ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2016 —

Tri Ocean Energy v Council

(Case T‑719/14)

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment’

European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Syria — Ambit of the review (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2014/678/CFSP; Council Regulation No 36/2012) (see paras 23-25, 30, 33)

Re:

ACTION under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/678/CFSP of 26 September 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 283, p. 59) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1013/2014 of 26 September 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 283, p. 9), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/678/CFSP of 26 September 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1013/2014 of 26 September 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they apply to Tri Ocean Energy;
In interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives of the rules of which it is part. Where the textual and historical interpretations of a regulation, in particular of one of its provisions, do not permit its precise scope to be assessed, the legislation in question must be interpreted by reference to both its purpose and general structure.

With regard to the statutory management requirements which farmers receiving direct payments are required to comply with under Article 4 of Regulation No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, requirement no 8, set out in Annex II to the said regulation, refers, for the identification and registration of animals, to Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Regulation No 21/2004 establishing a system for the identification and registration of sheep and goats.

With regard to the meaning to be attributed to the reference made by that requirement to Articles 3 to 5 of Regulation No 21/2004, only the elements mentioned in Articles 4 and 5 and referred to in Article 3(a) and (b) of that regulation are to be regarded as having the status of cross-compliance requirements. The logic of that interpretation is confirmed by the difference in nature between, on the one hand, the elements set out in Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation No 21/2004 and repeated in Articles 4 and 5 of that regulation and, on the other, the elements mentioned in Article 3(c) and (d) of Regulation No 21/2004 and repeated in Article 6 to 8 of the regulation. Unlike the elements in Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation No 21/2004, the elements set out in Articles 6 to 8 of the regulation concern obligations that are essentially incumbent on the Member States alone, which may explain the legislature’s intention not to make compliance with those obligations a condition for payment to farmers. Consequently, if a Member State is bound by Regulation No 21/2004 in its entirety, including Articles 5 to 8 thereof, compliance with those articles cannot be regarded as a condition for payments being made to farmers, notwithstanding the reference made by statutory management requirement no 8 to Article 3 of that regulation.

(see paras 63, 66, 67, 70)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2017 —

El-Qaddafi v Council

(Case T‑681/14)

(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Libya — Freezing of funds — Restrictions on the entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union — Retention of the applicant’s name — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

1. Actions for annulment—Time-limits—Point from which time starts to run—Notification—Concept—Notification to an applicant’s representative—Condition (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU) (see para. 31)

2. Acts of the institutions—Statement of reasons—Obligation—Scope—Restrictive measures against Libya—Prohibition of entry and passage and freezing of funds of persons and entities having participated in the commission of serious human rights violations in that State—Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned—Whether summary statement of reasons sufficient (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decisions 2011/137/CFSP and 2014/380/CFSP; Council Regulations No 204/2011 and No 689/2014) (see paras 56-60, 63, 74)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/380/CFSP of 23 June 2014 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2014 L 183, p. 52), in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annexes I and III to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 53), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2014 of 23 June 2014 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2014 L 183, p. 1), in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2014/380/CFSP of 23 June 2014 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, in so far as it maintains the name of Ms Aisha Muammer Mohamed El-Qaddafi on the list in Annexes I and III to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;

2. Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2014 of 23 June 2014 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, in so far as it maintains the name of Ms El-Qaddafi on the list in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 —

Lubrizol France v Council

(Case T‑191/14)

(Common Customs Tariff — Regulation concerning the suspension of autonomous duties on certain agricultural and industrial products — Objection to existing suspensions — Equivalence of products — Procedure for handling objections)

1. Judicial proceedings — Examination of the substance before examination of admissibility — Lawfulness (see para. 32)

2. Common Customs Tariff — Alteration or suspension of import duties — Council’s margin of discretion — Judicial review — Scope — Limits (Art. 31 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1387/2013) (see paras 58-61)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 and 4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 201), to the extent that those measures deprived the applicant of its entitlement to three duty suspensions which it previously enjoyed under TARIC Codes 2918 290080, 3811 290010 and 3811 900030.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lubrizol France SAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;
It follows from the wording of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (CCC) that the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of a notice to importers stating that there are grounds for doubt concerning the proper application of the preferential arrangements by the beneficiary non-member country prevents importers, as from the publication date, from pleading good faith, thereby ensuring a very high level of legal certainty and resulting in the national authorities or the Commission rejecting the application for non-recovery of import duties. In view of the specific importance attached to notices to importers, such notices must be especially clear, particularly as regards the countries covered. That is all the more so because it follows directly from the wording of the fifth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC that such notices must state the reasonable doubts concerning the proper application of the preferential arrangements ‘by the beneficiary country’. Where a notice cannot be interpreted as also covering, with sufficient precision, imports from a non-member country, the person liable cannot be required to have altered its approach after publication of that notice. A different interpretation would diminish legal certainty for economic operators inasmuch as they would be required, where they have doubts as to the scope of a notice to importers, always to apply — as a precaution — additional measures of protection, even in respect of imports from countries not clearly identified as being the target of the Commission’s doubts.

(see paras 46, 60, 76)
Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the basic amount — Determination of the value of sales — Sales carried out in direct or indirect relation to the infringement — Account taken of sales made globally in order to reflect the relative weight of each undertaking in the infringement — Respect for the principles of proportionality and equal treatment

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission notice 2006/C 210/02, points 13 and 18)

(see paras 117-126, 130-138)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(c) and (d))

(see paras 173-176)
The condition that there must be direct concern to a natural or legal person, as laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, requires the contested EU measure to affect directly the legal situation of the individual and leave no discretion to its addressees, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from EU rules without the application of other intermediate rules.

An entity over 50% held by an entity listed in the annexes to Decision 2014/512/CFSP and to Regulation No 833/2014, concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, is directly concerned by the restrictive measures prohibiting all EU operators from carrying out certain types of financial transaction with any legal person, entity or body established outside the Union owned for more than 50% by an entity listed in those annexes. Those measures apply directly to it, as an immediate consequence of the fact that it is more than 50% owned by an entity whose name is listed in the annexes to those acts, without leaving any discretion to their addressees, who are entrusted with the task of implementing them

Although those provisions lay down prohibitions which apply in the first place to credit institutions and other financial bodies established in the European Union, the aim and the effect of those prohibitions is directly to affect the entities over 50% owned by an entity whose name is listed in the annexes to those acts, whose economic activity is limited as a result of the application of those measures in respect of them. Self-evidently it is for the bodies established in the European Union to apply those measures, given that the acts adopted by the EU institutions are not, as a rule, intended to apply outside the territory of the European Union. That does not, however, mean that the entities affected by the provisions on access to the capital market are not directly concerned by the restrictive measures applied with regard to them.

(see paras 50-53)
38

It should be noted that, although the Council has a broad discretion as regards the general criteria to be taken into consideration for the purpose of adopting restrictive measures, the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires that, as part of the review of the lawfulness of the grounds which are the basis of the decision to include or to maintain a person’s name on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures, the Courts of the European Union are to ensure that that decision, which affects that person individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails a verification of the factual allegations in the summary of reasons underpinning that decision, with the consequence that judicial review cannot be restricted to an assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but must concern whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, are substantiated by sufficiently specific and concrete evidence (see judgment of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C‑605/13 P, ECR, EU:C:2015:248, paragraphs 41 and 45 and the case-law cited).
70

It should be added that it is not for the Court, in the context of the present proceedings, to rule on the result to which the Commission’s application of the private creditor test would have led in the circumstances of the present case. Therefore, it is for the Commission, by applying the correct legal test, to draw the appropriate conclusions from the fact that the 2009 measures constituted State aid declared compatible with the internal market, possibly establishing, for the purposes of that analysis, whether the aid-equivalent was equal to the total amount of those measures or to only part thereof. It follows from the case-law that, where a State grants a guarantee for a bank loan to a company in difficulty without adequate consideration, the guarantees must be regarded as aid equal to the amount of the loan guaranteed. In those circumstances, that aid cannot be included in the calculation of the normal cost for the State of winding up the company in question (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 January 2003, Germany v Commission, C‑334/99, EU:C:2003:55, paragraph 138). In that context, it is to be noted that it is clear from the decision of 2009 that the aid scheme was open to fundamentally sound and solvent banking establishments and that the guarantee could only be granted in exchange for payment of a market oriented premium.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 –

FIH Holding and FIH v Commission

(Case T‑386/14 RENV)

(State aid — Banking sector — Aid granted to FIH in the form of a transfer of its impaired assets to a new subsidiary and the subsequent purchase thereof by the body responsible for guaranteeing financial stability — State aid for banks during the crisis — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Admissibility — Calculation of the amount of the aid — Manifest error of assessment)

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure — Commission decision declaring aid compatible with the internal market, subject to certain commitments — Undertakings by the Member State and the notified measure indissolubly linked — Action brought by an undertaking which is a beneficiary of aid — Admissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 48-52)

2. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Amplification of an existing, closely linked plea — Absence — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1)) (see paras 60, 61)

3. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid capable of being regarded as compatible with the internal market — Discretion of the Commission — Complex evaluation of economic matters — Judicial review — Limits (Art. 107(1) and (3) TFEU) (see paras 68-70, 100)

4. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Discretion of the Commission — Adoption by the Commission of guidelines governing the compatibility of aid with the internal market — Consequences — Self-limitation of its discretion (Art. 107(1) and (3) TFEU) (see para. 93)

5. State aid — Concept — Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor — Information needed for an assessment — Risks resulting from State aid previously granted and linked to the State’s actions as a public authority (Art. 107(1) and (3) TFEU) (see paras 112, 113)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 89).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 March 2016 — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE)

(Case T‑90/15)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark SCOPE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 25)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 26, 27)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Word mark SCOPE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 33-36, 46, 47)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 (Case R 2381/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Sqope SA and Schoeller Corporation GmbH.

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 21 November 2014 (Case R 2381/2013-1);
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2015 —

K‑Swiss v OHIM (Representation of parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T‑3/15)

‛Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 12, 13)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Registration of a new trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1) and 76(1)) (see paras 14, 45)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 42)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see para. 39)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 (Case R 1093/2014-2), concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of a figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
3.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22)
1.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18-20)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2017 —

QuaMa Quality Management v EUIPO — Microchip Technology (medialbo)

(Case T‑225/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU trade mark medialbo — Earlier EU word mark MediaLB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Registration of the transfer of the mark — Article 17(7) of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 47, 68)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 medialbo and MediaLB (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48-51, 67, 69)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 52-54, 58, 61)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2015 (Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Microchip Technology and Alexander Bopp.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;