ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2008 – Muñiz v Commission

(Case T-144/05)

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to a meeting of the Working Group of the ‘Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature Section (Mechanical/Miscellaneous)’ of the Customs Code Committee – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process

European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents (Regulation of the European Parliament and Council No 1049/2001, Art. 2(1) and 4(3), first para.) (see paras 74-75, 82, 84-88, 90-94)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 February 2005 refusing to grant access to certain documents relating to the September 2004 meeting of the Working Group of the ‘Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature Section (Mechanical/Miscellaneous) ’ : of the Customs Code Committee.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 3 February 2005 inasmuch as it refused access to documents, ‘TAXUD/1369/2003’ relating to home cinema, ‘TAXUD/974/2004’ relating to vehicles for dual use, ‘TAXUD/1342/2003’, ‘TAXUD/2465/2004’ and ‘TAXUD/2495/2004’ relating to power supply units, ‘XXI/770/1998’ relating to incomplete ADP machines, and to the minutes of the September 2004 meeting of the Working Group of the ‘Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature Section (Mechanical/Miscellaneous)’ of the Customs Code Committee (document ‘TAXUD/3010/2004 – Annex V’);

2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2009 – Zuffa v OHIM (ULTIMATE FIGHTING)

(Case T-379/05)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark ULTIMATE FIGHTING – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Duty to state reasons – Articles 7(1)(b) and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 15-17)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 August 2005 (Case R 24/2005-1) concerning registration of the word sign ULTIMATE FIGHTING as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Zuffa, LLC Community trade mark sought: Word mark ULTIMATE FIGHTING for goods and services in respect of Classes 9, 16, 25, 28 and 41 – Application No 2766590 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 August 2005 (Case R 24/2005-1);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – Greece v Commission

(Case T-344/05)

EAGGF – Guaranteee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Beef – Extensification payment – Arable crops – Fruit and vegetables – Aid for processing of citrus fruit – Conditions for application of 100% flat-rate financial correction – Proportionality

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks – Scope – Unreliable controls – Disallowance by the Fund (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 74-75, 269-270)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 76-77, 313)

3. Acts of the institutions – Rules of administrative conduct of general scope – Measure designed to produce external effects – Scope (see para. 192)

4. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 251-252)

5. European Union law – Principles – Proportionality – Scope – Discretion of the EU legislature in the area of the common agricultural policy – Judicial review – Limits (Arts 40 TFEU and 43 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 1169/97, Art. 20(5), first para.) (see paras 289-295)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2055/555/EC of 15 July 2005, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2005 L 188, p. 36), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the beef, arable crops and fruit and vegetables sectors.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2055/555/EC of 15 July 2005, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in respect of extensification payments made for the years 2000 and 2001;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the European Commission;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (see paras 25-29, 31-36

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION, based on an arbitration clause, for an order that the defendants repay the amount of the advance paid by the Community, and interest for late payment, following the non-performance of Contract No 2000-25366 concluded in the framework of a special programme for research, technological development and demonstration in the field of information society technologies (IST) (1998-2002) concerning the Crossmarc project (Cross-lingual Multi Agent Retail Comparison).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Dane-Elec Memory to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the principal sum of EUR 55 878 with interest thereon:

– at the annual rate of 4.75% from 16 March 2004 to 31 December 2005;

– at the annual rate of 5% from 1 January to 31 December 2006;

– at the annual rate of 5.25% from 1 January 2007 until the debt is paid in full;

2. Decides that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim against Internet Commerce Network;

3. Orders Dane-Elec Memory to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission;

4. Orders Internet Commerce Network to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid

–

Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market

–

Decision concerning an exemption from excise duty authorised by the Council on a proposal from the Commission in accordance with Directive 92/81

–

No examination of possible classification as existing aid

–

Lack of reasoning (Arts 88(1) and (2) EC and 253 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1(b)(v); Council Directive 92/81, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 52-64

)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T‑50/06, T‑56/06, T‑60/06, T‑62/06 and T-69/06 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Annuls 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;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the action in Case T‑62/06;

4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicants, including the costs of the interim proceedings in Case T‑69/06 R.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 40, 45, 48, 51, 54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2006 (Case R 1266/2005‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark RadioCom as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden Geschäftsführungs-GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 34-45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTIONS brought against four decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 September 2006 (R 353/2006‑1, R 354/2006‑1, R 355/2006‑1 and R 356/2006‑1) concerning applications for the registration of four figurative trade marks consisting of graphic representations of a pallet.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2006 (R 353/2006-1, R 354/2006-1, R 355/2006‑1 and R 356/2006-1) in so far as registration of the marks applied for was refused in respect of goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 16, 20, 35, 39 and 42 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended to the exclusion of ‘loading pallets of metal’, ‘loading carriers and loading pallets of metal for packaging and transportation purposes’ and ‘metal transport pallets’, in Class 6; ‘goods pallets not of metal’, ‘loading pallets and loading carriers not of metal for packaging and transportation purposes’ and ‘transport pallets not of metal’, in Class 20; and ‘rental of loading pallets’ services, in Class 39;

2. Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 21, 28

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2006 (Case R 352/2005-4) concerning registration of the word sign FRESHHH as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders En Route International Ltd to pay the costs.
1.

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Measures adopted by the European Environment Agency (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 31-32, 34-35, 38-39)

2. Community law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Applicability to measures adopted by agencies established on the basis of secondary law producing legal effects vis-à-vis third parties (see paras 33, 37)

3. European Communities' public procurement – Tender procedure – Selection and award criteria – Obligation of prior definition – Obligation to comply with the principles of equal treatment and transparency – Scope (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 89 and 97(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 138(3)) (see paras 59-61)

4. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision in a procedure for the award of a public service contract not to accept a tender – Assessment having regard to information at the disposal of the applicant at the time of the bringing of the action (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149) (see paras 120-123)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Objection of lis pendens – Same parties, subject-matter and submissions in two actions – Inadmissibility of the second action (see para. 29)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Discretion of the Commission – Limits – Respect for the principle of equal treatment (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) (see paras 40-42)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Duration of the infringement – Infringements of long duration – Increase by 10% of the starting amount per year – Discretion of the Commission (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, Section 1B) (see paras 57-58)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F‑1/38.121 – Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders IMI plc, IMI Kynoch Ltd, Yorkshire Fittings Ltd, VSH Italia Srl, Comap SA and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 89 and 97(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 135 to 138) (see paras 37-38, 56)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)) (see para. 80)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders (see paras 73, 89, 91)

4. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 148(1) and (3)) (see paras 96-98, 101-102, 104)

5. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2)) (see paras 109-114, 120)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction of 5 December 2005 to reject the bid submitted by the applicant in response to a call for tenders for the supply of software programming and consultancy services (OJ 2005 S 187) and to award the contract to another tenderer or, in the alternative, a claim for damages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Discretion conferred on the Commission by Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 – Infringement of the principle that penalties must have a sound legal basis – None (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 19-20)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Principle of equal treatment – Differences between undertakings arising from application of the maximum amount – Lawfulness (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 21, 24)

3. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Fines – Determination – Criteria – Raising of the general level of fines – Lawfulness – Conditions – Duty to state reasons – Scope (Arts 81(1) EC and 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 31-32)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking – Criteria for assessment (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 3, first indent) (see paras 81-83, 86-87, 89)

5. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Termination of the infringement after the Commission’s intervention – Margin of discretion of the Commission (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 3) (see para. 94)

6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Non-imposition or reduction of the fine for cooperation of the undertaking concerned – Reduction for not disputing the facts – Conditions (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 96/C 207/04, Title D, Section 2) (see paras 101-102)

7. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries – Evidential obligations of the company seeking to rebut that presumption (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 111-116)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C (2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial bags) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders RKW SE and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen mbH & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2007 – Enercon v OHIM (Wind turbine)

(Case T-71/06)

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the outer casing of the nacelle of a wind turbine – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2005 (Case R 179/2005-2) refusing registration of a three-dimensional mark (a section of a wind turbine in the form of an American football) as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Enercon GmbH Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark representing the outer casing of the nacelle of a wind turbine for goods in Class 7 – Application No 2496743 Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 30 April 2008 – Rykiel création et diffusion de modèles v OHIM – Cuadrado (SONIA SONIA RYKIEL)

(Case T-131/06)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community figurative mark SONIA SONIA RYKIEL – Earlier national word mark SONIA – Relative ground for refusal – Genuine use of the mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3) (see paras 38-44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2006 (Case R 329/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Cuadrado, SA and Sonia Rykiel création et diffusion de modèles.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Sonia Rykiel création et diffusion de modèles Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark SONIA SONIA RYKIEL for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25 – Application No 1035625 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cuadrado, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark SONIA for goods in Classes 24 and 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed as regards goods in Class 25 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and trade mark application dismissed for all goods which it covers in Class 25





Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 January 2006 (Case R 329/2005-1);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 January 2008 – Dorel Juvenile Group v OHIM (SAFETY 1ST)

(Case T-88/06)

Community trade mark − Application for the Community word mark SAFETY 1ST – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 38-39, 44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 616/2004-2) relating to an application for registration of the word mark SAFETY 1 ST as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark SAFETY 1ST designating goods in Classes 12, 20, 21 and 28 – Application No 2258697 Decision of the Examiner: Dismissal of application Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;