ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T‑343/11)

‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruits and vegetables — Exclusion of financing of costs of printing on packaging — Non-compliance with criteria for recognising a producers’ organisation — Exclusion of expenses of all members of the producers’ organisation in question — Proportionality’

1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Definitive refusal to accept responsibility for certain expenses — Need for prior inter partes procedure (see para. 76)

2. 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 para. 77)

3. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Principles — Equal treatment of economic operators — Varying interpretations of EU law by Member States — Distortions of competition — Not permissible (Council Regulations No 729/70 and No 1258/1999) (see paras 82-84)

4. Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the measure (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 92)

5. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU 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 109, 110)

6. Agriculture — Clearance of accounts — Procedure — Purpose — Financial correction not constituting a penalty (see para. 111)

7. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Fruit and vegetables — Producers’ organisations — EAGGF financing — Recognition of those organisations by national authorities — Conditions — Statutory requirement to sell production through the intermediary of the said organisation — Scope of the obligation — Organisation determining the conditions of sale (Council Regulation No 2200/96, Art. 11(1)(c), para. 3; Commission Regulation No 1432/2003, Art. 6) (see paras 121-124, 151)

8. EU law — Principles — Proportionality — Scope — Expenses of all the members of the producers’ organisation in question excluded — No Infringement (see paras 166-168)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2011/244/EU of 15 April 2011 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2011 L 102, p. 33) in so far as it concerns certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Decision of the Commission finding no State aid — Action by a competitor challenging the decision — Market position of the undertaking not substantially affected — Inadmissibility (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 31-37, 43-58)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Decision of the Commission finding no State aid — Action brought by the parties concerned within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU — Identification of the subject-matter of the action — Action designed to safeguard the procedural rights of the persons concerned — Pleas concerning the assessment of the information and evidence available to the Commission — Admissibility (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c); Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 1(h), and 4(2)) (see paras 38, 63-65, 73)

3. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Amplification of an existing plea — Lawfulness (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see para. 70)

4. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Audi alteram partem — Rights of participation and information of the interested parties — Limited character (Art. 108(2) TFEU) (see paras 79-84)

5. State aid — Concept — Implementation of the private investor test — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Limits (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 90-93)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 642 final of 10 May 2011 relating to the State Aid Proceedings NN 68/2010 — Netherlands, declaring after the preliminary examination stage that the licence agreement for the use of a software source code concluded between Technische Universiteit Delft and Delftship BV does not constitute State aid.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Scheepsbouwkundig Advies- en Rekencentrum (Sarc) BV to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the Technische Universiteit Delft;

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Gitana v OHIM — Teddy (GITANA)

(Case T‑569/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark GITANA — Earlier Community figurative mark KiTANA — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity or similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Partial refusal of registration’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 22)

2. 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 35, 68)

3. 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 — Figurative marks GITANA and KiTANA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 46, 58, 62-64, 67, 69)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — OHIM’ s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — No effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 48, 59)

5. 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2011 (Case R 1825/2007‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rosenruist — Gestão e serviços, Lda and Gitana SA.

Opeartive part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer — Assessment having regard to information available to the applicant at the time the action brought

(Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — Cahier and Others v Council and Commission

(Cases T‑195/11, T‑458/11, T‑448/12 and T‑41/13)

‛Non-contractual liability — Prohibition for producers of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties from themselves distilling spirits from quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the quantity normally produced — Application of that legislation by national authorities’

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Claim for compensation for a prohibition imposed by EU law on wine producers from themselves distilling into spirits quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the quantity normally produced — No such prohibition — No liability (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1493/1999, Art. 28; Commission Regulation No 1623/2000, Arts 41, 42 and 65(3), (8) and (9)) (see paras 22, 39, 44, 45, 50-54)

2. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation (see para. 34)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 56)

Re:

APPLICATIONS for damages for harm that the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of judicial actions and convictions to which they were subject in France, on the ground that they failed to conform, over the course of several wine years, with the compulsory distillation mechanism established by Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1), and implemented by Commission regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms (OJ 2000 L 194, p. 45).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders that Cases T‑195/11, T‑458/11, T‑448/12 and T‑41/13 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders Jean-Marie Cahier and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment to bear their own costs relating to the main proceedings as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

4. Orders Jean-Marie Cahier and the other applicants in Case T‑195/11 to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures in Case T‑195/11 R;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 December 2014 — Xeda International v Commission

(Case T‑269/11)

‛Plant protection products — Active substance ethoxyquin — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance — Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 — Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 — Accelerated assessment procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations’

1. Agriculture — Approximation of laws — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Directive 91/414 — Procedure for adding the active substances of those products to Annex I to that directive — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Scope (Council Directive 91/414, Annex I) (see paras 41-43, 62)

2. Agriculture — Approximation of laws — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Directive 91/414 — Procedure for adding the active substances of those products to Annex I to that directive — Scientific uncertainty as to the safety of a substance — Application of the precautionary principle — Scope (Council Directive 91/414, Annex I) (see paras 54-58)

3. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Scope — Procedure for registering active substances of plant-protection products in Annex I to Directive 91/414 — No right to submit additional data during the assessment procedure (Commission Regulation No 33/2008, Arts 18(3), and 20(2), second para.; Council Directive 91/414, Annex I) (see paras 107, 108, 116)

4. EU law — Principles — Legal certainty — Concept — Rules with negative consequences for individuals — Requirement of clarity and precision (see para. 127)

5. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions (see para. 128)

6. Agriculture — Approximation of laws — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Directive 91/414 — Commission decision on the non-registration of an active substance in Annex I to that directive — Lack of sufficient information to conclude that no risks present — Consequences for the undertaking seeking registration in terms of the costs of preparing a new file and losses of commercial revenues — No breach of principle of proportionality (Council Directive 91/414, Art. 5(1), and Annex I) (see paras 136-138, 143, 151)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/143/EU of 3 March 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC (OJ 2011 L 59, p. 71).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2015 —

Al-Faqih and Others v Commission

(Case T‑134/11)

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds — Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection’

1. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Interest to be assessed at the time at which an action is brought — Action against an act imposing restrictive measures on the applicant — Repeal of the contested act in the course of the proceedings — Declaration that no need to adjudicate — Inadmissibility — Maintenance of the applicant’s interest in obtaining recognition of the unlawfulness of the contested measure (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 640/2011; Commission Regulations No 1138/2010 and No 1139/2010) (see paras 48-51)

2. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Obligation to disclose individual and specific grounds for the decisions adopted — Obligation to enable the person concerned effectively to put forward his point of view on the grounds held against him (Council Regulation No 640/2011; Commission Regulations No 1138/2010 and No 1139/2010) (see paras 63-65)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Minimum requirements (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 640/2011; Commission Regulations No 1138/2010 and No 1139/2010) (see paras 74-77)

4. 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 — Reference to the whole of the annexes — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 83-85, 88, 89)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1138/2010 of 7 December 2010 amending for the 140th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2010 L 322, p. 4), and of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1139/2010 of 7 December 2010 amending for the 141st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2010 L 322, p. 6), in so far as those measures concern the applicants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Mr Ghunia Abdrabbah and Mr Taher Nasuf to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
The concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU embraces not only positive benefits, but also measures which, in various forms, reduce the charges which normally encumber the budget of an undertaking and which, therefore, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect. Thus, State measures which, whatever their form, are likely directly or indirectly to favour certain undertakings or are to be regarded as an economic advantage which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions, are regarded as aid.

In order to verify whether the beneficiary undertaking is receiving an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions, the Commission is required to carry out a complete analysis of all factors that are relevant to the transaction at issue and its context, including the situation of the beneficiary undertaking and of the relevant market.

In that regard, the method chosen by the Commission in order to determine whether a public research establishment enjoyed an economic advantage by virtue of its status as a publicly-owned industrial and commercial establishment enjoying an implied and unlimited State guarantee, consisting in examining the advantage which emerged in that establishment’s dealings with its creditors, is not erroneous in law.

The advantage which arises from a State guarantee inherent in the status of the undertaking benefiting from it materialises in that undertaking’s dealings with its creditors. The conclusion that an advantage exists in a particular case is, however, subject to the condition that the more favourable treatment which creditors afford to the undertaking benefiting from the guarantee and the charges and revenue of that undertaking which are reduced or increased by that treatment must be determined with due regard for all the factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context, including the situation of the beneficiary undertaking and the market concerned.

(see paras 70, 71, 82, 83, 87, 88)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 February 2012 — Verenigde Douaneagenten v Commission



(Case T-32/11)

Customs union — Imports of raw cane sugar from the Netherlands Antilles — Post‑clearance recovery of import duties — Request for remission of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Infringement of essential procedural requirements

1. Own resources of the European Union — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Conditions for not taking account of import duties set out in Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b)) (see paras 26, 27, 36)

2. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 48, 49)

3. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import duties — Application of the fairness clause instituted by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 220(2) and 239) (see paras 50‑52)

4. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import duties — Application of the fairness clause instituted by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 220(2) and 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 871 and 905) (see paras 53‑55)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 6754 final of 1 October 2010 finding that there should be post-clearance recovery of import duties and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (REC 02/09).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 6754 final of 1 October 2010 in so far as it determines that the remission of import duties in the sum of EUR 531 985.59, pursuant to Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, is not justified;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2012 —

Kraft Foods Global Brands v OHIM — fenaco (SUISSE PREMIUM)



(Case T‑60/11)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SUISSE PREMIUM — Earlier Community figurative mark Premium — Absolute ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Opposition rejected — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 55-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2010 (Case R 522/2010‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC and fenaco Genossenschaft.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald (star foods)

(Case T-333/11)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark star foods — Earlier Community word and figurative marks STAR SNACKS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 — Figurative mark star foods and word mark STAR SNACKS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Nicolas Wessang and Greinwald GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) in relation to goods falling within Classes 29, 30 and, with the exception of ‘beers’, within Class 32 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and three quarters of the costs of Mr Nicolas Wessang;

4. Orders Mr Wessang to bear one quarter of his own costs;