ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Court of Justice – Court of First Instance – Unlimited jurisdiction – Exercise in the context of an action for annulment – Absence of an autonomous remedy with unlimited jurisdiction

(Arts 229 EC, 230, fifth para., EC and 231 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 17)

Summary

The Treaty does not recognise the ‘action under the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction’ as an autonomous remedy. Article 229 EC confines itself to providing that regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty may give the Community judicature unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the penalties provided for in those regulations.

On the basis of Article 229 EC, a number of regulations have given the Community judicature unlimited jurisdiction with regard to penalties. In particular, Article 17 of Regulation No 17 provides that ‘[t]he Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction within the meaning of Article [229 EC] to review decisions whereby the Commission has fixed a fine or periodic penalty payment’. The Court of First Instance has power to assess, in the context of the unlimited jurisdiction accorded to it by Article 229 EC and Article 17 of Regulation No 17, the appropriateness of the amounts of fines. In the context of its unlimited jurisdiction, the powers of the Community judicature are not limited to declaring the contested decision void, as provided in Article 231 EC, but allow it to vary the penalty imposed by that decision.

However, that unlimited jurisdiction can be exercised by the Community judicature only in the context of the review of acts of the Community institutions, more particularly in actions for annulment. The sole effect of Article 229 EC is to enlarge the extent of the powers the Community judicature has in the context of the action referred to in Article 230 EC. Consequently, an action in which the Community judicature is asked to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction with respect to a decision imposing a penalty necessarily comprises or includes a request for the annulment, in whole or in part, of that decision. Such an action must therefore be brought within the time-limit laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

(see paras 22-25)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product – Sign capable of bearing multiple meanings – Refusal to register where descriptiveness of at least one of the potential meanings exists

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the characteristics of a product – Word mark QUICK-GRIP

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1(c))

Summary

1. A sign must be refused registration under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods and services concerned (by the application for registration).

(see para. 32)

2. The word sign QUICK-GRIP, in respect of which registration was sought for goods falling within Class 8 of the Nice Agreement concerning hand tools and including clamps and the parts and fittings for such goods, is ineligible for registration as a Community trade mark. The link between that sign and the products referred to is sufficiently close for the sign to fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down by Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 in that the sign enables the relevant public, which is the average English-speaking consumer in the Community, to ascertain immediately and without further reflection that the goods concerned grip easily and speedily, and therefore the choice of the words ‘quick’ and ‘grip’ by no means requires a leap of imagination or arbitrary decision on the part of the consumer.

(see paras 27, 31, 33-34)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Decision finding a concentration compatible with the common market (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89, Arts 4(3) and 11(1)) (see paras 24-33, 43-63

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/271/EC of 11 June 2003 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2947 – Verbund/EnergieAllianz) (OJ 2004 L 92, p. 91).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and jointly and severally the costs incurred by the Commission and by the interveners Österreichische Elektrizitätswirtschafts-AG, EVN AG, Wien Energie GmbH, Energie AG Oberösterreich, Burgenländische Elektrizitätswirtschafts-AG and Linz AG für Energie, Telekommunikation, Verkehr und Kommunale Dienste;

3. Orders the intervener Ampere AG to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Intervention – Conditions of admissibility – Interest in the result of the case – Action relating to the annulment of a Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 81(1) EC – Action limited to annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant – Total immunity from fines of the applicant in intervention not called into question – No interest

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, second para., and 53, first para.)

Summary

The concept of an interest in the result of the case, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, must be defined in the light of the precise subject-matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law or arguments put forward. The expression ‘result’ is to be understood as meaning the operative part of the final judgment which the parties ask the Court to deliver. It is necessary, in particular, to ascertain whether the intervener is directly affected by the contested act and whether its interest in the result of the case is established. In that context, it is necessary to distinguish between prospective interveners establishing a direct interest in the ruling on the specific act whose annulment is sought and those who can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case by reason of similarities between their situation and that of one of the parties.

An undertaking which has participated in a cartel but which the Commission has granted total immunity for having been the first to provide decisive evidence in the investigation does not have a direct, existing interest in the case of an action for annulment brought by another participant in the cartel against the same Commission decision on the ground that the decision imposes a fine on that other participant for its participation and in which it claims to have been the first to cooperate. As the provisions of the decision granting total immunity to the applicant in intervention are not the subject-matter of the main proceedings, a judgment which annuls or varies the decision with regard to the applicant in the main proceedings would not affect the provisions of the decision concerning the applicant in intervention.

(see paras 14, 19, 22)
Joined Cases T-125/03 R and T-253/03 R





Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Interim measures – Competition – Commission's powers of investigation – Protection of confidentiality – Communications between lawyers and clients – Limits)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 30 October 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Procedure – Intervention – Interim measures – Interested persons – Application for suspension of operation of a Commission decision rejecting a request for protection of the confidentiality of documents copied during an investigation based on Article 14 of Regulation No 17 – Dispute relating to the protection of the confidentiality of correspondence with lawyers and in-house lawyers – Application to intervene by associations of lawyers and in-house lawyers – Admissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.)

2.. Interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Admissibility of the main action – Lack of relevance – Limits

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Article 104(1))

3.. Acts of the institutions – Decision – Validity – Decision to carry out an investigation based on Article 14 of Regulation No 17 – Circumstances of law and of fact concerning the conduct of the investigation procedure – Circumstances not affecting the validity of the decision

(Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14(3))

4.. Interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Prima facie harm to the rights of the defence during an investigation under Regulation No 17 – Notes drafted with a view to consulting a lawyer or correspondence with a salaried in-house lawyer

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14)

5.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission's powers of investigation – Refusal by the undertaking to produce correspondence with its lawyer, in reliance on its confidentiality – Commission's powers

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14)

6.. Interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable harm – Concept – Application for suspension of the operation of a Commission decision rejecting a request for protection of the confidentiality of documents copied during an investigation based on Article 14 of Regulation No 17

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

7.. Interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Concept – Application for suspension of the operation of a Commission decision rejecting a request for protection of the confidentiality of documents copied during an investigation based on Article 14 of Regulation No 17 – Balancing the applicants' interest in the non-disclosure of the information contained therein and the general interest of the Commission in observance of the competition rules

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute (Arts 225 EC, 230 EC, 238 EC and 249 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 21-24

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 24 January 2003 terminating the agreement between the Commission and the applicant on the setting up of an Info-Point Europe (IPE) in Avignon.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Maison de l’Europe Avignon Méditerranée to pay the costs.
Case T-217/03 R





Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV)

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Interim proceedings – Competition – Payment of fine – Bank guarantee – Prima facie case – Urgency – Balance of interests – Partial and conditional suspension)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 21 January 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Jurisdiction of the court hearing the application for interim measures – Conditions for allowing, in order to determine the ceiling to be complied with when setting the amount of a fine for infringement of the competition rules imposed on an association of undertakings, the turnover of its members to be taken into account – Not included

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

3.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Exemption from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for the fine not being recovered immediately – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances

(Art. 242 EC)

4.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Exemption from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for the fine not being recovered immediately – Conditions – Serious and irreparable damage – Association of undertakings – Taking into account the financial situation of its members – Condition – Merging of the objective interests of the association and those of its members

(Art. 242 EC)

5.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Exemption from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for the fine imposed for infringement of the competition rules not being recovered immediately – Balancing of all the interests involved

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

6.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Variation or cancellation – Condition – Change in circumstances – Meaning

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 108)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 18 September 2006 – Wirtschaftskammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool v Commission

(Case T-350/03)

Action for annulment – Competition – Decision declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market – Legal persons – Acts of individual concern to them – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision finding a concentration compatible with the common market (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89, Arts 4(3) and 11(1)) (see paras 24-33, 43-63)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/271/EC of 11 June 2003 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2947 – Verbund/EnergieAllianz) (OJ 2004 L 92, p. 91).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and jointly and severally the costs incurred by the Commission and by the interveners Österreichische Elektrizitätswirtschafts-AG, EVN AG, Wien Energie GmbH, Energie AG Oberösterreich, Burgenländische Elektrizitätswirtschafts-AG and Linz AG für Energie, Telekommunikation, Verkehr und Kommunale Dienste;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Serious and irreparable damage suffered by the applicant – Financial loss – Situation capable of jeopardising the existence of the applicant company or of irremediably altering its market position – Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the interim measure. It is for that party to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage of this kind. It is not necessary for the imminence of the damage to be demonstrated with absolute certainty, it being sufficient, especially when the occurrence of the damage depends on the concurrence of a series of factors, to show that damage is foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability. However, the applicant is required to prove the facts forming the basis of its claim that serious and irreparable damage is likely.

Moreover, in order to prove that the condition of urgency is met an applicant is required to show that suspension of the operation of a measure or other interim measures sought are necessary in order to protect his own interests. However, in order to establish urgency, an applicant cannot plead damage to an interest which is not personal to him, such as for example to an aspect of public interest or to the rights of third parties, be they individuals or a State. Such interests may be taken into consideration only when the Court comes to balance the interests at stake.

Lastly, although it is firmly established that damage of a pecuniary nature cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, be regarded as irreparable, or even as being reparable only with difficulty, if it can ultimately be the subject of financial compensation, it is also settled case-law that an interim measure is justified if it appears that, without that measure, the applicant would find itself in a position which could jeopardise its existence before final judgment in the main action or irremediably alter its position in the market.

An adverse effect on the rights of the persons considered to be the recipients of State aid which is incompatible with the common market forms an integral part of any Commission decision requiring the recovery of such aid and cannot be regarded as constituting in itself serious and irreparable damage, whether or not a specific assessment is made of the seriousness and irreparability of the precise prejudice alleged in each case considered.

(see paras 26-29, 33)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

Direct concern to the applicant, as a condition of the admissibility of an action for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, requires that the impugned Community measure must directly affect the applicant’s legal situation and leave no discretion to the addressees entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from Community rules without the application of other intermediate rules. This means that, where a Community measure is addressed to a Member State by an institution, if the action to be taken by the Member State to implement that measure is automatic or a foregone conclusion, it is of direct concern to any person affected by that action. If, on the other hand, the measure leaves it to the Member State whether or not to act, or does not require it to act in a definite way, it is the Member State’s action or inaction which directly concerns the person affected, and not the measure itself.

In that regard, Decision 2004/69 adopting, pursuant to Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats, the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region, which designates areas of Germany as sites of Community importance, affects neither the rights or obligations of the land owners nor the exercise of those rights since it imposes no obligation whatsoever on economic operators or private persons and contains no provision as regards the system of protection of sites of Community importance, such as conservation measures or authorisation procedures.

Likewise, the obligations arising from Directive 92/43, and particularly from Articles 4 and 6 thereof, which bind the Member States once sites of Community importance have been designated by the contested decision, are not directly applicable to those operators since they necessitate a measure on the part of the Member State concerned, in order to specify how it intends to implement them.

(see paras 45-47, 52)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Actionable measures (Art. 86(1) and (3) EC) (see paras 36-38

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 4 June 2004 [D (2004) 471] in so far as it rejects the applicant’s complaint that the Italian Republic had infringed the combined provisions of Articles 86 EC and 82 EC

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the intervener.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Time-limits

–

Point from which time starts to run

–

Date of publication

–

Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant

–

Subsidiary matter (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 21-22, 25-27, 34

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 936 final of 30 March 2004 in relation to the aid measures planned by the French authorities to finance the public rendering service (State aid N 515/2003 – France).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Syndicat national de l’industrie des viandes (SNIV) to bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 6 September 2006 – Hensotherm v OHIM – Hensel (HENSOTHERM)

(Case T-366/04)

Community trade mark – Cancellation proceedings – Community figurative and word mark HENSOTHERM – National word mark HENSOTHERM – Inadmissibility of the appeal against the decision conferring the cancellation – Time-limits – Restitutio in integrum

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Time-limit and form of appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 59; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 49) (see paras 32-33, 57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2004 (Case R 614/2003-1), concerning proceedings for invalidity of the Community figurative mark HENSOTHERM.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject to an action for cancellation: Figurative mark HENSOTHERM for goods in Classes 2 and 17 – Community trade mark No 357863 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Hensotherm AB Party bringing the action for cancellation: Rudolf Hensel GmbH Trade mark of the applicant for cancellation: National word mark HENSOTHERM (No 213672) for goods in Class 2 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Annulment of the Community trade mark Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the action





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;

Orders the applicant to pay its own costs as well as those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

14 May 2007

Case T-149/04

Imre Czigàny and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – 2001/2002 appraisal – Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

Application: for annulment, principally, of the 2001/2002 appraisal in relation to the applicants and, alternatively, the applicants’ career development reports for that period.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part and, for the rest, as manifestly devoid of any legal basis. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Reliance on the same arguments and presentation of the same or similar evidence as in other actions previously dismissed as inadmissible and unfounded – Action manifestly inadmissible and unfounded

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 111; Staff Regulations, Art. 43)