ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/17

Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia v Commission

(Case T-140/09) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Action for annulment - Acts adopted during an inspection - Intermediate measures - Inadmissibility - Decision ordering an inspection - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Protection of privacy - Reasonable grounds - Review by the Court.)

2012/C 399/28

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Prysmian SpA (Milan, Italy) and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia Srl (Milan) (represented by: A. Pappalardo, F. Russo, L. Stasi, C. Tesauro and L. Armati, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and X. Lewis initially, then V. Di Bucci and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Re:

First, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 92/2 of 9 January 2009 ordering Prysmian SpA and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, including Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia Srl, to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20, paragraph 4, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) (Case COMP/39.610); secondly, request seeking that the General Court declare unlawful the decision taken by the Commission during that inspection to copy certain computer files to examine them in its offices and, thirdly, request seeking that the General Court order the Commission to abstain from using any document obtained unlawfully and to return to Prysmian and to Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia the documents obtained unlawfully.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission decision C(2009) 92/2 of 9 January 2009 ordering Prysmian SpA and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, including Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia Srl, to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20, paragraph 4, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC], in so far as it concerns electric cables other than high voltage underwater and underground electric cables and the material associated with those other cables;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia to bear their own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear half of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/20

Judgment of the General Court of (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 — France v Commission

(Case T-139/09) (1)

(State aid - Fruit and vegetable sector - ‘Contingency plans’ seeking to support the fruit and vegetable market in France - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Concept of State aid - State resources - Co-financing by a public institution and by voluntary contributions from farmers’ organisations - Arguments not raised during the administrative procedure - Duty to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2012/C 355/41

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented: initially by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, and subsequently by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agent)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 203 final of 28 January 2009, concerning the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sectors implemented by France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/20

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-347/09) (1)

(State aid - Transfer free of charge of certain areas of natural national heritage - Measures for the financial support of large-scale environmental protection projects - Decision declaring aid compatible with the common market - Concept of undertaking - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 313/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by M. Lumma and B. Klein, then A. Wiedmann and T. Henze, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by K. Gross, then F. Erlbacher, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and P. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented: initally by C. Wissels, Y. de Vries and M. de Ree, then C. Wissels, M. de Ree, J. Langer and M. Noort, acting as Agents); and Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5080 final of 2 July 2009 relating to State aid NN 8/2009 granted by the Federal Republic of Germany and concerning the State aid scheme consisting of the transfer, free of charge, of certain areas of natural national heritage, and of measures for the financial support of large-scale environmental protection projects (OJ 2009 C 230, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

3. Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/18

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Reber v OHIM — Wedl & Hofmann (Walzer Traum)

(Case T-355/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community mark Walzer Traum - Earlier national word mark Walzertraum - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)

2013/C 63/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Reichenhall, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schenider, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2009 (Case R 623/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG and Wedl & Hofmann GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/8

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014 — Intel v Commission

(Case T-286/09) (1)

((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Microprocessors market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Loyalty rebates - ‘Naked’ restrictions - Classification as abuse - As-efficient-competitor analysis - Commission’s international jurisdiction - Obligation on the Commission to investigate - Limits - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Overall strategy - Fines - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))

2014/C 245/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intel Corp. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented initially by K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Hoskins, N. Green QC, S. Singla, Barrister, I. Forrester QC, A. Parr, R. Mackenzie, Solicitors, and D. Piccinin, Barrister, and subsequently by I. Forrester, A. Parr, R. Mackenzie and D. Piccinin)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, N. Khan, V. Di Bucci and M. Kellerbauer, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Association for Competitive Technology, Inc (Washington, DC, United States) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir) (Paris, France) (represented initially by J. Franck, and subsequently by E. Nasry, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C-3/37.990 — Intel) or, alternatively, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Intel Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the Commission’s costs incurred in connection with the intervention of the Association for Competitive Technology, Inc., and the costs incurred by Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir);

3. Orders the Association for Competitive Technology to bear its own costs and to pay the Commission’s costs incurred in connection with its intervention.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/15

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — HSE v Commission

(Case T-399/09) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Presumption of innocence - Fines - Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines - Mitigating circumstances - Infringement committed as a result of negligence - Infringement authorised or encouraged by the public authorities)

2014/C 39/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Holding Slovenske elektrarne d.o.o. (HSE) (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: F. Urlesberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Bourke and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by N. von Lingen and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it relates to the applicant, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Holding Slovenske elektrarne d.o.o. (HSE) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/17

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Rusal Armenal v Council

(Case T-512/09 RENV) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People’s Republic of China - Definitive antidumping duty - Market Economy Treatment - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) second indent of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Cumulative assessment of imports subject to antidumping investigations - Article 3(4)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 384/96 - Undertaking offer - Article 8(3) of Regulation No 384/96))

(2017/C 078/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rusal Armenal ZAO (Yerevan, Armenia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, E. Borovikov, lawyers, and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by S. Boelaert and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin and A. Auersperger Matić, Agents) and European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Demeneix, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive antidumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 262, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rusal Armenal ZAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

3. Orders the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 56/12

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2014 — Pilkington Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-72/09) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in carglass - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Fines - Rights of defence - Retroactive application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Passive or minor role - Deterrent effect of the fine - Taking into account fines previously imposed - Ceiling of the fine - Exchange rate for the calculation of the ceiling of the fine))

(2015/C 056/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pilkington Group Ltd (St Helens, United Kingdom); Pilkington Automotive Ltd (Lathom, United Kingdom); Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH (Witten, Germany); Pilkington Holding GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany); and Pilkington Italia SpA (San Salvo, Italy) (represented by: J. Scott, S. Wisking, K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors, J. Turner QC, A. Bates, Barrister, C. Puech Baron and D. Katrana, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Biolan and M. Kellerbauer, subsequently by A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and N. von Lingen and lastly by A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/39.125 — Carglass), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 863 final of 11 February 2009 and also by Commission Decision C(2013) 1119 final of 28 February 2013, in so far as it concerns the applicants, and also, in the alternative, for annulment of Article 2 of that decision in that it imposes a fine on the applicants or, in the further alternative, application for reduction of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH and Pilkington Italia SpA to bear 90 % of their own costs and to pay all of the costs incurred by the Commission and orders the Commission to bear 10 % of the costs incurred by the applicants.

(1) OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/27

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — CheckMobile v OHIM (carcheck)

(Case T-14/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ‘carcheck’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 145/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: CheckMobile GmbH — The Process Solution Company (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Lodigkeit, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2009 (Case R 595/2009-4), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign ‘carcheck’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CheckMobile GmbH — The Process Solution Company to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/48

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — ratiopharm v OHIM — Nycomed (ZUFAL)

(Case T-222/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZUFAL - Earlier Community word mark ZURCAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application - Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2011/C 269/107

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ratiopharm GmbH (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: B. Schmidt, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nycomed GmbH (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: A. Ferchland, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2010 (Case R 874/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nycomed GmbH and ratiopharm GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ratiopharm GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/24

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon ‘Ygeia’ v OHIM (υγεία)

(Case T-7/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark υγεία - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character and descriptive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 186/44

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon ‘Ygeia’ AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Alexiou and S. Foteas, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2009 (Case R 190/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign υγεία as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon ‘Ygeia’ AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/30

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Association belge des consommateurs test-achats v Commission

(Case T-224/10) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Belgian energy market - Decision declaring a merger to be compatible with the common market - Commitments given during the initial phase of the investigation - Decision refusing the partial referral of the merger investigation to the national authorities - Action for annulment - Consumer association - Interest in bringing proceedings - Failure to initiate the in-depth review procedure - Procedural rights - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 347/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Association belge des consommateurs test-achats ASBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fratini and F. Filpo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Électricité de France (EDF), (Paris, France), (represented initially by C. Lazarus, A. Amsellem and A. Fontanille, and subsequently by C. Lazarus and A. Creus Carreras, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decisions C(2009) 9059 and C(2009) 8954 of 12 November 2009, the former declaring a merger to be compatible with the common market (Case COMP/M.5549 — EDF/Segebel) under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), and the latter rejecting a request from the Belgian competition authorities for partial referral of the case in accordance with Article 9 of that regulation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Association belge des consommateurs test-achats ASBL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Électricité de France (EDF) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/17

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case T-67/10) (1)

(EAGGF - Guidance Section - Reduction of financial assistance - Financial assistance awarded to an operational programme for the improvement of the processing and marketing of agricultural products - Effectiveness of checks - Proportionality)

2011/C 319/34

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and G. von Rintelen, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9827 of 10 December 2009 applying financial corrections to the EAGGF assistance, Guidance Section, awarded to the operational programme CCI 2000.ES.16.1.PO.007 (Spain, Castilla y León) in relation to the measure improving processing and marketing of agricultural products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/14

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2011 — LG Electronics v OHIM (DIRECT DRIVE)

(Case T-561/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark DIRECT DRIVE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character and lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 13/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2010 (Case R 1027/2010-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign DIRECT DRIVE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.