ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 37-53)

2. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund –Grant of financial assistance for projects decided by the Commission before 1 January 1989 (Council Regulation No 4254/88, as amended by Regulation No 2083/93, Art. 12) (see paras 62-77)

3. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Decision to end financial assistance – Defence rights of aid beneficiary – Scope (Council Regulation No 4254/88, as amended by Regulation No 2083/93, Art. 12) (see paras 87-100)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision D(2002) 810111 of 13 March 2002, purporting to end financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the form of investment in infrastructure in Campania (Italy) relating to an integrated scheme of development of three Vesuvian towns for the purposes of tourism (ERDF No 86/05/04/054).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ente per le ville vesuviane to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Fines – Refunding of a sum overpaid with no decision taken as to the request for payment of default interest – Express refusal to pay interest on a subsequent request for this to be paid – Refusal based on the request being made out of time in the light of the earlier implied refusal and the requirements of legal certainty – Unlawful having regard to the circumstances of the case (see paras 56-57, 63-69)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decisions – Curing a defect in the statement of reasons during the proceedings before the Court – Not permissible (see para. 58)

3. Appeals – Judgment of the Court of Justice – Binding on the Court of First Instance – Scope (see paras 61-62)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision of 11 February 2002 by which the Commission refused to grant the applicant’s request for default interest to be paid to its subsidiary Irish Sugar plc on the principal sum repaid to the latter to comply with a judgment of the Court of First Instance.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 11 February 2002, by which the Commission refused to grant the applicant’s request for default interest to be paid to its subsidiary Irish Sugar plc on the principal sum repaid to the latter to comply with a judgment of the Court of First Instance;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice.
Case T-164/02

Kaul GmbH

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ARCOL – Earlier Community word mark CAPOL – Scope of the assessment conducted by the Board of Appeal – Assessment of evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 10 November 2004

Summary of the Judgment

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision of the Office’s Opposition Division – Assessment by the Board of Appeal – Scope

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74)

It follows from the continuity in terms of their functions between the departments of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) that, within the scope of application of Article 74(1) in fine of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, relating to relative grounds for refusal, the Board of Appeal is required to base its decision on all the matters of fact and of law which the party concerned introduced either in the proceedings before the department which heard the application at first instance or, subject only to Article 74(2), relating to facts or evidence not introduced in due time, in the appeal.

Thus, the continuity in terms of their functions between the various departments of the Office does not mean that a party which, before the department hearing the application at first instance, did not produce certain matters of fact or of law within the time-limits laid down before that department would not be entitled, under Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, to rely on those matters before the Board of Appeal. On the contrary, the continuity in terms of functions means that such a party is entitled to rely on those matters before the Board of Appeal, subject to compliance with Article 74(2) of that regulation before the Board.

(see para. 29)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 3 April 2008 – PKK v Council

(Case T-229/02)

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism – Freezing of funds – Action for annulment – Statement of reasons

1. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against an implemented or interrupted measure (Art. 233 EC) (see paras 48-51)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to freeze funds directed against certain persons and entities suspected of terrorist activities – Minimum requirements (Art. 253 EC; Council Common Position 2001/931, Art. 1(4) and (6); Council Regulation No 2580/2001) (see paras 62-64)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court – Not permissible (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 68-70)

Re:

ACTION for, first, annulment of Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/EC (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 26) and, second, damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/EC in so far as it concerns the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK);

2. Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, all the costs incurred by Osman Ocalan on behalf of the PKK before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice;
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 or services – Sign appropriate to designate the intended purpose of the goods covered – Word mark ‘NURSERYROOM’

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

Summary

The word sign ‘NURSERYROOM’, registration of which is sought for goods in Classes 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28 of the Nice Agreement including books, stationery, cards, diaper bags, plates and cups, hats, booties, baby clothing, shoes, layettes, plush toys and mobiles, may, from the average anglophone consumer’s point of view, serve to designate, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the intended purpose of the goods covered by the trade mark application, and, by extension, the category of end users, namely babies and young children.

Admittedly, the immediate meaning of the sign in question designates a place in which that category of persons may be. However, that meaning must be analysed in relation to the goods covered in the trade mark application. In that perspective, the word sign in question is perfectly appropriate to designate goods capable of being used in a nursery and, therefore, for use by babies or young children. Since the goods in question are all capable of being intended, exclusively or potentially, for those users, the relevant public will easily establish a direct and specific link between the sign and the goods in question.

(see paras 23, 25)
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 71

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 April 2003 (Case R 998/2001‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA, and Bodegas Muga, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings (see paras 33-36)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 2580/2001; Common Position of the Council 2001/931, Art. 1(4) and (6)) (see paras 53-55, 56-58)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court – Not permissible (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 65)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part, first, of Council Decision 2003/480/EC of 27 June 2003 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/974/EC (OJ 2003 L 160, p. 81), and, second, of Council Decision 2003/646/EC of 12 September 2003 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2003/480 (OJ 2003 L 229, p. 22).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2006/379/EC of 29 May 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/930/EC in so far as it concerns Stichting Al-Aqsa;

2. Declares that there is no need to rule on the claim for a declaration, pursuant to Article 241 EC, that Council Regulation No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 is unlawful;

3. Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Stichting Al-Aqsa;

4. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay its own costs.
Under Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) may disregard facts or evidence which are not submitted in due time by the parties concerned.

It follows that, as a general rule and unless otherwise specified, the submission of facts and evidence by the parties remains possible after the passing of the time-limits to which such submission is subject under the provisions of that regulation and that the Office is in no way prohibited from taking account of facts and evidence which are submitted or produced late. However, a party has no unconditional right to have such facts and evidence submitted out of time taken into consideration by the Office. In stating that the latter ‘may’, in such a case, decide to disregard those facts and that evidence, Article 74(2) of that regulation grants the Office a wide discretion to decide, while giving reasons for its decision in that regard, whether or not to take such information into account.

Where the Office is called upon to give judgment in the context of opposition proceedings, taking facts or evidence submitted out of time into account is particularly likely to be justified where the Office considers, first, that the material which has been produced late is, on the face of it, likely to be relevant to the outcome of the opposition brought before it and, second, that the stage of the proceedings at which that late submission takes place and the circumstances surrounding it do not argue against such matters being taken into account.

There is no need, in principle, to restrict the application of the abovementioned principles on the basis of the nature of the facts and evidence in question, since no such restriction is provided for in Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94. The nature of the facts and evidence at issue is, nevertheless, a factor which the Office may take into account when exercising the discretion granted to it under that provision.

(see paras 40-43)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of that treaty (Art. 65(1), (4) and (5) CS; Council Regulation No 17, Arts 3 and 15(2)) (see paras 55, 57, 72-73, 77)

2. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission’s competence under Article 65(4) and (5) CS to establish and penalise an infringement of Article 65(1) CS – Disappearance on expiry of the ECSC Treaty (Arts 65(1), (4) and (5) CS and 97 CS; Art. 305(1) EC; Merger Treaty) (see paras 89-92, 94, 96)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002, relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 – Reinforcing bars).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 – Reinforcing bars) with regard to Riva Acciaio SpA;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Riva Acciaio;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Actual and certain damage – Burden of proof (Art. 288 EC) (see para. 49)

2. Non-contractual liability – Damage – Compensation – Account taken of inflation – Compensatory interest – Rules for calculation (Art. 288 EC) (see paras 50-51)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2007 – Mülhens v OHIM – Conceria Toska (TOSKA)

(Case T-263/03)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark TOSKA – Earlier national word mark TOSCA – Relative grounds for refusal – Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1. 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 well known in a Member State (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 28)

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 paras 50-52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2003 (Case R 369/2002-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and Conceria Toska Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Conceria Toska Srl Community trade mark sought: Word mark TOSKA for goods in Class 18 – Application No 743427 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mühlens GmbH & Co. KG Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark TOSCA for perfumery products Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 − Albrecht and Others v Commission

(Case T-251/03)

Health policy – Veterinary medicinal products – Products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin – Commission decision ordering suspension of marketing authorisations – Competence

Approximation of laws – Veterinary medicinal products – Marketing authorisation (Art. 5, first para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/82, Art. 35; Council Directive 81/851, Art. 20) (see paras 81, 87, 89, 92)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1404 of 22 April 2003 ordering suspension of the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin intended to be administered by intramuscular and/or subcutaneous means to food-producing animals

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 1404 of 22 April 2003 ordering suspension of the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin intended to be administered by intramuscular and/or subcutaneous means to food-producing animals;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicants;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 March 2008 – European Service Network v Commission

(Case T-332/03)

Public service contracts – Community tendering procedure – Provision of services for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS) –- Rejection of a tender – Principles of equal treatment as between tenderers and transparency – Compliance with the award criteria set out in the tendering specifications

1. European Communities’ public procurement – Tendering procedure (see paras 122, 125-127, 130, 142, 145, 147-148)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders (see para. 213)

3. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see paras 229-231)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision to award the contract which is the subject of the Commission’s call for tenders ENTR/02/55 – CORDIS Lot 1 for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2007 – Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie v Commission

(Case T-375/03)

State aid – Measures to promote the use of insulating materials produced from renewable raw materials – Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market – Preliminary investigation procedure – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Meaning of ‘party concerned’ in Article 88(2) EC – Commission’s duty to initiate the inter partes procedure

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 46-52, 63)

2. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Interpretation by the court – Limits (see paras 65-66)

3. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point (Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 26(1)) (see paras 72-73)

4. State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary review and main review (Arts 87(3) EC and 88(2) and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4(5) and 5) (see paras 88-90, 117, 124)

5. State aid – Administrative procedure – Obligations of the Commission (Art. 88 EC) (see para. 90)

6. State aid – Not allowed – Exceptions – Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market – Environmental aid (Arts 6 EC, 87(3)(c) EC and 174(1) EC) (see paras 138-143, 148, 152)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1473 final of 9 July 2003 declaring the measures which the German authorities propose to take to promote the use of insulating materials produced from renewable raw materials compatible with the common market (State aid No 694/2002).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie eV Deutsche Gruppe der Eurima – European Insulation Manufacturers Association to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 – Banco Comercial dos Açores v Commission

(Case T-75/03)

State aid – Tax measures adopted by a regional or local authority – Reductions on the rate of income tax for natural and legal persons having their tax residence in the Azores – Decision declaring aid schemes incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of aid paid out – Actions for annulment – Individual concern – Admissibility – Definition of State aid – Selective nature – Adverse effect on competition – Effect on trade between Member States – Equal treatment – Legitimate expectations – Legal certainty

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme – Action by a recipient undertaking of individual aid granted under that scheme and having to be recovered – Admissibility (Art. 230, para. 4, EC) (see paras 38-47)

2. State aid – Concept – Selective nature of the measure – Tax measure adopted by an infra-State body – Rate of tax lower than national rate – Criteria for assessment (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 74-75)

3. State aid – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Criteria for assessment (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 86-87)

4. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial review – Limits (Art. 87(3) EC) (see para. 100)

5. State aid – Commission decision – Distinction between two sectors on the basis of evidence supplied by the Member State concerned – Breach of the principle of equal treatment – None (Art. 87(3)(a) EC) (see paras 111-116)

6. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Aid granted in breach of the rules of procedure laid down in Article 88(3) EC – Possible legitimate expectation on the part of the beneficiaries – Legal certainty – Protection – Conditions and limits (Art. 88(3) EC) (see paras 124-126)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the final part of Article 1, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2003/442/EC of 11 December 2002 on the part of the scheme adapting the national tax system to the specific characteristics of the Autonomous Region of the Azores which concerns reductions in the rates of income and corporation tax (OJ 2003 L 150, p. 52).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Banco Comercial dos Açores, SA to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the Commission of the European Communities;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Temporal application – Immediate application of a new procedural rule – Retrospective effect of a substantive rule – Conditions (Council Regulation No 3093/95; Commission Regulation No 3009/95) (see para. 53)

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import or export duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 905) (see paras 55-61)

3. Community law – Principles – Legal certainty – Community legislation (see para. 66)

4. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions (see paras 72-73)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision REM 06/02 of 7 April 2004 advising the German authorities that the applicant should not receive repayment of import duties on printers and printer cartridges from Singapore.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.