ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2013 — Nencini v Parliament

(Joined Cases T-431/10 and T-560/10)

‛Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Travel and parliamentary assistance expenses — Recovery of undue payments — Limitation period — Reasonable period — Rights of the defence — Principle of audi alteram partem — Proportionality’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included — Action against a debit note issued by the Directorate General of Finances of the European Parliament concerning the recovery of undue payment of travel expenses and parliamentary assistance — Note merely confirmatory of an earlier decision — Application inadmissible (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 27-32)

2. EU Law — Principles — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Administrative procedure — Criteria for assessment — Infringement — Consequences (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1)) (see paras 43, 44, 51-53)

3. European Parliament — Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Secretarial allowance — Conditions for grant — Non-compliance — Consequences (see paras 92-94)

4. European Parliament — Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Unconditional obligation (see para. 109)

Re:

APPLICATIONS, primarily, for annulment brought against the Decisions of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 16 July 2010 and 7 October 2010 relating to the recovery of certain sums received by the applicant, a former Member of the European Parliament, in respect of travel and parliamentary assistance expenses unduly paid, the Debit Notes of the Director General of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finances, No 312331 of 4 August 2010 and No 315653 of 13 October 2010, and any other related and/or prior acts and, in the alternative, to remit the applications to the Secretary General of the European Parliament for a fair reassessment of the sum in respect of which recovery is sought.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action in Case T-560/10;

2. Orders Riccardo Nencini to pay the costs in Case T-560/10, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings;

3. Orders Case T-431/10 to be removed from the register;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Gap granen & producten v Commission

(Case T-437/10)

‛Non-contractual liability — Import of high-quality durum wheat — Import duties — Regulation (EC) No 919/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Material loss — Causal link’

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Cumulative nature — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Concept — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 15, 16, 74, 76, 80, 81)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Discretion of the institution when adopting the measure — Necessary taking into consideration when examining liability — Determination of import duties on high-quality durum wheat (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Commission Regulations No 1249/96, Art. 4 and No 919/2009) (see paras 19, 22-24, 28-35, 40, 41, 44, 52, 56, 62, 66, 70, 71)

3. Non-contractual liability — Damage — Damage for which compensation is available — Costs incurred for the proceedings — Exclusion (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 86)

Re:

ACTION for compensation under Article 340 TFEU for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the fixing of import duties on high-quality durum wheat by Commission Regulation (EC) No 919/2009 of 1 October 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 915/2009 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2009 (OJ 2009 L 259, p. 5).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders the European Commission to compensate Gap SA granen & producten NV for the loss suffered by it as a result of the application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 919/2009 of 1 October 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 915/2009 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2009, in so far as that regulation did not take account of the fob quotation or use a calculation method which was representative of actual freight costs for the fixing of import duties for high-quality durum wheat;

2. Orders Gap granen & producten and the Commission to provide the General Court with the amounts to be paid, established by common agreement, within six months of the date of judgment;

3. Orders, if the parties fail to reach an agreement, Gap granen & producten and the Commission to provide the General Court with their forms of order sought, including figures, within the same period;
Although the essential question when reviewing whether to continue to include a person on the list is whether, since that person was included on the list or since the last review, the factual situation has changed in such a way that it is no longer possible to draw the same conclusion in relation to the involvement of that person in terrorist activities, with the consequence that the Council may, if necessary and within the context of its broad discretion, decide to maintain a person on the list relating to frozen funds in the absence of a change in the factual situation, the fact remains that any new terrorist act which the Council inserts in its statement of reasons during that review for the purposes of justifying maintaining the person concerned on the list relating to frozen funds must, in the two-tier decision-making system of Common Position 2001/931 and because of the Council’s lack of means of investigation, have been the subject of an examination and a decision by a competent authority within the meaning of that common position. The Council’s obligation to base its decisions to freeze funds in terrorist matters on a factual basis derived from decisions of competent authorities follows directly from the two-tier system introduced by Common Position 2001/931. That obligation is therefore not affected by the conduct of the person or group concerned. Under the obligation to state reasons, which is an essential procedural requirement, the Council must indicate, in the grounds of its decisions to freeze funds, the decisions of competent national authorities that have actually examined and established the terrorist acts which the Council takes as the factual basis of its own decisions.

(see paras 127, 129, 130)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 May 2014 — McBride and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T‑458/10 to T‑467/10 and T‑471/10)

‛Fisheries — Measures to conserve fishery resources — Sectoral restructuring — Requests to increase the Multiannual Guidance Programme objectives to improve safety on board — Ireland’s request concerning various vessels — Decision adopted following the General Court’s annulment of the initial decision concerning the same procedure — New refusal decision — Lack of competence of the Commission’

Fisheries — Common structural policy — Multiannual guidance programmes — Measures to increase the objectives of a programme for improving safety at sea and permitting the increase in capacity of some ships — Commission’s implementing powers — Commission Decision 2003/245 — Requests to increase Multiannual Guidance Programme IV objectives for improving safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 metres in length overall — No legal bases — Lack of jurisdiction of the Commission (Arts 5 TEU and 13(2) TEU; Art. 2(6) TFEU; Council Decision 97/413, Art. 4(2); Commission Decision 2003/245) (see paras 21, 23-27, 33-36, 40-46)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of Commission decisions C(2010) 4758, C(2010) 4748, C(2010) 4757, C(2010) 4751, C(2010) 4764, C(2010) 4750, C(2010) 4761, C(2010) 4767, C(2010) 4754, C(2010) 4753 and C(2010) 4752 of 13 July 2010 rejecting the request submitted by Ireland seeking to increase the Multiannual Guidance Programme IV objectives for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 to take into account improvements on safety relating to the vessels Peader Elaine II, Heather Jane II, Pacelli, Marie Dawn, Westward Isle, Golden Rose, Shauna Ann, Antartic, Niamh Eoghan, Menhaden and Brendelen, belonging to Peter McBride, Hugh McBride, Mullglen, Mr Boyle, Mr Flaherty, Ocean Trawlers, Mr Fitzpatrick, Mr McHugh, Mr Hannigan, Mr Murphy and Mr Gill, respectively, adopted following the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase the MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 metres in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48) as a result of the judgments of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P Flaherty and Others v Commission [2008] ECR I-2649 and of the General Court in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decisions C(2010) 4758, C(2010) 4748, C(2010) 4757, C(2010) 4751, C(2010) 4764, C(2010) 4750, C(2010) 4761, C(2010) 4767, C(2010) 4754, C(2010) 4753 and C(2010) 4752 of 13 July 2010 rejecting the request submitted by Ireland seeking to increase the objectives of the Multiannual Guidance Programme IV in order to take into account improvements on safety relating to the applicants’ vessels;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 – Inter IKEA Systems v OHIM – Meteor Controls (GLÄNSA)

(Case T-88/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark GLÄNSA – Earlier Community word mark GLANZ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – 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 24-25, 45, 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2009 (Case R 529/2009‑2) in relation to opposition proceedings between Meteor Controls International Ltd and Inter IKEA Systems BV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 17 May 2011 – Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon ‘Ygeia’ v OHIM (υγεία)

(Case T-7/10)

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

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Exception (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 1(2) and 7(2) and (3)) (see paras 40-41, 50-52)

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 serving to designate the characteristics of a product or service – No acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c) and (3)) (see paras 22, 30, 65)

Re:

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

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon ’Ygeia’ AE Community trade mark sought: Word sign υγεία for services in Class 44, medical services – Application No 7129001 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Confirmation of the decision of the examiner and rejection of the application for registration





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 – Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne v OHIM – Natura Cosméticos (NATURAVIVA)

(Case T-107/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark NATURAVIVA – Earlier Community word mark VIVA – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 – No similarity of the signs

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 24, 46, 50-51, 56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 November 2009 (Case R 1558/2008‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH and Natura Cosméticos, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2011 – mPAY24 v OHIM – Ultra (MPAY24)

(Case T-275/10)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark MPAY24 – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Correction of the decision by the Board of Appeal – Non-existent act – Rule 53 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 42, 50-51, 58-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2010 (Case R 1102/2008‑1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav and mPAY24 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 22 March 2010 (Case R 1102/2008‑1);
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 – Hrbek v OHIM – Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT)

(Case T-434/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT – Earlier Community figurative mark ‘alpine’ – Misuse of power – Article 65(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 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 31, 47, 65, 71-74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1441/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Outdoor Group Ltd and Mr Václav Hrbek.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2012 – Viaguara v OHIM – Pfizer (VIAGUARA)

(Case T-332/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ‘VIAGUARA’ – Earlier Community word mark VIAGRA – Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark – Article 8(5) 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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 30, 42, 53, 79)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 946/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer Inc. and Viaguara S.A.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 – Häfele v OHIM (Mixfront)

(Case T-425/10)

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

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23-24, 26-27, 34)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 338/2010‑1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Mixfront as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-111/10)

ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Operational Programme seeking modernisation of the economic fabric in Portugal — Absence of precise and verifiable binding objectives — Legitimate expectations

1. Economic and social cohesion — Structural assistance — Union financing — Condition — Pursuit of a tangible objective within the framework of social cohesion policy (Council Regulations No 2052/88, Arts 6 to 8, and No 4253/88, Arts 8, 14, 15 and 24 to 26) (see paras 27-32)

2. Economic and social cohesion — Structural assistance — Union financing — Duty of Member States regularly to review projects financed — Decision to reduce aid for lack of evidence that expenses eligible — No infringement of the defence rights (Council Regulation No 4253/88, art. 23) (see para. 36)

3. Economic and social cohesion — Structural assistance — Commission decision — Assessment of legality by reference to information available at the time of adoption of the decision (see para. 41)

4. Economic and social cohesion — Structural assistance — Union financing — Decision to reduce aid originally granted — Irregularities not having been objected to by the Commission — Breach of principle of the protection of legitimate expectation — Conditions (see paras 45-48)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10624 of 21 December 2009 reducing the assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted to Portugal in respect of the Operational Programme ‘Modernisation of the economic fabric’, CCI: 1994 PT 16 1 PO 004 (ex ERDF ref. 94.12.09.004) by Commission Decision C(94)464/3 of 4 March 1994 authorising financial assistance from the ERDF.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
52

That finding is not undermined by the fact that the individual in question in the present case is not a producer. On the contrary, it should be noted that in the present case the members of SAT Royal are producers. Therefore, the fact that the individual in question, a non-producer, holds the bulk, or even all, of the shares of several producer members of SAT Royal results in a breach of both of the principles outlined in paragraphs 48 and 49 above, applied by European Union rules in order to ensure that a producer organisation operates democratically. In such a circumstance, not only is the apparent number of members of the producer organisation not representative of the number of that organisation’s members that are genuinely independent, in breach of the second principle outlined in paragraph 49 above, but also, since some of the producer members are controlled by a person who is a non-producer, in breach of the first principle outlined in paragraph 48 above, the power to scrutinise the producer organisation and its decisions is not, in reality, exercised only by producer members.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 22 May 2012 —

Olive Line International v OHIM — Umbria Olii International (O·LIVE)



(Case T‑273/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark O·LIVE — Earlier Community and Spanish figurative and word marks Olive line — 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40-42, 76-83)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2010 (Case R 4/2009‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Olive Line International, SL and O. International Srl.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2010 (Case R 4/2009‑4) is annulled in so far as it concerns, first, all the goods covered by the trade mark application in Class 3, namely ‘bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use, cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations, soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices’, and, second, ‘hygiene and beauty care for humans and animals’ in Class 44 covered by the trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM and Umbria Olii International Srl to bear three quarters of their own costs and each to pay three eighths of the costs incurred by Olive Line International, SL;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 —

Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi‑Design and Others (Representation of a triangular surface with black dots)



(Case T‑331/10)

Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark representing a surface with black dots — Shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs constituted solely by the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Definition (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 26-28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1235/2008‑1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S, of the one part, and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd, of the other.

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 20 May 2010 (Case R 1235/2008‑1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd;