons)

(2008/C 285/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: DC-Hadler Networks SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Muller, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially by E. Cujo and P. Kuijper, and subsequently by M. Wilderspin and E. Cujo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the Commission decision of 14 July 2006 to annul the tender procedure in respect of Europe Aid/122742/C/SUP/RU relating to the supply of IT and office equipment for the information network and of social integration and rehabilitation-related equipment for the disabled in the federal district of the Volga (Russian Federation).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission decision of 14 July 2006 annulling the tender procedure in respect of Europe Aid/122742/C/SUP/RU;

2. Orders the Commission and DC-Hadler Networks to pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/23

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Promat v OHIM — Puertas Proma (PROMAT)

(Case T-300/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark PROMAT - Earlier Community figurative mark PROMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 272/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Promat GmbH (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: J.Krenzel and S.Beckmann, lawyers).

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puertas Proma SAL (Villacañas, Spain).

Re:

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders Promat GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/29

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Bateaux Mouches v OHIM — Castanet (BATEAUX MOUCHES)

(Case T-365/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by: D. de Leusse, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Jean-Noël Castanet (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Sulzer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1172/2005-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Jean-Noël Castanet and the Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders the Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/22

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Lego Juris v OHIM — Mega Brands (Red Lego brick)

(Case T-270/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Red Lego brick - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Offers of evidence)

(2009/C 6/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and T. Dolde, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Mega Brands, Inc. (Montreal, Canada) (represented by: P. Cappuyns and C. De Meyer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2006 (Case R 856/2004-G) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mega Brands, Inc. and Lego Juris A/S.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lego Juris A/S to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/13

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 April 2009 — CESD-Communautaire v Commission

(Case T-289/06) (1)

(Public procurement - Declaration of a serious breach of contract - Article 93(1)(f) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Action for annulment - Error of fact and law - Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Misuse of powers - Manifest error of assessment - Statement of reasons - Right to a fair hearing)

2009/C 129/21

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre européen pour la statistique et le développement ASBL (CESD-Communautaire) (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and J.-F. Pasquier, acting as Agents)

Re:

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 of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders Centre européen pour la statistique et le développement ASBL (CESD-Communautaire) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/22

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 January 2009 — Kronoply v Commission

(Case T-162/06) (1)

(State aid - Regional aid for large investment projects - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Statement of reasons - Incentive effect of the aid - Necessity of the aid)

(2009/C 55/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligengrabe, Germany) (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: K. Gross and T. Scharf, and subsequently by V. Kreuschitz, K. Gross and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/262/EC of 21 September 2005 on State aid No C 5/2004 (ex N 609/2003) which Germany is planning to implement for Kronoply (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 50).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2006/334/EC of 28 April 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it excludes all of the expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic in the flax sector.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 193/17

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — ISD Polska and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-273/06 and T-297/06) (1)

(State aid - Scheme for restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Poland to a steel producer - Decision declaring the aid to be in part incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry - Actions for annulment - Right of action - Period within which proceedings must be brought - Admissibility - Legitimate expectations - Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Rate of interest to be applied to the repayment of incompatible aid - Duty to cooperate closely with the Member State - Compound interest rate - Articles 9(4) and 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004)

2009/C 193/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants in Case T-273/06: ISD Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw Poland) and Industrial Union of Donbass Corp. (Donetsk Ukraine) (represented: initially by C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, and subsequently by C. Rapin, E. Van den Haute and C. Pétermann, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-297/06: ISD Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly Majątek Hutniczy sp. z o.o.) (Warsaw) (represented: initially by C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, and subsequently by C. Rapin, E. Van den Haute and C. Pétermann, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C 20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Częstochowa S.A. (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 1) to the extent to which it declares some of that aid to be incompatible with the common market and orders the Republic of Poland to effect its recovery.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders ISD Polska sp. z o.o. and Industrial Union of Donbass Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/31

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA

(Case T-331/06) (1)

(Public service contracts - EEA tendering procedure - Provision of information technology consultancy services - Rejection of the tender - Action for annulment - Jurisdiction of the Court - Award criteria set out in the tender specifications - Sub-criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)

2010/C 234/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Environment Agency (EEA) (represented by: M. Hofstötter, Agent, and J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the EEA of 14 September 2006 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure EEA/IDS/06/002 relating to the provision of information technology consultancy services (OJ 2006 S 118-125101) and to award the public contract to other tenderers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/37

Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council

(Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Market economy treatment - Individual treatment - Sampling - Rights of the defence - Equal treatment - Injury - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2010/C 113/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co., Ltd (Yongjia, China) (Case T-407/06) and Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co., Ltd (Wenzhou, China) (Case T-408/06) (represented by: I. MacVay, Solicitor, R. Thompson QC, and K. Beal, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, actig as Agents); Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and subsequently by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers); BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas (Monte Urano, Italy) and the 16 other interveners listed in the Annex (represented by: G. Celona, P. Tabellini and C. Cavaliere, lawyers)

Re:

Applications for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co., Ltd and Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co., Ltd to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission, the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas and the 16 other interveners listed in the Annex to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/22

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Arkema France and Others v Commission

(Case T-217/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Actual impact on the market - Deterrent effect of the fine - Repeat infringement - Ne bis in idem principle - Principle of proportionality - Attenuating circumstances - Actual non-application of the agreements - Attribution of liability for payment within a group of companies - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2011/C 211/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Arkema France (Colombes, France), Altuglas International SA (Puteaux, France) and Altumax Europe SAS (Puteaux, France) (represented by: initially A. Winckler, S. Sorinas Jimeno and P. Geffriaud, subsequently S. Sorinas Jimeno and E. Jégou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Arbault and V. Bottka, subsequently V. Bottka and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Re:

By way of principal claim, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Reduces the fine for which Arkema SA (now Arkema France), Altuglas International SA and Altumax Europea SAS were held jointly and severally liable under Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) to EUR 113 343 750;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

(1) OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/19

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Legris Industries v Commission

(Case T-376/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement)

2011/C 145/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Legris Industries SA (Rennes, France) (represented initially by A. Wachsmann and C. Pommiès, and subsequently by A. Wachsmann and A. Carré, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Legris Industries SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/27

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2011 — France v Commission

(Case T-139/06) (1)

(Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that there has been failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Periodic penalty payment - Adoption, by the Member State, of certain measures - Request for payment - Competence of the Commission - Jurisdiction of the General Court)

2011/C 347/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially, E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and S. Gasri and subsequently, E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and B. Cabouat, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, K. Banks and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, T. Harris and C. Murrell, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 659 Final of 1 March 2006 seeking payment of the periodic penalty payments due pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-304/02 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-6263

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

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

3. orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/40

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Arkema France v Commission

(Case T-189/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Fines - Leniency Notice)

2011/C 269/87

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Arkema France SA (Colombes, France) (represented initially by A. Winckler, S. Sorinas Jimeno and P. Geffriaud, and subsequently by S. Sorinas Jimeno and E. Jégou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault and O. Beynet, and subsequently by V. Bottka, P.J. Van Nuffel and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Arkema France SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.