ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 December 2022 — Athlet v EUIPO — Heuver Bandengroothandel (ATHLET)

(Case T-650/22)

(2023/C 35/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Athlet Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Reinhard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heuver Bandengroothandel BV (Hardenberg, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ATHLET — EU trade mark No 9 224 692

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2022 in Case R 2214/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the TFEU;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Distortion of the facts and evidence;

— Infringement of Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 75 of the IMS and of Annexes I, II and III to the PEAM Rules. Infringement of Article 28 of the Statute for Members and of the applicant’s entitlement to a pension. — The applicant claims that the contested act is unlawful on the ground that the European Parliament misinterpreted and misapplied Article 75 of the IMS and Article 2(1) of Annex III to the PEAM Rules. The applicant submits that those provisions must be interpreted as meaning that the reference, in Article 75 of the IMS, to Annexes I, II and III to the PEAM Rules, and in particular to Article 2(1), must necessarily be understood as referring to the pension applicable when that Annex III was in force. By contrast, the abovementioned provisions have been interpreted and applied by the Parliament as allowing the applicant’s pension to be amended an indefinite number of times, in clear breach of Article 28 of the Statute for Members and of the principles of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty. — In the end, even if the interpretation of the European Parliament were to be adopted, Article 2 of Annex III to the PEAM Rules meets a limit under EU law and, in any event, concerns only that amount and the conditions for paying the pension which cannot, nevertheless, affect the entitlement to a pension itself. However, in the present case, the measure applied to the applicant, through the automatic transposition of Decision 150/2022, not only amended the applicant’s entitlement to a pension, by affecting the conditions relating to the constitution of that entitlement, but presents clear signs of incompatibility with EU law.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 December 2022 — bet365 Group/EUIPO (bet365)

(Case T-764/22)

(2023/C 35/99)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: bet365 Group Ltd (Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. van Manen and E. van Gelderen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘bet365’ — Application for registration No 18 479 799

Contested decision: Decision of the Forth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2022 in Case R 622/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/38

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — AMGA v Commission

(Case T-300/02) (1)

(State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

2009/C 180/69

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA (AMGA) (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo and M. Merola, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: ASM Brescia SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by G. Caia, V. Salvadori, N. Pisani and F. Capelli, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA (AMGA) to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission.

3. Orders ASM Brescia SpA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/23

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-345/03) (1)

(Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of services for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS) - Rejection of a tender - Principles of equal treatment as between tenderers and transparency)

(2008/C 107/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented: initially by S. Pappas and subsequently by N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly and L. Parpala, agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision to award the contract which is the subject of the Commission's call for tenders ENTR/02/055 — CORDIS Lot 2 for the development and provision of services for in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Commission of 16 July 2003 to award the contract which is the subject of the call for tenders ENTR/02/55 — CORDIS Lot 2.

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/37

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — Nintendo and Nintendo of Europe v Commission

(Case T-13/03) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for Nintendo video games consoles and games cartridges - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Limitation of parallel exports - Fines - Deterrent effect - Duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances - Role of leader or instigator - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

2009/C 141/75

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nintendo Co., Ltd (Kyoto, Japan) and Nintendo of Europe GmbH (Grossostheim, Germany) (represented by: I. Forrester QC, J. Pheasant, M. Powell, C. Kennedy-Loest, Solicitors and J. Killick, Barrister)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by O. Beynet and A. Whelan, and subsequently by X. Lewis and O. Beynet, Agents)

Re:

Application for cancellation or reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by Article 3, first indent, of Commission Decision 2003/675/EC of 30 October 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/35.587 PO Video Games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega — Nintendo) (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 33).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Nintendo Co., Ltd and Nintendo of Europe GmbH at EUR 119,2425 million;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/19

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2008 — Hoechst v Commission

(Case T-410/03) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in sorbates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Calculation of the amount of the fines - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances - Principle non bis in idem - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Access to the file - Duration of the procedure)

(2008/C 197/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented initially by M. Klusmann and V. Turner, then by M. Klusmann, V. Turner and M. Rüba, and finally by M. Klusmann and V. Turner, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by W. Mölls, O. Beynet and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by W. Mölls and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents, assisted by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment, so far as the applicant is concerned, of Commission Decision 2005/493/EC of 1 October 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Chisso Corporation, Daicel Chemical Industries Ltd, Hoechst AG, The Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry Co. Ltd and Ueno Fine Chemicals Industry Ltd (Case No COMP/E 1/37.370 — Sorbates) (Summary in OJ 2005 L 182, p. 20), or, in the alternative, a reduction to an appropriate level of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Hoechst GmbH at EUR 74.25 million.

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action.

3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/40

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Pagliacci v Commission

(Case T-307/04) (1)

(Officials - Open competition - Failure to include candidate's name on the reserve list - Breach of the notice of competition - Qualifications and professional experience required)

(2008/C 22/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carlo Pagliacci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers, initially, and F. Schiaudone, lawyer, subsequently)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the selection board of competition COM/A/1/02, which gave the applicant insufficient points in the tests for his name to be included in the list of successful candidates.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the section board of competition COM/A/1/02 which gave Mr Carlo Pagliacci insufficient points in the tests for his name to be included in the list of successful candidates;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 262, 14.5.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/43

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — Compagnie maritime belge v Commission

(Case T-276/04) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of collective dominant position - Shipping conference - Decision imposing a fine on the basis of an earlier decision annulled in part by the Court of Justice - Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 - Reasonable time-limit - Rights of the defence - Legal certainty - Force of res judicata)

(2008/C 209/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie maritime belge SA (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by É. Gippini Fournier, P. Hellström and F. Amato, then by É. Gippini Fournier, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/480/EC of 30 April 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC (Cases COMP/D2/32.448 and 32.450) (summarised in OJ 2005 L 171, p. 28), imposing a fine on the applicant for alleged abuses of a collective dominant position engaged in by the Cewal conference and, in the alternative, the reduction of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Compagnie maritime belge SA to pay two-thirds of its own costs and two-thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to pay one-third of its own costs and one-third of the costs incurred by Compagnie maritime belge.

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/23

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Sebirán v OHIM — El Coto de Rioja (Coto D'Arcis)

(Case T-332/04) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Coto D'Arcis - Earlier Community word marks EL COTO and COTO DE IMAZ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - No damage to reputation - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 107/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sebirán SL (Requena, Spain) (represented by: A. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: El Coto de Rioja SA (Oyón, Spain) (represented initially by M.E. López Camba, then by M.E. López Camba and J. Grimau Muñoz, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 550/2003-2) concerning opposition proceedings between El Coto de Rioja SA and Sebirán SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. dismisses the application of El Coto de Rioja SA for the partial annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 15 June 2004 (Case R 550/2003-2);

3. orders Sebirán SL to pay its own costs and those of OHIM and one half of the costs of El Coto de Rioja SA;

4. orders El Coto de Rioja SA to bear one half of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/25

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-196/04) (1)

(State aid - Agreements entered into by the Walloon Region and the Brussels South Charleroi airport with the airline Ryanair - Existence of an economic advantage - Application of the private investor in a market economy test)

(2009/C 32/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented: initially by D. Gleeson, A. Collins, SC, V. Power and D. McCann, Solicitors, and subsequently by V. Power and D. McCann, J. Swift, QC, J. Holmes, Barrister, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Association of European Airlines (AEA) (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis and J. Heithecker, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 12 February 2004 concerning advantages granted by the Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair in connection with its establishment at Charleroi (OJ 2004 L 137, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2004/393/EC of 12 February 2004 concerning advantages granted by the Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair in connection with its establishment at Charleroi;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Ryanair Ltd;

3. Orders the Association of European Airlines (AEA) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 11.9.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/27

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Camar v Commission

(Joined Cases T-457/04 and T-223/05) (1)

(Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Transitional measures - Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 - Judgment finding that the Commission had failed to act - Failure to give effect to a judgment of the Court - Action for annulment - Application for an order that effect be given to the judgment by way of financial equivalent - Compensation for non-material damage - Unlawful failure to act on the part of the Commission - Action for damages - Suspension of the limitation period - Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 313/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Camar Srl (Florence, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini, S. Donà and M. Paolin, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: L. Visaggio, later by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

In Case T-457/04, application, first, for annulment of the Commission's decision not to give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 8 June 2000, Camar and Tico v Commission and Council (Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 [2000] ECR II-2193), contained in the letter of 10 September 2004, secondly, for an order that the Commission give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the abovementioned judgment in Camar and Tico v Commission and Council by the financial equivalent of the value of the certificates that it has not issued and, thirdly, for an order that the Commission pay compensation for non-material loss, and in Case T-223/05, application for an order that the Commission pay compensation, on the basis of the non-contractual liability of the European Community, for the loss which the applicant has suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. annuls the decision of the Commission contained in the letter of 10 September 2004 from the Director General of the Directorate General ‘Agriculture’ refusing to give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 8 June 2000, Camar and Tico v Commission and Council (Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 [2000] ECR II-2193);

2. for the rest, dismisses the action in Case T-457/04 as unfounded;

3. dismisses the action in T-223/05 as inadmissible;

4. in Case T-457/04, orders Camar Srl and the Commission each to bear half of their own costs and to pay half of the costs of the other party;

5. in Case T-223/05, orders Camar Srl to bear its own costs and to pay the Commission's costs.

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/20

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 — Éditions Jacob v Commission

(Case T-452/04) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - French-language publishing - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets - Decision to approve the purchaser of the assets sold - Action for annulment brought by an unsuccessful prospective purchaser - Trustee’s independence - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89)

2010/C 301/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: W. van Weert, O. Fréget, M. Struys, M. Potel and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Whelan, O. Beynet, A. Bouquet and F. Arbault, then A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Wendel Investissement SA (Paris) (represented by: initially C. Couadou and M. Trabucchi, then M. Trabucchi and F. Gordon, lawyers); and Lagardère SCA (Paris) (represented by: initially A. Winckler, I. Girgenson and S. Sorinas Jimeno, then A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J.-B. Pinçon, lawyers

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision (2004) D/203365 of 30 July 2004 relating to the approval of Wendel Investissement as purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP) (OJ 2004 L 125, p. 54).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. annuls Commission Decision (2004)D/203365 of 30 July 2004 on the approval of Wendel Investissement SA as purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EEC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP);

2. orders the European Commission and Lagardère SCA to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS;

3. orders Wendel Investissement to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 45, of 19.2.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/41

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-222/04) (1)

(State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Existing aid or new aid - Article 86(2) EC)

2009/C 180/75

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented: initially, by I. Braguglia and, subsequently, by R. Adam and I. Bruni, Agents, and M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 233, 28.9.2002 (formerly Case C-290/02).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/32

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 April 2008 — Citigroup and Citibank v OHIM — Citi (CITI)

(Case T-181/05) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative trade mark CITI - Earlier Community word mark CITIBANK - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 128/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Citigroup, Inc., formerly Citicorp, (New York, New York, United States), and Citibank, NA, (New York) (represented by: initially V. von Bomhard, A.W. Renck and A. Pohlmann, lawyers, and subsequently by V. von Bomhard, A.W. Renck, and H. O'Neill, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo and D. Botis, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Citi, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Peris Riera, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2005 (Case R 173/2004-1) in respect of opposition proceedings between Citicorp and Citi SL and opposition proceedings between Citibank NA and Citi SL

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 1 March 2005 (Case R 173/2004-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank, NA, including those costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

3. Orders Citi, SL, to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.