ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

10 June 2004

Case T-258/01

Pierre Eveillard

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Disciplinary measures – Relegation in step – Articles 11 and 14 of the Staff Regulations – Contract for the security of the Commission’s buildings)

Full text in French II - 0000

Application: for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 June 2001 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 13 March 2001 whereby he contested the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 19 December 2000 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of relegation by two steps.

Held: The decision of 19 December 2000 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of reduction by two steps is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Action against the decision rejecting a complaint – Admissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials – Rights and obligations – Proposal from a category B official to engage staff assigned to administrative tasks under a buildings security contract – Widespread practice instigated by the hierarchy and not inherently fraudulent – Breach of obligations under the Staff Regulations – None

(Staff Regulations, Art. 11)

1. An official’s action formally directed against the express or implied rejection of a prior administrative complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations has the effect of bringing before the Court the act adversely affecting the official against which the complaint was submitted.

(see para. 30)

See: 293/87 Vainker v Parliament [1989] ECR 23, para. 8; T-33/91 Williams v Court of Auditors [1992] ECR II-2499, para. 23; T-36/94 Capitanio v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-449 and II-1279, para. 33

2. It is unreasonable to accuse an official in category B, whose duties, according to Article 5(1) of the Staff Regulations, are executive duties, and not administrative duties which correspond to those assigned to officials in category A, of failing to comply with his obligations under the Staff Regulations merely by virtue of having proposed to engage persons to carry out administrative tasks within the institution, in connection with the execution of a buildings security contract, when that practice had been organised by the various Commission departments, was widespread, had been instigated by the hierarchy of the institution and, although irregular, was not inherently fraudulent.

(see para. 47)
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 a product — Word sign ROBOTUNITS — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

Summary

The word sign ROBOTUNITS may serve, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, from the point of view of a specialised English-speaking public, to designate essential characteristics of the goods referred to, registration of which is sought in respect of goods in Classes 6, 7 and 9 of the Nice Agreement and including, in particular, components of machines or assembled machines which may operate automatically or be programmed.

There is a sufficiently direct and concrete connection between that sign and the goods covered by the application from the point of view of the target public given that the sign taken as a whole may serve to designate one of the possible intended purposes of all those goods. Furthermore, the fact that this sign includes the word " robot" must be regarded as designating one intended purpose of those goods which the target public is liable to take into account when making a choice and accordingly constitutes an essential characteristic thereof.

see paras 44, 48
Consequently, claims for annulment of that rejection brought by the official cannot be assessed in isolation from the claims relating to liability. The measure setting out the position adopted by the institution during the pre-litigation stage only has the effect of allowing the party who has suffered damage to apply to the Court for compensation.

The administration must ensure that staff reports are drawn up periodically on the dates laid down by the Staff Regulations and that they are drawn up in a proper form, both for reasons of sound administration and in order to safeguard the interests of officials. A delay in the drawing up of a staff report may in itself be prejudicial to the official for the simple reason that his career progress may be affected by the absence of such a report at a time when decisions concerning him must be taken. An official in possession of an irregular and incomplete personal file thereby suffers nonmaterial damage as a result of being put in an uncertain and anxious state of mind with regard to his professional future. In the absence of special circumstances justifying the delays found to have occurred, the administration commits an administrative fault giving rise to liability on its part.

However, an official cannot complain of the delay in drawing up his periodic report where the delay is attributable to him, at least in part, or where he contributed considerably to the delay.'

(see paras 71-73)

See: 156/79 and 51/80 Gratreau v Commission [1980] ECR 3943, para. 15; 173/82, 157/83 and 186/84 Castille v Commission [1986] ECR 497, para. 36; T-73/89 Barbi v Commission [1990] ECR II-619, para. 41; T-20/89 Moritz v Commission [1993] ECR II-1423, para. 50; T-59/96 Burban v Parliament [1997] ECRSC I-A-109 and II-331, paras 44 and 50; T-187/01 Mellone v Commission [2002] ECRSC I-A-81 and II-389, paras 77, 78 and 79
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the holder of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Complex mark containing an element descriptive of the goods covered – Target public’s perception of that element as such and not as an element enabling the commercial origin of the goods to be distinguished

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the holder of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word mark ‘CHUFAFIT’ and verbal and figurative marks containing the word ‘CHUFI’

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

1. In assessing the likelihood of confusion for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, account must be taken of the fact that the target public will not generally consider a descriptive element of the goods designated by a complex mark as the distinctive and dominant element of the overall impression conveyed by that mark enabling the commercial origin of the goods covered to be distinguished.

(see paras 51, 53)

2. For the Spanish public there is no likelihood of confusion between, on the one hand, the word sign CHUFAFIT, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘processed nuts’ and ‘fresh nuts’ in Classes 29 and 31 of the Nice Agreement, and, on the other hand, the word mark CHUFI and the figurative mark containing that verbal element registered earlier in Spain to designate a range of goods in the same classes of the Nice Agreement since, even if the goods covered by the competing signs are identical, the visual and phonetic differences between those signs are sufficient to rule out the existence of that likelihood, so that one of the conditions for the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 is not satisfied.

(see paras 54, 60)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law – Scope – Sport – Limitation to economic activities

(Art. 2 EC)

2. Freedom of movement of persons and services – Workers – Competition – Treaty provisions – Scope – Sporting activities – Limits – Anti-doping rules – Not included

(Arts 39 EC, 49 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC)

Summary

1. Having regard to the objectives of the Community, sport is subject to Community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 2 EC.

(see para. 37)

2. Where a sporting activity takes the form of paid employment or a provision of remunerated service, it falls within the scope of Article 39 EC et seq. or of Article 49 EC et seq. Therefore, the prohibitions laid down by those provisions of the Treaty apply to the rules adopted in the field of sport which concern the economic aspect which sporting activity can present. On the other hand, those prohibitions do not affect purely sporting rules, that is to say rules concerning questions of purely sporting interest and, as such, having nothing to do with economic activity. That restriction on the scope of the above provisions of the Treaty must however remain limited to its proper objective.

Those principles, extracted as regards the application to sporting regulations of the Treaty provisions in respect of the freedom of movement of persons and services, are equally valid as regards the Treaty provisions relating to competition. The fact that purely sporting rules may have nothing to do with economic activity, with the result that they do not fall within the scope of Articles 39 EC and 49 EC, means, also, that they have nothing to do with the economic relationships of competition, with the result that they also do not fall within the scope of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC.

Conversely, rules which, although adopted in the field of sport, are not purely sporting but concern the economic activity which sport may represent fall within the scope of the provisions both of Articles 39 EC and 49 EC and of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC and are capable, in an appropriate case, of constituting an infringement of the liberties guaranteed by those provisions.

Since the prohibition of doping is based on purely sporting considerations and therefore has nothing to do with any economic consideration, the rules to combat doping laid down by sports organisations do not come within the scope of the Treaty provisions on the economic freedoms and, in particular, of Articles 49 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC.

(see paras 39-42, 47)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law conferring rights on individuals – No discretion for institution – Mere infringement of Community law sufficient

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

2. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions

Summary

1. As regards the liability of the Community for damage caused to individuals, the conduct alleged against the institution must involve sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals. The decisive test for finding that a breach of Community law is sufficiently serious is whether the Community institution concerned has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion. Where the institution has only a considerably reduced or even no discretion, the mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach.

(see para. 87)

2. The right to claim the protection of legitimate expectations, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Community, extends to any individual in a situation where the Community authorities, by giving him precise assurances, have caused him to entertain legitimate expectations. Such assurances, in whatever form they are given, are precise, unconditional and consistent information from authorised and reliable sources. However, a person may not plead breach of that principle unless he has been given precise assurances by the administration.

It follows that an economic operator cannot plead such a principle by relying on verbal assurances, which the Commission denies having made and for which there is no evidence in the file.

Neither can he plead that principle when, in the absence of final agreement concerning conclusion of a contract with the Commission, the Commission asked him to produce various contract drafts, where that request forms an integral part of normal contractual negotiations and where the Commission did not encourage the operator concerned to exceed the risks inherent in its business activity.

(see paras 89, 92, 100)
Keywords



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

–

Word marks INTEA and INTESA (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34-35

)
Case T-292/02

Confederazione Nazionale dei Servizi (Confservizi)

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Actions for annulment — Association of undertakings — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition), 11 June 2009 II ‐ 1661

Summary of the Judgment

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts. 1(h) and 20)

Actions brought by associations are admissible in certain situations: where the association represents the interests of undertakings which themselves have locus standi; where the association is differentiated by reason of the impact on its own interests as an association, in particular because its position as a negotiator has been affected by the measure of which annulment is sought; and where a legal provision expressly confers on it a number of rights of a procedural nature.

As regards an action brought by an association of undertakings against a Commission decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market, concerning the first situation referred to above, the possibility of determining more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom a measure applies does not mean that that measure must be regarded as being of individual concern to them, as long as it is established that that application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question.

Concerning the second situation, the fact that the association participated at the administrative stage by virtue of Article 1(h) and Article 20 of Regulation No 659/1999, concerning the application of Article 88 EC, cannot lead to the conclusion that it was affected in its position as negotiator by the measure of which annulment is sought. Those provisions do not confer any special status on representative associations by comparison with that conferred on any other interested party.

With regard to the third situation, while Article 1(h) and Article 20 of Regulation No 659/1999 confer procedural rights on interested parties, the mere fact that an association was able to submit its comments in the procedure under Article 88(2) EC and may be regarded as being concerned cannot suffice to render its action admissible.

(see paras 52, 53, 58, 59)
Case T-392/02





Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV

v

Council of the European Union





«(Directive 70/524/EEC – Community authorisation of an additive in animal feedingstuffs, linked to the person responsible for putting it into circulation – Transitional rules – Withdrawal of the authorisation – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Conditions for withdrawal – Precautionary principle – Principles of equal treatment, legal certainty, sound administration and good faith)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 21 October 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Additives in feedingstuffs – Directive 70/524 – Regulation providing for the withdrawal of authorisation to market certain additives in feedingstuffs – Replacement of a temporary authorisation for an additive with a definitive authorisation – Simultaneous implementation of a procedure for the withdrawal of the additive – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 70/524, Arts 9h, 9m and 11)

2.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Implementation – Requirements relating to protection of public health, safety and the environment to be taken into account – Application of the precautionary principle

(Arts 3p EC, 6 EC, 152(1) EC, 153(1) and (2) EC and 174(1) and (2) EC)

3.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Additives in feedingstuffs – Scientific uncertainty as to the safety of a substance – Application of the precautionary principle – Scope – Limits



4.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Additives in feedingstuffs – Directive 70/524 – Re-evaluation of an additive – Duty of the Commission to inform the person responsible for putting the additive into circulation of the principal gaps in its dossier

(Council Directive 70/524, Art. 9m, fifth indent)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case T-16/02





Audi AG

v

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





«(Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive mark – Distinctive character acquired through use – Word mark TDI – Right to be heard – Scope of the duty to state reasons – Consequences of a breach of the duty to state reasons)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 3 December 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. 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 a product – Word mark TDI

(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 – Lack of distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition through use – Conditions

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3))

3.. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Challenged by adducing new facts – Condition of admissibility

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(2))

4.. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Compliance with defence rights – Scope of the principle

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73)

5.. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals against a decision of a department of the Office ruling at first instance and submitted to the Board of Appeal – Continuity in terms of functions between these two authorities – Duties falling on the Board of Appeal – Scope

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2))

6.. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Plea concerning the infringement of essential procedural requirements – Circumscribed powers of the Office – No interest in bringing proceedings

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

24 June 2004

Case T-190/02

Anita Jannice Österholm

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Absence treated as a period of annual leave – Time-limits – No legal interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility)

Full text in French II - 0000

Application: for annulment of the Commission’s decision to treat the applicant’s absence between 8 and 31 July 2000 as a period of annual leave.

Held: The action is dismissed as inadmissible. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Time-bar – Reopening of prescribed period by means of a request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations – Not permissible

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
Case T-216/02

Fieldturf Inc.

v

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

(Community trade mark – Word mark LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS... PLAYS LIKE GRASS – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) and Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Refusal to register)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 31 March 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Word mark ‘LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS... PLAYS LIKE GRASS’ – Goods and services inseparably linked

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

2. Community trade mark – Procedural requirements – Decisions of the Office – Respect for the rights of the defence

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73)

1. The word mark LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS... PLAYS LIKE GRASS, registration of which is sought in respect of synthetic surfaces and the installation services for that product, is devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 in that that mark is not such as to be perceived immediately as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or services in question, but as a mere promotional slogan.

In respect of the goods in question, the mark is merely the concatenation, which is commonplace, of three unambiguous statements concerning the properties of those goods which therefore directly informs the relevant public that those goods have qualities similar to those of natural grass. It cannot be ruled out that, with regard to the services in question, the mark applied for may be distinctive and so a solution which was common to the goods and services specified in the trade mark application shall apply since the application makes no distinction and in particular does not seek to be confined to the services alone should it be rejected in respect of the goods and above all since those goods and services are inseparably linked since the purpose of those services can only be the installation of those goods.

(see paras 30, 33, 35)

2. There is no breach of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, which provides that the decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) are to be based only on reasons on which the parties concerned have had an opportunity to present their comments, where a Board of Appeal of OHIM failed to inform a party of the results of an internet search which it carried out and referred to in its decision since the Board of Appeal arrived at its findings as a result of reasoning independent of the reference to that search and that reference was made only to confirm the accuracy of those findings.

(see paras 39-42)