ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-374/00





Verband der freien Rohrwerke eV and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Control of concentrations – Concentration partly covered by the ECSC Treaty and partly by the EC Treaty – Authorisation decision on the basis of Article 66(2) CS – Decision on compatibility with the common market on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 – Conditions of admissibility according to the ECSC Treaty and the EC Treaty – Relationship between the systems for the control of concentrations laid down by the ECSC Treaty and the EC Treaty – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 8 July 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for annulment – Action brought against an ECSC decision by an undertaking whose business does not fall under that treaty – No capacity to bring proceedings

(Art. 33, second para., CS)

2.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision finding a concentration compatible with the common market – Third-party undertaking with the capacity of direct competitor and having actively participated in the administrative procedure – Admissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

3.. Competition – Concentrations – Examination by the Commission – Mixed ECSC/EC concentration – Application of the respective substantive and procedural rules of the two systems – Need for two distinct prior authorisations – Commission's right to adopt two different decisions

(Art. 66(1) and (2) CS; Art. 305(1) EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89)

4.. Competition – Concentrations – Examination by the Commission – Assessments of an economic nature – Discretion – Judicial review – Limits

(Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 2)

5.. Competition – Concentrations – Assessment of compatibility with the common market – Creation of a collective dominant position significantly impeding effective competition in the common market – Conditions

(Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 2(3))

6.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision applying rules on concentrations between undertakings

(Art. 253 EC)

7.. Competition – Concentrations – Assessment of compatibility with the common market – Relevant market – Geographical definition

(Council Regulation No 4064/89)

8.. Competition – Concentrations – Assessment of compatibility with the common market – Moment to be taken into consideration

(Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 2)

9.. Competition – Concentrations – Assessment of compatibility with the common market – Obligation to take account of the impact on the competitive structure of links of a financial and structural nature in exercising joint control of a joint venture

(Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 2(2) and (3))

10.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision applying rules on concentrations between undertakings

(Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 6(1)(b))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

13 June 2002

Case T-74/01

Albano Ferrer de Moneada

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Article 19 of the Staff Regulations — Request for permission to produce documents in proceedings before a national court’

Full text in French II-411

Application for:

first, annulment of the Commission's decision of 19 January 2001 implicitly rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the Commission's decision of 28 August 2000 refusing him permission to produce certain documents in proceedings before a Luxembourg criminal court and, second, compensation.

Held:

The Commission's decision of 19 January 2001 implicitly rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the Commission's decision of 28 August 2000 refusing him permission to produce the documents referred to in that complaint in proceedings before a Luxembourg criminal court is annulled. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Summary
JUDGMENT OF LHE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

11 September 2002

Case T-89/01

Claude Willeme

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Obligations imposed by the Staff Regulations — Declaration of spouse's employment — Personal interest such as to impair independence — Obligation of discretion — Obligation to act in the interests of the Communities — Duty to act in good faith — Disciplinary proceedings — Non-contractual liability — Assessment of nonmaterial harm’

Full text in French II-803

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision of 19 June 2000 downgrading the applicant from Grade A 3 to Grade A 6 and, second, for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Held:

The Commission's decision of 19 June 2000 downgrading the applicant from Grade A 3 to Grade A 6 is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of one euro by way of compensation for the nonmaterial harm suffered by him. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Article 13 of the Staff Regulations, which imposes on the official the obligation to inform the appointing authority by which he is employed of any gainful employment engaged in by his spouse, applies irrespective of the nature, duration or extent of the gainful employment of the official's spouse. (see para. 34)

Under Article 14 of the Staff Regulations, an official who in the performance of his duties is called upon to decide on a matter in the handling or outcome of which he has a personal interest such as to impair his independence must inform the appointing authority. In the light of the fundamental nature of the objectives of independence and integrity pursued by that provision and in view of the fact that the obligation laid down consists, for the official concerned, in informing the appointing authority as a precaution. Article 14 of the Staff Regulations has a wide scope. It covers any circumstance which the official who is called upon to decide on a matter must reasonably understand as being such as to be seen by third parties as a possible source of impairment of his independence in that matter. However, the existence of professional relations between an official and a third party cannot, in principle, mean that the official's independence is or appears to be impaired when that official is called upon to decide on a matter in which that third party is involved. (see paras 47. 58)

The first paragraph of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations requires that the official conduct himself, in all circumstances, in a manner guided solely by the interests of the Communities and prohibits any conduct which, in the light of the circumstances of the case, indicates that the official concerned took into account an interest other than the Community interest. (see para. 71)
The Boards of Appe al of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) cannot be classified as ‘tribunals’. Since a Board of Appeal enjoys, in particular, the same powers as the examiner, where it exercises them it acts as the administration of the Office. An action before the Board of Appeal therefore forms part of the administrative registration procedure, following an ‘interlocutory revision’ by the ‘first department’ to carry out an examination, pursuant to Article 60 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Consequently, a party may not validly rely on a right to a fair ‘trial’ before the Boards of Appeal of the Office.

(see paras 22-23)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusing registration — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Assessment of the distinctiveness of a mark — Whether factors which are not the subject of the registration may be taken into account — Not included — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark — Shape of a brown cigar and shape of a gold ingot — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

1. Factors which will not be the subject of the registration, such as the price of the product concerned or a particular spatial positioning of the product the shape of which constitutes the mark, cannot be taken into consideration in assessing a trade mark ' s distinctiveness within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, unless that product is ordinarily presented with that positioning.

For the purposes of assessing the registrability of a sign in respect of a particular category of goods and/or services, whether the applicant for the trade mark in question is contemplating or is actually using a particular marketing concept is immaterial because the existence of a marketing concept is a factor that is extrinsic to the right conferred by the Community trade mark and because, since a marketing concept is purely a matter of choice for the undertaking concerned, it is liable to be altered after the Community trade mark has been registered and cannot therefore have any bearing on the assessment of the mark ' s registrability.

see paras 36, 40

2. The three-dimensional marks in the shape of a brown cigar and of a gold ingot for which registration is sought in respect of " chocolate, chocolate goods; pastry and confectionery" (Class 30 of the Nice Agreement); " chocolate, chocolate goods" (Class 30); and " cardboard packaging in the form of a gold ingot for chocolate and chocolate goods" (Class 16) are devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark because they do not differ substantially from certain basic shapes, commonly used in the trade, of the products concerned but are, rather, a variant of those shapes, which is concrete evidence justifying the conclusion that they are capable of being commonly used in trade for the presentation of the products covered by the applications and because those marks, as perceived by an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, are therefore incapable of differentiating the products concerned or of distinguishing them from those of a different trade origin.

see paras 44-45
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Risk of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark BUD and word mark BUDMEN — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

For the public in Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, there is a visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity between the word mark " BUDMEN" , registration of which as a Community trade mark is applied for in respect of " clothing, footwear and headgear" in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement and the word mark BUD, previously registered in Denmark in respect of all products in Class 25 and in Ireland and the United Kingdom in respect of a series of products within the same class and comprising those referred to in the trade mark application.

Given the similarity and the nature of the products covered by the conflicting marks, the differences between them are not sufficient to dispel the likelihood of confusion in the mind of the relevant public. The mark applied for thus falls within the prohibition imposed by Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

see paras 47-55, 58-59, 65
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Action for failure to act — Failure remedied after commencement of proceedings — Subject-matter of the action ceasing to exist — No need to adjudicate — (Arts 226 EC, 232 EC and 233 EC)

2. Action for failure to act — Scope ratione materiae — Dispute relating to the extent of the obligation to give effect to an annulling judgment — Included — (Arts 232 EC and 233 EC)

3. Action for failure to act — Institution must be called on to act — Definition of position within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 232 EC — Concept — (Arts 230 EC and 232, second para., EC)

Summary

1. The remedy provided for in Article 232 EC, which pursues different objectives from the remedy provided for in Article 226 EC, is founded on the premiss that unlawful inaction on the part of the institution concerned enables the matter to be brought before the Court in order to obtain a declaration that the failure to act is contrary to the Treaty, in so far as it has not been remedied by that institution. The effect of that declaration, under Article 233 EC, is that the defendant institution is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court, without prejudice to any actions to establish non-contractual liability to which the declaration may give rise. Where the act whose absence constitutes the subject-matter of the proceedings was adopted after the action was brought, but before judgment, a declaration by the Court to the effect that the initial failure to act was unlawful can no longer bring about the consequences prescribed by Article 233 EC. It follows that in such a case, as in cases where the defendant institution has responded within a period of two months after being called upon to act, the subject-matter of the action has ceased to exist, so that there is no longer any need to adjudicate. The fact that the definition of its position by the institution does not satisfy the applicant is, in that regard, irrelevant, because Article 232 EC refers to failure to act in the sense of failure to take a decision or to define a position, not the adoption of a measure different from that desired or considered necessary by the applicant.

see para. 31

2. An action for failure to act is the appropriate means of bringing before the Court a dispute relating to whether, in addition to replacing the measure annulled, the institution was also bound, in accordance with Article 233 EC, to take other measures relating to other acts which were not challenged in the initial action for annulment. It follows that an action for failure to act is also the appropriate means for obtaining a declaration that an institution unlawfully failed to take the measures required in order to comply with such a judgment.

see para. 32

3. An act which is not challengeable by an annulment action may constitute a definition of position terminating the failure of an institution to act if it is the prerequisite for the next step in a procedure which has, in principle, to culminate in a legal act that itself will be challengeable by an action for annulment.

see para. 53
Case T-196/01





Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(EAGGF – Withdrawal of financial assistance – Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Error of assessment – Principle of proportionality – Reasonable duration – Statement of reasons)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 30 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing granted for national operations – Withdrawal of financial assistance from the EAGGF on account of irregularities – Commission obliged to demonstrate the existence of irregularities in the carrying out of the project – Beneficiary obliged to demonstrate that the project complied with the applicable provisions – Commission obliged to formulate the various complaints precisely in the letter opening the procedure – Duty of applicants for, and beneficiaries of, EAGGF assistance to provide information and act in good faith

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

2.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing granted for national operations – Withdrawal of financial assistance from the EAGGF on account of irregularities – Community and national co-financing of a national project – Legal context of the decision withdrawing the assistance – Community law – Justification on the ground that the project was carried out in accordance with national rules – Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(2))

3.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Commission's right to ask beneficiaries of Community financial assistance for additional information beyond that already supplied



4.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Withdrawal of financial assistance from the EAGGF on account of irregularities – Commission obliged to give the beneficiary precise indications as to what supporting documents and additional explanations it must provide

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

5.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Withdrawal of financial assistance from the EAGGF on account or irregularities – Obligation on the Commission to verify whether an operation has actually been carried out – None

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

6.. Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Withdrawal of financial assistance from the EAGGF on account of irregularities – Decision to withdraw assistance partially vitiated by errors of assessment – Annulment of the decision in its entirety – Commission's obligations in the light of the proportionality principle

(Art. 233 EC; Council Regulations Nos 2052/88 and 4253/88, Art. 23)

7.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Procedure for withdrawing financial aid – Obligations of the Commission – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Criteria for assessment – Breach – Consequences

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
Case T-180/01





Euroagri Srl

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(EAGGF – Withdrawal of financial assistance – Articles 24 and 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 28 January 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Acts of the institutions – Temporal scope – Immediate application of a new procedural rule – Retroactive effect of a substantive rule – Conditions – Rules concerning Community assistance

(Council Regulations Nos 2052/88 and 4253/88, Art. 24, and 4256/88 and 2082/93)

2.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community funding – Commission's powers of review – Scope

(Council Regulations Nos 2052/88 and 4253/88, Art. 23(2))

3.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community funding – Obligation on applicants for, and beneficiaries of, EAGGF assistance to provide information and act in good faith – Compliance with the conditions laid down in the decision to grant assistance – Compliance with the information contained in the application for assistance

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(2))

4.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community funding – Commission's powers to carry out on-the-spot checks and inspections – Option for the Commission to use the results of a check carried out in the context of national criminal proceedings – Non-binding nature of those results

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Arts 23(2) and 24)

5.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community funding – Correspondence between the financing and a service essential for the implementation of the project – Burden of proof on the beneficiary

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

6.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community funding – Withdrawal of assistance – Need for a clear and unequivocal legal basis

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(2))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
Case T-311/01





Les Éditions Albert René

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)





«(Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Earlier Community trade mark ASTERIX – Application for a Community figurative mark containing the word starix – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 22 October 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Risk of confusion with the earlier mark – Verbal mark ASTERIX and figurative mark consisting of the verbal element starix and graphical elements

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

2.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Risk of confusion with the earlier mark – Reputation of the earlier mark – Relevance

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

3.. Community trade mark – Appeal procedure – Action brought before the Community Courts – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Review of the legality of the decisions taken by the Boards of Appeal with regard to the issues of law raised before them

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

1.

2.

3.