ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — British Aggregates and Others v Commission

(Case T-359/04) (1)

(State aid - Environmental tax on aggregates in the United Kingdom - Exemption for Northern Ireland - Commission decision not to raise objections - Serious difficulties - Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection)

(2010/C 288/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: British Aggregates Association (Lanark, United Kingdom), Healy Bros. Ltd (Middleton, Ireland) and David K. Trotter & Sons Ltd (represented by: C. Pouncey, Solicitor, and L. Van den Hende, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Flett and T. Scharf, Agents)

Intervening party: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (represented initially by M. Bethell and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and I. Rao, and lastly by S. Ossowski, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Hall and G. Facenna, Barristers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 1614 final of 7 May 2004 not to raise objections to the modified exemption for Northern Ireland in the context of the scheme of levies on aggregates in the United Kingdom

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 1614 final of 7 May 2004 not to raise objections to the change in the exemption, in Northern Ireland, from the levy on aggregates in the United Kingdom;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the British Aggregates Association, Healy Bros. Ltd and David K. Trotter & Sons Ltd;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/41

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2009 — Qualcomm v Commission

(Case T-48/04) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Market for traffic telematics systems - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market - Commitments - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2009/C 180/74

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV (Waarle, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and D. Hull, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: K. Mojzesowicz and A. Whelan, and subsequently by K. Mojzesowicz and X. Lewis, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by: C.-D. Quassowski and S. Flockermann, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Lumma, acting as Agent, and by U. Karpenstein and A. Rosenfeld, lawyer); Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany); Daimler AG, formerly DaimlerChrysler AG (Stuttgart, Germany); Daimler Financial Services AG, formerly DaimlerChrysler Services AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by J. Schütze and A. von Graevenitz, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2003/792/EC of 30 April 2003 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2903 — DaimlerChrysler/Deutsche Telekom/JV) (OJ 2003 L 300, p. 62)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs;

4. Orders Deutsche Telekom AG, Daimler AG and Daimler Financial Services AG to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/27

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2008 — Usinor v OHIM — Corus UK (GALVALLOY)

(Case T-189/05) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GALVALLOY - Earlier national word mark GALVALLIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 79/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Usinor SA (Puteaux, France) (represented by: P. de Candé and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Corus UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2005 (Case R 411/2004-1) in respect of opposition proceedings between Usinor SA and Corus UK Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

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 10 February 2005 (Case R 411/2004-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Usinor SA;

3. Orders Corus UK Ltd to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/40

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — Sack v Commission

(Case T-66/05) (1)

(Civil service - Official - Action for annulment - Responsibility bonus - Duties of ‘Head of unit’ - Equal treatment - Duty to state reasons - Language provisions)

(2008/C 22/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Jörn Sack (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Lehmann-Brauns and D. Mahlo, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and H. Krämer, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decisions relating to the fixing of the applicant's monthly salary for the months of May 2004 to February 2005, application for a fresh calculation of that salary and action for annulment of the express decision to reject the applicant's claim, notified to him on 26 November 2004.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/21

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-404/05) (1)

(Cohesion Fund - Athens International Airport - Reduction of financial assistance - Principle of proportionality)

(2009/C 6/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Tassopoulou, Agent, assisted by N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Weimar, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3243 final of 1 September 2005 reducing the financial assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/09/65/040 (new Athens International Airport at Spata) by Commission Decision C(96) 1356 final of 24 May 1996.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/16

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Williams v Commission

(Case T-42/05) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Preparatory documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC on GMOs - Partial refusal of access - Implied refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the protection of commercial interests, protection of international relations and protection of the decision-making process - Obligation to state reasons)

(2008/C 272/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rhiannon Williams (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Crosby, C. Bryant, Solicitors, and R. Lang, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Docksey and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 19 November 2004 partially refusing the applicant access to certain preparatory documents in respect of the legislation on genetically-modified organisms.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no further need to rule on the lawfulness of the Commission's decision of 19 November 2004 partially refusing Ms Rhiannon Williams access to certain preparatory documents in respect of the legislation on genetically-modified organisms in so far as it may include an implied refusal of access to preparatory documents from the Commission's Directorate-General (DG) for Trade relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC;

2. Annuls the Commission's decision of 19 November 2004 in so far as it impliedly refused access to preparatory documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC other than those produced by the Trade DG;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one half of those incurred by Ms Williams.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.
1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2005/354/EC of 29 April 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, in so far as it excludes from Community financing the expenditure by the Kingdom of Spain made under aid granted for the production of hemp in the years 1996/1997 to 1999/2000;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/23

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2009 — Borax Europe v Commission

(Case T-166/05) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents and sound recordings - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)

2009/C 90/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Borax Europe Ltd (Guildford, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Vandermeersch and K. Nordlander, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and I. Chatzigiannis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of 21 February 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967(I), p. 234)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 21 February 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing Borax Europe Ltd access to the recordings of the meeting of 5 and 6 October 2004, to two drafts of the summary record of that meeting, to thirteen comments from experts, to two comments from industry representatives and to the document submitted by the Danish Rapporteur;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/36

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — Artegodan v Commission

(Case T-429/05) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Medicinal products for human use - Decision requiring the withdrawal of marketing authorisations - Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

2010/C 100/55

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Artegodan GmbH (Lüchow, Germany) (represented by: U. Doepner, then A. Lensing-Kramer and subsequently by U. Reese and A. Sandrock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and M. Heller)

Intervening in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and U. Forsthoff, Agents)

Re:

Application for compensation under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Commission Decision C (2000) 453 of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing amfepramone

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

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

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/53

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-341/05 (1))

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the market in milk and milk products - Abolition of export refunds for all milk products to Ceuta and Melilla - Conditions - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality)

2009/C 267/89

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J Cárcamo and M. Muñoz Pérez, abogados del Estado)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Cattabriga and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2005 of 16 June 2005 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products (OJ 2005 L 154, p. 10), in so far as its Annex includes Ceuta and Mellila among the destinations grouped together under the destination L 01.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2005 of 16 June 2005 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products, in so far as it mentions Ceuta et Melilla among the destinations grouped together under the destination L 01.

2) Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217 of 29.10.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/14

Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 — Cetarsa v Commission

(Case T-33/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Equal treatment - Principle of proportionality - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Cooperation)

2011/C 89/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Compañía española de tabaco en rama, SA (Cetarsa) (Navalmoral de la Mata, Spain) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, J. Buendía Sierra and A. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Firstly, an application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain), secondly and in the alternative, an application for the reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision and, thirdly, a counterclaim by the Commission seeking to have that amount increased.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Compañía española de tabaco en rama, SA (Cetarsa) in Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain) at EUR 3 147 000;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

4. Orders Cetarsa to bear eight-tenths of its own costs and eight-tenths of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear two-tenths of its own costs and two-tenths of the costs incurred by Cetarsa.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/29

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — IMI and Others v Commission

(Case T-18/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tubes sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Interruption of participation - Fines - Limited participation in the cartel)

2010/C 179/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: IMI plc (Birmingham, Warwickshire, United Kingdom); IMI Kynoch Ltd (Birmingham); and Yorkshire Copper Tube (Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Struys and D. Arts, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and S. Noë, Agents)

Re:

Application for (1) annulment of Article 1(h) to (j) and Article 2(f) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes); and (2) in the alternative, reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1(h) to (j) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes) in so far as it relates to the period from 1 December 1994 to 11 April 1996;

2. Determines the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on IMI plc, IMI Kynoch Ltd and Yorkshire Copper Tube in Article 2(f) of Decision C(2004) 2826 at EUR 38.556 million;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and 40 % of the costs incurred by IMI, IMI Kynoch and Yorkshire Copper Tube;

5. Orders IMI, IMI Kynoch and Yorkshire Copper Tube to bear 60 % of their own costs.

(1) OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/35

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2008 — Federación de Cooperativas Agrarias de la Comunidad Valenciana v CPVO

(Case T-95/06) (1)

(Plant varieties - Appeal to the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office - Inadmissibility - Lack of individual concern - Effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons)

(2008/C 64/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Federación de Cooperativas Agrarias de la Comunidad Valenciana (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: S. Roig Girbes, R. Ortega Bueno and M. Delgado Echevarría, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad, acting as Agent, assisted by D. O'Keefe, Solicitor, J. Rivas de Andrés and M. Canal Fontcuberta, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of CPVO intervening before the Court of First Instance: Nador Cott Protection SARL (Saint-Raphaël, France) (represented by: M. Fernández Mateos, S. González Malabia and M. Marín Bataller, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 8 November 2005 (Case A 001/2005) concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right in regard to the mandarin variety Nadorcott.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Federación de Cooperativas Agrarias de la Comunidad Valenciana to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/21

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Promat v OHIM — Puertas Proma (PROMAT)

(Case T-243/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark PROMAT - Earlier Community figurative mark PROMA - Partial refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 272/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Promat GmbH (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: J.Krenzel and S.Beckmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puertas Proma SAL (Villacañas, Spain).

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1059/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Puertas Proma SAL and Promat GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders Promat GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/20

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2008 — Mülhens v OHIM — Spa Monopole (MINERAL SPA)

(Case T-93/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MINERAL SPA - Earlier national word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 197/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen and S. Maaßen, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. de Brouwer, É. Cornu, E. de Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 825/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV, and Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/29

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2008 — TIM and TTV v OHIM — PAST PERFECT

(Case T-133/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark PAST PERFECT - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(2))

(2008/C 313/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: TIM The International Music Company AG and TTV Tonträger-Vertrieb-2000 GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented initially by J. Wendt and G. Kukuk, and subsequently by J. Wendt, lawyers)

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 intervening before the Court of First Instance: Past Perfect Ltd (Bucknell, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom) (represented initially by S. Disraeli, and subsequently by K. Tinkler, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2006 (Case R 150/2005-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between TIM The International Music Company AG and TTV Tonträger-Vertrieb-2000 GmbH, on the one hand, and Past Perfect Ltd, on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TIM The International Music Company AG and TTV Tonträger-Vertrieb-2000 GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.