ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-139/01

Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co.

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – Imports from ACP States and non-member countries – Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 – Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Person individually concerned – Action for damages)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 3 February 2005

Summary of the Judgment

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulations establishing detailed rules for the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community – Actions by certain traditional operators – Inadmissibility

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulations Nos 896/2001 and 1121/2001)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of Community law protecting individuals – Institution without a discretion – Sufficiency of a mere infringement of Community law

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

1. A measure of general application such as a regulation may, in certain circumstances, be of individual concern to a natural or legal person and thus in the nature of a decision in regard to that person.

Such is not however the case, regarding certain traditional operators, of Regulation No 896/2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community, or of Regulation No 1121/2001, fixing the adjustment coefficients to be applied to each traditional operator’s reference quantity under the tariff quotas for imports of bananas. Those regulations constitute measures of general application, which do not affect the said operators by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as which the addressee of a decision is. Those operators cannot therefore be regarded as individually concerned, within the meaning of Article 230, para. 4, EC, by the aforementioned regulations.

(see paras. 107, 115)

2. In order for the Community to incur non-contractual liability within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC a number of conditions must be satisfied: the alleged conduct of the institutions must be unlawful, there must be actual damage and there must be a causal link between the alleged conduct and the damage pleaded.

Concerning the first of those conditions, it is necessary that there be a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals. As regards the requirement that the breach be sufficiently serious, the decisive test for finding that it is fulfilled is whether the Community institution concerned manifestly and seriously disregarded the limits on its discretion. Where that institution has only a considerably reduced discretion, or even none, the mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach.

(see paras. 141-142)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2005 − Fedon & Figli and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-135/01)

Non-contractual liability of the Community – Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation – Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body – Legal effects – Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct on the part of its institutions – Causal link – Unusual and special damage

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – No discretion for the institution – Mere infringement of Community law sufficient (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 78-82)

2. Actions for damages – World Trade Organisation – Not possible to rely on the WTO Agreements in order to contest the lawfulness of a Community act – Exceptions – Community measure intended to implement a WTO Agreement or expressly and specifically referring thereto – Community regime governing the import of bananas – Incompatibility with the WTO rules established by the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO – Judicial review of the lawfulness of that regime under the WTO rules – Excluded (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Regulations Nos 404/93 and 1637/98; Commission Regulation No 2362/98) (see paras 103, 106-108)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – No unlawful conduct on the part of the Community institutions – Real damage, causal link and unusual and special damage – Cumulative requirements (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 153)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Retention of a Community banana import regime incompatible with the WTO Agreements – Damage arising from the adoption of a retaliatory measure by the United States authorities – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 171-172, 177-179, 183)

5. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – No unlawful conduct on the part of the Community institutions – Damage arising from the incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the WTO Agreements – Unusual damage – None – Liability of the Community – Excluded (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 191-192, 194, 199, 201)

Re:

ACTION for compensation in respect of the damage allegedly caused by the levying by the United States of America of increased customs duty on the applicants’ imports of spectacle cases, as authorised by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), following a finding that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with the agreements and understandings annexed to the Agreement establishing the WTO.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
In a promotion procedure the appointing authority is required to make its choice on the basis of a consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion and of the reports on them. To that end, it has power under the Staff Regulations to undertake such consideration according to the procedure or method which it considers to be the most appropriate.

The appointing authority has a wide discretion in assessing the merits to be taken into consideration in a decision on promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, and the review by the Community judicature is confined to determining whether, having regard to the various considerations which may have influenced the administration in making its assessment, it has remained within reasonable bounds and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way. The Court cannot therefore substitute its assessment of the qualifications and merits of the candidates for that of the appointing authority. However, the discretion which the administration is thus recognised as enjoying is circumscribed by the need to undertake a comparative consideration of the candidatures with care and impartiality, in the interest of the service and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. In practice, that consideration must be undertaken on a basis of equality, using comparable sources of information.

(see paras 21-22)

See: 62/75 de Wind v Commission [1976] ECR 1167. para. 17: T-76/92 Tsirimokos v Parliament [1993] ECR II-1281. paras 20 and 21: T-557/93 Rasmussen v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-195 and II-603. para. 20; T-262/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-739, para. 66: T-221/96 Manzo-Tafaro v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-115 and II-307. para. 16: T-157/98 Oliveira v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-163 and II-851. para. 35
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Where one of the conditions is not satisfied – Action for damages must be dismissed

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

2. Approximation of laws – General safety of goods – Directive 92/59 – Community rapid alert system for food and feed – Respective powers of the national authorities and of the Commission

(Council Directive 92/59)

3. Approximation of laws – General safety of goods – Directive 92/59 – Community rapid alert system for food and feed – Precautionary principle

(Council Directive 92/59)

Summary

1. Non-contractual liability on the part of the Community is subject to a number of conditions: unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the Community institutions, actual damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage complained of. If one of those conditions is not satisfied, the entire action must be dismissed and it is not necessary to consider the other conditions.

(see para. 32)

2. The Community rapid alert system for food and feed introduced by Directive 92/59 on general product safety confers on the national authorities only, and not on the Commission, responsibility for establishing whether there is a serious and immediate risk to the health and safety of consumers. It is thus incumbent upon the national authorities, once they have detected a serious and immediate risk the effects of which extend or could extend beyond their territory, immediately to inform the Commission and provide it with information to identify the product and the supply chain. The Commission, for its own part, confines itself to checking whether the information falls, as such, within the scope of the directive, and the accuracy of the findings and analyses that led the national authorities to send that information does not have to be checked.

(see paras 51-52)

3. As regards the prevention of risks to the health of consumers, and if any doubt remains, under the precautionary principle prevailing in the matter of the protection of public health the competent authority may be obliged to take appropriate measures to prevent certain potential risks for public health without having to wait until the existence and seriousness of those risks has been fully demonstrated. If it was necessary to wait until all the research was completed before adopting such measures the precautionary principle would be rendered devoid of purpose. That reasoning also applies in the case of a rapid information procedure such as the one introduced by Directive 92/59 on general product safety, and, consequently, an undertaking which is a victim of that alert system introduced in order to protect human health must accept its adverse economic consequences, since the protection of public health must take precedence over economic considerations.

(see para. 54)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

11 December 2003

Case T-323/02

Monique Breton

v

Court of Justice of the European Communities

‛Officials — Promotion — Award of promotion points — Admissibility’

Full text in French II-1587

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice concerning the award to the applicant of promotion points for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 pursuant to the Court's decision of 18 October 2000 on promotions and the decision of the Registrar of the Court of 3 December 2001 establishing a transitional system for promotions.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Award of promotion points — Inclusion (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) Officials — Promotion — Adoption of a new promotion system — Transitional system — Account taken of officials' merits — Discretion of the administration — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations, Art. 45) Community law — Principles — Equal treatment — Discrimination — Meaning
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Word mark ‘LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS... PLAYS LIKE GRASS’ – Goods and services inseparably linked

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

2. Community trade mark – Procedural requirements – Decisions of the Office – Respect for the rights of the defence

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73)

Summary

1. The word mark LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS... PLAYS LIKE GRASS, registration of which is sought in respect of synthetic surfaces and the installation services for that product, is devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 in that that mark is not such as to be perceived immediately as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or services in question, but as a mere promotional slogan.

In respect of the goods in question, the mark is merely the concatenation, which is commonplace, of three unambiguous statements concerning the properties of those goods which therefore directly informs the relevant public that those goods have qualities similar to those of natural grass. It cannot be ruled out that, with regard to the services in question, the mark applied for may be distinctive and so a solution which was common to the goods and services specified in the trade mark application shall apply since the application makes no distinction and in particular does not seek to be confined to the services alone should it be rejected in respect of the goods and above all since those goods and services are inseparably linked since the purpose of those services can only be the installation of those goods.

(see paras 30, 33, 35)

2. There is no breach of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, which provides that the decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) are to be based only on reasons on which the parties concerned have had an opportunity to present their comments, where a Board of Appeal of OHIM failed to inform a party of the results of an internet search which it carried out and referred to in its decision since the Board of Appeal arrived at its findings as a result of reasoning independent of the reference to that search and that reference was made only to confirm the accuracy of those findings.

(see paras 39-42)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Criteria for assessment – Requirement of concrete and objective proof – Mere presentation of sales catalogues – Insufficient proof

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Article 43(2))

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 – Word mark ‘VITAKRAFT’ and figurative marks including the word ‘Krafft’

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

Summary

1. There is genuine use of a mark within the meaning of Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark where it is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services; genuine use does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark. Furthermore, the condition of genuine use of the mark requires that the mark, as protected on the relevant territory, be used publicly and outwardly.

Furthermore, genuine use of a trade mark cannot be proved by means of probabilities or suppositions, but must be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence of effective and sufficient use of the trade mark on the market concerned.

The latter requirement is not satisfied by the mere presentation by the opponent of catalogues that represent the opponent’s products, that show the opponent’s trade mark used in the same form as registered and that show how the mark is applied on the products, since the catalogues submitted establish neither the fact that they were distributed to a potential clientele, nor the extent of any distribution, nor the number of sales made of goods protected by the mark.

(see paras 26, 28, 31, 34)

2. There is, for Spanish-speaking consumers, a likelihood of confusion between the word sign ‘VITAKRAFT’, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought for certain goods in Classes 1, 3 and 4 of the Nice Agreement, and the figurative marks including the element ‘Krafft’ and blue and red rectangles, registered earlier in Spain to designate similar products in Classes 1 and 3 of the Arrangement, to the extent that, firstly, both from the visual and auditory points of view, the preponderant element of the sign requested, ‘kraft’, and the verbal element of the earlier marks, ‘Krafft’, are very similar, if not identical, the two ‘f’s in the word ‘Krafft’ making no perceptible phonetic difference or sufficient visual difference to dissipate the elements of similarity set out above and, secondly, given that neither the mark requested nor the earlier marks have any concrete meaning in the Spanish language, no sufficient conceptual difference between the signs is apparent.

(see paras 55-57)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against an implemented or interrupted measure (Art. 233 EC) (see paras 48-51)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to freeze funds directed against certain persons and entities suspected of terrorist activities – Minimum requirements (Art. 253 EC; Council Common Position 2001/931, Art. 1(4) and (6); Council Regulation No 2580/2001) (see paras 62-64)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court – Not permissible (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 68-70)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for, first, annulment of Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/EC (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 26) and, second, damages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/EC in so far as it concerns the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK);

2. Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, all the costs incurred by Osman Ocalan on behalf of the PKK before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission of the European Communities to pay their own costs.
Case T-76/02





Mara Messina

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Access to documents – Non-disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior agreement of that State)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), 17 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. European Communities – Institutions – Public right of access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Limits on the right of access to documents – Non-disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without that State's prior agreement

(Art. 255 EC; Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 4(5))

2.. European Communities – Institutions – Public right of access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Communication of documents originating from a Member State in the institution's possession – Letter of objection sent to the institution on behalf of a Member State – Determination of the competence of the letter's author – Institution's lack of competence

(Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 4(5))

1.

2.
Case T-63/02





Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni

v

European Central Bank





«(Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Remuneration – Method of calculation of annual salary adjustment – Consultation of Staff Committee – Articles 13, 45 and 46 of the Conditions of Employment)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 20 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Pay – Annual salary adjustment – Consultation of the Staff Committee – Obligation of the administration

(Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Arts 45 and 46)

2.. Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Representation – Staff Committee – Consultation mandatory – Justification

(Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 46)

3.. Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Pay – Method of calculation for general salary adjustment – Criteria – Discretion of the administration – Judicial review – Limits

(Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 13)

4.. Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Actions – Subject-matter – Issue of directions to the administration – Inadmissible – Dispute of a financial nature – Unlimited jurisdiction

(Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 42)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case T-281/02

Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG

v

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

(Community trade mark – Word mark ‘Mehr für Ihr Geld’ – Absolute grounds for refusal – Distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 30 June 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Signs capable of constituting a mark – Signs also used as advertising slogans – Condition – Distinctive character

(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 any distinctive character – Word sign ‘Mehr für Ihr Geld’

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

1. Registration, under Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, of a trade mark which consists of signs or indications that are also used as advertising slogans, indications of quality or incitements to purchase the goods or services covered by that mark is not excluded as such by virtue of such use. However, a sign which fulfils functions other than that of a trade mark in the traditional sense of the term is distinctive for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 only if it may be perceived immediately as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or services in question, so as to enable the relevant public to distinguish, without any possibility of confusion, the goods or services of the owner of the mark from those of a different commercial origin.

(see para. 25)

2. Under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the word sign ‘Mehr für Ihr Geld’, registration of which is sought for cleaning materials and food for everyday consumption in Classes 3, 29 and 30 of the Nice Agreement, is devoid of any distinctive character. The mark applied for will be perceived immediately by the target public, which is German-speaking, as a mere promotional formula or a slogan which indicates that the goods in question offer consumers an advantage in terms of quantity and/or quality as against competing goods. In that regard, the element ‘Mehr’ (‘more’) is laudatory for the sake of advertising, the purpose being to highlight the positive qualities of the goods or services for the presentation of which that element is used.

(see paras 27, 29, 34)