ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/13

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2013 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-540/10) (1)

(Cohesion Fund - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted from the Cohesion Fund to four project stages concerning the construction of certain sections of the high-speed line linking Madrid and the French border - Time-limit for adopting a decision - Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 - Additional works or services - Concept of ‘unforeseen circumstances’ - Article 20(2)(f) of Directive 93/38/EEC)

2013/C 79/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially, M. Muñoz Pérez and, subsequently, A. Rubio González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 6154 of 13 September 2010 reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the project stages ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo IX-A’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT. 005), ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo X-B (Avinyonet del Penedés-Sant Sadurní d’Anoia’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT. 008), ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo XI-A and XI-B (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia-Gelida’) (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.009), ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo IX-C’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.0010) and, alternatively, application to have that decision annulled in part in so far as it refers to the corrections applied to the amendments arising from the exceeding of the noise thresholds (Subsection IX-A), the change of PGOU (General Urban Development Plan) of the Ayuntamiento de Santa Oliva (Spain) (Subsection IX-A) and the differences in the geotechnical conditions (Subsections X-B. XI-A, XI-B and IX-C), reducing the amount of the corrections decided by the Commission by EUR 2 348 201,96.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/18

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Reber v OHIM — Klusmeier (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM)

(Case T-530/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM - Earlier national figurative marks W. Amadeus Mozart - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1), first subparagraph and second subparagraph(a), and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 189/34

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: initially by R. Manea, then by D. Walicka, agents

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Anna Klusmeier (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: G. Schmitt-Gaedke, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2010 (Case R 363/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG and Ms Anna Klusmeier

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Mrs Anna Klusmeier for the purpose of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/21

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2013 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-241/10) (1)

(EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - ‘Guarantee’ Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Direct payments - Identification system for agricultural parcels - Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Lack of effectiveness and reliability - Intentional irregularities - Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004)

2013/C 108/55

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, A. Szmytkowska and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2010/152/EU of 11 March 2010 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 2010 L 63, p. 7), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/25

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Hansa Metallwerke and Others v Commission

(Case T-375/10) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted parties - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Cooperation during the administration procedure - 2002 Leniency Notice - Reduction of the fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Non-retroactivity)

2013/C 325/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Hansa Metallwerke and Others (Stuttgart, Germany); (Hansa Nederland BV (Nijkerk, Netherlands); Hansa Italiana Srl (Castelnuovo del Garda, Italy); Hansa Belgium (Asse, Belgium); and Hansa Austria GmbH (Salzbourg, Austria) (represented by: H.-J. Hellmann and C. Mal, lawyers)

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

Intervener before the Court on behalf of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hansa Metallwerke AG, Hansa Nederland BV, Hansa Italiana Srl, Hansa Belgium and Hansa Austria GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/9

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bank Melli Iran v Council

(Joined Cases T-35/10 and T-7/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Legitimate expectations - Review of the restrictive measures adopted - Error of assessment - Equal treatment - Legal basis - Essential procedural requirements - Proportionality)

2013/C 304/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Melli Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented: in Case T-35/10 by L. Defalque, and in Case T-7/11 initially by L. Defalque and S. Woog, and subsequently by L. Defalque and C. Malherbe, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: in Case T-35/10 by M. Bishop and R. Szostak, and in Case T-7/11 initially by M. Bishop and G. Marhic, and subsequently by M. Bishop and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and É. Ranaivoson, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer, subsequently by A. Robinson, and finally by A. Robinson and H. Walker, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister), and European Commission (represented: in Case T-35/10 by S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, and in Case T-7/11 by S. Boelaert, M. Konstantinidis and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment in part of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 31); Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81); Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1); Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71); Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11); and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1); and, secondly, for annulment of any future regulation or decision in force as at the date of closure of the oral procedure which supplements or amends any of the contested measures

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-35/10 and T-7/11 for the purpose of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders Bank Melli Iran to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

4. Orders the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/7

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2013 — Merlin and Others v OHIM — Dusyma (Game)

(Case T-231/10) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a game - Earlier design - Grounds for invalidity - Novelty - Individual character - Distinction between goods and design - Articles 3, 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

2013/C 359/10

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Merlin Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Forchtenberg, Germany); Rolf Krämer (Forchtenberg); BLS Basteln Lernen Spielen GmbH (Forchtenberg); and Andreas Hohl (Künzelsau, Germany) (represented by: R. Kramer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Dusyma Kindergartenbedarf GmbH (Schorndorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Zinnecker, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2010 (Case R 879/2009-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Merlin Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Others and Dusyma Kindergartenbedarf GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Merlin Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Mr Rolf Krämer, BLS Basteln Lernen Spielen GmbH and Mr Andreas Hohl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/18

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Orange v Commission

(Case T-258/10) (1)

(State Aid - Compensation for public service costs in connection with a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Altmark judgment - Service of general economic interest - Market failure - Overcompensation)

2013/C 336/35

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented: initially by M van der Woude and D. Gillet, and subsequently by D. Gillet and H. Viaene, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: The French Republic (represented: initially by G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents); the Hauts-de-Seine department (France) (represented by: J.-D. Bloch and G. O’Mahony, lawyers); and Sequalum SAS (Puteaux, France) (represented by: L. Feldman, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009 concerning the compensation for public service costs for the establishment and operation of a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department (State Aid N 331/2008 — France).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Orange to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Hauts-de-Seine department, Sequalum SAS and the French Republic to pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/27

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission

(Case T-177/10) (1)

((State aid - Electricity - Preferential tariff - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the aid - New aid))

2014/C 421/37

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, T. Müller-Ibold, F. Salerno, G. Scassellati Sforzolini and G. Rizza, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Gippini Fournier, agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/460/EC of 19 November 2009 relating to State Aid C 38/A/04 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) granted by Italy in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni (OJ 2010, L 227, p. 62).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the application for interim measures;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/17

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Technisynthese (BTS)

(Case T-592/10) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BTS - Earlier Community and national figurative marks TBS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 129/20

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by M. López Camba and J. L. Rivas Zurdo initially, then J. L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Technisynthese SARL (Saint-Pierre-Montlimart, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 1380/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Technisynthese SARL and El Corte Inglés, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/37

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — voestalpine and voestalpine Wire Rod Austria v Commission

(Case T-418/10) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Single, complex and continuous infringement - Agency contract - Imputability of the unlawful conduct of the agent to the principal - Lack of knowledge of the agent’s unlawful conduct by the principal - Participation in an aspect of the infringement and awareness of the overall plan - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Proportionality - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2015/C 302/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: voestalpine AG (Linz, Austria); and voestalpine Wire Rod Austria GmbH, formerly voestalpine Austria Draht GmbH (Sankt Peter-Freienstein, Austria) (represented by: A. Ablasser-Neuhuber, G. Fussenegger, U. Denzel and M. Mayer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, V. Bottka, C. Hödlmayr, Agents, and R. Van der Hout, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2(5) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011;

2. Reduces the fine imposed jointly and severally on voestalpine AG and voestalpine Wire Rod Austria GmbH from EUR 22 million to EUR 7,5 million;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of voestalpine and voestalpine Wire Rod Austria;

5. Orders Voestalpine and voestalpine Wire Rod Austria to bear one third of their own costs.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/25

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Lucchini v Commission

(Case T-91/10) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices and payment terms - Limiting or controlling output or sales - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Legal basis - Rights of the defence - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Extenuating circumstances - Taking account of an annulment judgment in a related case))

(2015/C 034/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Lucchini SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented initially by M. Delfino, J.-P. Gunther, E. Bigi, C. Breuvart and L. De Sanctis, and subsequently by J.-P Gunther, E. Bigi, C. Breuvart and D. Galli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Moretto, lawyer, and subsequently by M. Sauer and R. Striani, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Moretto)

Re:

Application for a declaration of the non-existence or for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in the alternative application for annulment of Article 2 of that decision, and in the further alternative application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lucchini SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
Joined Cases T-379/10 RENV and T-381/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — French bathroom fittings and fixtures market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Participation of certain entities in a cartel — Reassessment of the evidence)

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-379/10 RENV and T-381/10 RENV) ( 1 )

‛(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — French bathroom fittings and fixtures market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Participation of certain entities in a cartel — Reassessment of the evidence)’

Parties

Applicants in Case T-379/10 RENV: Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH, formerly Keramag Keramische Werke AG (Ratingen, Germany) and five other applicants whose names are set out in the annex. Applicant in Case T-381/10 RENV: Sanitec Europe Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: P. Lindfelt and K. Struckmann, lawyers, and J. Killick, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, first, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), and, secondly, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Cases C-613/13 P, T-379/10 RENV and T-381/10 RENV.

( 1 ) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/33

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Nedri Spanstaal v Commission

(Case T-391/10) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Quota fixing and price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Relevant turnover - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))

(2015/C 302/42)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Nedri Spanstaal BV (Venlo, Netherlands) (represented initially by M. Slotboom and B. Haan, and subsequently by M. Slotboom, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, S. Noë and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nedri Spanstaal BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.