ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 58 and 108 to 110)

Summary

A decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) which allows, in respect of all the services concerned, opposition brought against the registration of a Community trade mark and based on an earlier national mark and an earlier Community mark, does not in any way adversely affect a party to proceedings which led to a decision, for the purpose of Article 58 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, where the opposition was not allowed on the basis of both marks put forward as grounds of opposition, but only on the basis of the earlier national mark, the applicant for a Community trade mark thus still being able to apply for the conversion, in accordance with Article 108(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, of its application to an application for a national mark in the Member States with the exception of the Member State where, under the Opposition Division’s decision, grounds for refusal of registration apply to the trade mark application.

The aim of opposition proceedings is to give undertakings an opportunity to challenge, by means of one procedural system, applications for Community trade marks which might give rise to a likelihood of confusion with their earlier marks or rights, and not to settle pre-emptively potential conflicts at national or even Community level.

Furthermore, the conversion procedure provided for in Articles 108 to 110 of Regulation No 40/94 is merely optional for an applicant for a Community trade mark and the fact that an application for conversion may be transmitted to the national authorities concerned, in accordance with Article 109(3) of the regulation, does not mean that the trade mark application will automatically lead to registration. It is the task of the national authorities to examine any possible grounds for refusal of registration, the opponent being able, in principle, to assert his rights before those authorities.

Finally, although Article 108(2)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 provides, on grounds of consistency of decisions and procedural economy, that conversion is not to take place for the purpose of protection in a Member State in which, in accordance with the decision of the Office, grounds for refusal of registration apply to the Community trade mark application, that provision only requires the Office to comply with such a decision where one has already been made. However, there are no grounds for assuming that that provision also seeks to require the body adjudicating on an opposition to adjust its decision in order to prevent as far as possible the applicant for a Community trade mark from applying for its conversion.

(see paras 27-30, 37)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative requirements (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 47-49)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 51-52)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of Article 2, combined with Article 1(1), of Commission Decision C 11/2004 on State aid (ex NN 4/2003) – Olympiaki Aeroporia – Restructuring and privatisation, of 14 September 2005.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Actionable measures

–

Measures challengeable by a complainant against State aid (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC, 230, fourth para., EC, and 232, third para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4, 20, and 25) (see paras 28-33

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 2 December 2004, informing the applicant of the decision to take no further action on its complaint concerning State aid allegedly granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the Casino Mont Parnès public contract.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Athinaïki Techniki AE to pay all the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Legal basis of an action – Choice a matter for the applicant not the Community judicature (see para. 38)

2. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Inadmissibility (Arts 230 EC, 238 EC and 249 EC) (see paras 39-56)

3. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Reclassification of the action – Exclusion (Arts 230 EC and 238 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 57)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment, first, of the Commission’s decision of 16 May 2003 to terminate contract EDC-53007 EEBO/27873; secondly, of the Commission’s decision of 12 November 2004 to reimburse to the applicant an amount for the costs of labour not exceeding EUR 85 971; and thirdly, the Commission’s decision of 7 March 2005 to issue a debit note in the amount of EUR 59 485 in respect of the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.
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; Council Directive 92/43; Commission Decision 2004/813) (see paras 43, 46-54, 71, 74)

2. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC) (see para. 56)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 387, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay those of the Commission, including those relating to the application for interim measures.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2006 − Dimos Ano Liosion and Others v Commission

(Case T-85/05)

Inadmissibility – Persons not the addressees of Community measures – Direct concern

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 28)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 30)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision E(2004) 5522 of 21 December 2004 concerning the grant of financial assistance by the Cohesion Fund for the project entitled ‘Construction of Phase 1 of the second landfill site for waste in West Attica at “Skalistiri” in the municipality of Fyli’

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2006 – MMT v Commission

(Case T-392/05)

Action for annulment – Time-limit for bringing proceedings – Objection of inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point (Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 7 and 26(3)) (see paras 24-27)

2. Community law – Interpretation – Texts in several languages (see para. 30)

3. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Matter of public policy – Time-barred – Excusable error – Definition (see paras 36-37)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/595/EC of 5 March 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in connection with the sale and export of products from the Land of Mecklenburg‑Western Pomerania (OJ 2003 L 202, p. 15) to the extent that the decision classifies as unlawful State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC the financial assistance envisaged by the guidelines of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for shared offices on the territory of countries which are official candidates for accession to the European Union.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 19 September 2006 – Rodenbröker and Others v Commission

(Case T-117/05)

Action for annulment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Decision 2004/813/EC – List of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region – Persons directly and individually concerned – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 92/43; Commission Decision 2004/813) (see paras 43, 46-54, 71, 74)

2. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC) (see para. 56)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 387, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 February 2007 – Dikigorikos Syllogos Ioanninon v Parliament and Council

(Case T-449/05)

Action for annulment – Directive 2005/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council – Recognition of professional qualifications – Freedom of establishment – Lawyers – Not directly and individually concerned – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36) (see paras 58-85)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 2).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

Finds no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Conditions of admissibility

–

Admissibility of main application

–

Irrelevance

–

Limits (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 33, 54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the act of EFSA of 28 July 2006, updated on 6 October 2006, concerning the evaluation of the active substance haloxyfop-R for the purposes of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant-protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), and for the grant of other interim measures.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rejects the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative requirements (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 31-33)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions of grant – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 64-67, 69, 72, 80-81)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions of grant – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative requirements (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 84-86)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12), in so far as it relates to the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(Arts 230, fourth para., and 249, second para.,EC; Council Regulation No 2081/92, Art. 7; Commission Regulation No 1854/2005)

Summary

An annulment action by a honey producers’ association, established in Germany, against Regulation No 1854/2005 supplementing the Annex to Regulation No 2400/96 as regards the entry of a name in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ laid down in Regulation No 2081/92, in so far as it registers the name ‘Miel de Provence’ as a protected geographical indication, is inadmissible.

First, that regulation constitutes a measure of general application within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 249 EC, inasmuch as, by conferring on all undertakings whose products satisfy the prescribed geographical and qualitative requirements the right to market those products under that name, and denying that right to any whose products do not fulfil those conditions, which are identical for all undertakings, it applies to objectively determined situations and produces its legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged in the abstract.

Whilst it is not impossible for a provision which, by virtue of its nature and scope, is of a legislative character to be of individual concern to a natural or legal person where it affects that person by reason of certain attributes peculiar to him or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates him from all other persons and distinguishes him individually in the same way as the addressee of a decision, that is not so in the present case.

First, under the objection procedure established by Regulation No 2081/92, the procedural safeguards afforded to individuals fall exclusively within the scope of responsibility of the Member States and do not operate with respect to the Commission, with the result that that regulation does not establish specific procedural safeguards at Community level for individuals, and that the said association cannot therefore rely on those procedural safeguards.

Secondly, the fact that an act of general application may have specific effects which differ according to the various persons to whom it applies is not such as to differentiate them in relation to all other operators concerned where, as in the present case, that measure is applied on the basis of an objectively determined situation.

Thirdly, the fact that, at the time of adoption of a regulation relating to registration of a protected geographical indication, an applicant is in a situation in which it must adjust its production structure in order to fulfil the conditions laid down by that regulation is not sufficient for it to be individually concerned in a manner analogous to that of the addressee of a measure.

(see paras 39, 41-43, 47, 53-54, 57, 61-62)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Direct concern

–

Criteria (Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87, Arts 9(1) and (3), and 11(1)) (see paras 48, 56-58

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 426 final of 22 February 2006 concerning the proposed amendment to the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the United Kingdom in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230, first para., EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(2), 5 and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Art. 1, second para., and Annexes 1, 2 and 3) (see paras 25-29)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(5) and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Annex 1) (see paras 40-45)

Subject of the case

Re:

Partial annulment of Article 1 of, and Annex 1 to, Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Acebuchales de la Campiña sur de Cádiz’, which includes a farm belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Complejo Agrícola SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 249, second para., EC; Commission Regulation No 2171/2005)

Summary

An action for annulment brought by a company, which imports and distributes colour Liquid Crystal Display monitors, against Regulation No 2171/2005 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature is inadmissible since that regulation is to be seen as a measure of general application, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 249 EC, which applies to an objectively determined situation and produces legal effects with respect to persons envisaged generally and in the abstract, namely, importers of the product it describes.

The circumstances that the classification in the Combined Nomenclature was triggered by an application from the applicant for a binding tariff information (‘BTI’), that no other similar product was demonstrated to the Nomenclature Committee and that, on the basis of the demonstration of the operation of the product in question, a draft tariff classification regulation referring to the monitors concerned was circulated to the Member States cannot distinguish the applicant individually in such a way as to render the action admissible. It is only in wholly exceptional circumstances that an applicant can be held, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, to be individually concerned by a tariff classification regulation. Such circumstances do not arise either from the possibility of determining more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom a measure applies where it applies to them by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation which it defines or from the mere fact that the applicant is the sole authorised importer of the product concerned into the Community.

(see paras 47, 49-53)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14-17)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs – Public interest in the implementation of decisions adopted by Union institutions taking precedence over the personal interest of shareholders of the applicant company (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 20-21, 29-31)

3. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-23)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Exceptional circumstances – Taking into account of the financial situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs – Assessment on a case-by-case basis – Situation of overall economic control within a group – Effect (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 34-37, 40-41)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of being subsequently remedied by means of an action for compensation – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 340 TFEU) (see para. 46)

6. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Assessment of the seriousness of the loss by the court hearing the application for interim measures – No infringement of the right to an effective legal remedy – No infringement of the right to a fair trial (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 51-55)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12) in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-33, 60-61

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 1324/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Grandel GmbH and Matthias Rath.

Information relating to the case

>lt>16

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

2. Orders Matthias Rath to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Dr. Grandel GmbH.