ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
II - 4591Case T-107/06
Inet Hellas Ilektroniki Ipiresia Pliroforion EPE (Inet Hellas)
v
European Commission
(Action for annulment — Implementation of top level domain ‘.eu’ — Registration 
of domain ‘.co’ as second level domain — Measure not open to appeal — 
Inadmissibility)
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber), 15 December 2009   II - 4593
Summary of the Order
Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measure producing binding legal 
effects
(Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 733/2002)
SUMMARY — CASE T-107/06
II - 4592An action for the annulment of a decision 
allegedly contained in a Commission letter 
concerning the rejection, by the body respon -
sible for the organisation, administration and 
management of the ‘.eu’ top-level domain, 
of the applicant’s requet for registration of  
‘.co’ as a second-level domain is inadmis -
sible. The view expressed by the Commission  
in t
he contested decision cannot be regarded  
as having the character of a decision cap -
able of producing legally binding effects such  
a
s to affect the interests of the applicant by 
significantly altering its legal situation. The 
mere fact that a letter is sent by a Community institution to its addressee in response to a 
request made by the latter is not enough for 
it to be treated as a decision against which an action for its annulment may be brought.
In t
hat regard, Regulation No  733/2002, on 
the implementation of the .eu Top Level D o-
main, gives the registry the power to refuse the registration of a second level domain, and it i
s not a power delegated to the registry by 
the Commission.
M
oreover, a power in favour of the Commi s-
sion to issue to the registry binding guide -
lines relating to the registration of a specific second level domain cannot be presumed, in the absence of a specific provision contained 
in the Treaty or in binding acts adopted by 
the institutions. Neither the said Regulation No  733/2002 nor Regulation No  874/2004, 
laying down public policy rules concerning 
the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles gover n-
ing registration, contain provisions confer -
ring such jurisdiction on the Commission.
(s
ee paras 55, 63, 65-66, 75)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-33, 65-66

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 1069/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Grandel GmbH and Matthias Rath.

Information relating to the case

>lt>15

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

2. Orders Matthias Rath to bear his own costs and pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Dr. Grandel GmbH.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 – K‑Swiss v OHIM (Parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T‑14/06)

Community trade mark – Procedural issues – Plea of inadmissibility – Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal – Time-limit for bringing an action

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 61(2), 62(1) and (3) and 68) (see paras 22, 25-26, 28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2005 (Case R 1109/2004-1), concerning registration of a mark in the form of five parallel stripes placed on the lateral part of a representation of a shoe as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: K‑Swiss, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark representing a shoe with five parallel stripes on the side for goods in Class 25 – Application No 2788511 Decision of the Examiner: Application dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 22 February 2008 – Base v Commission

(Case T-295/06)

Action for annulment –Telecommunications – Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC – Wholesale market for voice call termination on individual mobile networks in Belgium – Significant power on the market – Commission’s comments letter – Non-actionable measure – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Directive of the European Parliament and Council 2002/21, Arts 7(2) to (5), 8(3)(d) and 16(4)) (see paras 56, 62-63, 66-69)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures (Art. 230 EC; Directive of the European Parliament and Council 2002/21, Art. 7(3) and (4) (see paras 75‑78)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Directive of the European Parliament and Council 2002/21, Art. 7(3) and (5)) (see paras 119-121)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 4 August 2006, addressed to the Institut belge des services postaux et des telecommunications (Belgian Institute of Post and Telecommunications Services) containing comments, pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), concerning a draft decision notified by that institute (Case BE/2006/0433).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Base NV to pay its own costs and the costs of the Commission;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2008 – Makhteshim-Agan Holding and Others v Commission

(Case T-393/06)

Action for annulment – Action for failure to act – Directive 91/414/EEC – Plant protection products – Active substance azinphos-methyl – Inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC – No new Commission proposal after opposition by the Council – Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EEC – Non-actionable measure – No request to act – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Directive 91/414, Annex I; Council Decision 1999/468, Art. 5(6), second para.) (see paras 31, 44-45)

2. Actions for failure to act – Institution not called upon to act (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see paras 49-50)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision, alleged to be contained in a letter of 12 October 2006, not to submit a proposal with a view to inclusion of the active substance azinphos-methyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), or, in the alternative, application for a declaration that the Commission has failed to act in unlawfully failing to submit such a proposal.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl and Magan Italia Srl to pay their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission;
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 14 July 2008 – Complejo Agrícola v Commission

(Case T-345/06)

Action for annulment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Decision 2006/613/EC – List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region – Challengeable act – Lack of direct effect – Inadmissible

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230, first para., EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(2), 5 and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Art. 1, second para., and Annexes 1, 2 and 3) (see paras 25-29)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(5) and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Annex 1) (see paras 40-45)

Re:

Partial annulment of Article 1 of, and Annex 1 to, Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Acebuchales de la Campiña sur de Cádiz’, which includes a farm belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Complejo Agrícola SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directives Nos 67/227, Art. 1, first and third paras, and 2006/112, Art. 411(1)) (see paras 24-28, 34-40

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) to the extent that it repeals the fourth and eighth recitals in the preamble to and the first and third paragraphs of Article 1 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes of 11 April 1967 (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14).

Operative part

Operative part

1. Action dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene made by the Commission and the Kingdom of Spain.

3. Lactalis Gestion Lait SNC and Lactalis Investissements SNC are ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Prima facie admissibility of the main action (Arts 230 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1);Council Directive 91/414; Commission Decision 2007/437) (see paras 45-46, 48, 59-60, 64)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 86-89, 91, 101)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/437/EC of 19 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of haloxyfop-R in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 163, p. 22) pending the full resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Whether directly concerned

–

Criteria (Arts 175 EC, 176 EC and 230, para. 4, EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Arts 9 and 11) (see paras 28-55

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

2. Orders BOT Elektrownia Bełchatów S.A., BOT Elektrownia Turów S.A., BOT Elektrownia Opole S.A., Elektrownia ‘Kozienice’ S.A., Elektrownia Połaniec S.A. – Grupa Electrabel Polska, Elektrownia ‘Rybnik’ S.A., Elektrownia Skawina S.A., Elektrownia ‘Stalowa Wola’ S.A., Południowy Koncern Energetyczny S.A., Zespół Elektrowni Dolna Odra S.A., Zespół Elektrowni Ostrołęka S.A. and Zespół Elektrowni Pątnów-Adamów-Konin S.A. to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

3. Orders Elektrociepłownia ‘Będzin’ S.A., Zespół Elektrociepłowni Bydgoszcz S.A., Zespół Elektrociepłowni Bytom S.A., Elektrociepłownia Białystok S.A., Elektrociepłownia ‘Gorzów S.A.’, Elektrociepłownia Kalisz-Piwonice S.A., Elektrociepłownia ‘Kraków’ S.A., Dalkia Łódź S.A., Dalkia Poznań Zespół Elektrociepłowni S.A., Elektrociepłownia Tychy S.A., Zespół Elektrociepłowni Wrocławskich Kogeneracja S.A., Elektrociepłownie Wybrzeże S.A., Elektrociepłownia Zabrze S.A. and Elektrociepłownia ‘Zielona Góra’ S.A. to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Time-limits

–

Mandatory (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see para. 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 5611 of 22 December 2004 concerning the grant of a financial contribution from the Cohesion Fund for the carrying out of a waste management project in Attica (Greece).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dimos Kerateas to pay the costs.
Case T-459/07

Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd

v

Council of the European Union

‛Preliminary issues — Withdrawal of a document from the case-file — Removal of a sentence from the case-file’

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 15 October 2009 II ‐ 4017

Summary of the Order

Procedure — Treatment of cases before the Court of First Instance — Protection given to parties against misuse of pleadings — Scope

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 64(3)(d), 65(b) and 116(2); Instructions to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance, Art. 5(5))

According to the rules governing the treatment of cases before the Court of First Instance, parties are entitled to protection against the misuse of pleadings. Therefore, the parties to a case, whether the main parties or interveners, have the right to use the pleadings of other parties to which they have been granted access solely for the purpose of defending their own legal position in the context of that case. Each case brought before the Court has its own case-file containing the documents and pleadings produced by the parties to the case in question and each case-file is completely separate. It is true that apart from exceptional cases in which disclosure of a document might adversely affect the proper administration of justice, parties to proceedings are free to disclose their own written submissions to parties not involved in those proceedings and that, likewise, a party to proceedings may, subject to the same proviso, consent to a pleading which it presented in the context of those proceedings being used by another party thereto in the context of separate proceedings. However, the same does not apply where the party seeking to use that pleading has not asked for permission to do so from the party which produced it. In any event, should the Court take the view that a pleading presented in the context of another case might be of use in resolving another dispute, it could order its production pursuant to Articles 64(3)(d) or 65(b) of its Rules of Procedure.

(see paras 12-15)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Action brought against a competition notice published by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for filling posts vacant at the Parliament

–

Measure exclusively imputable to the Commission

–

Action brought against the Commission and the Parliament

–

Partial inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 91a; Decision of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Ombudsman 2002/620, Art. 4) (see paras 18-19, 21-23, 25-27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/95/07 to constitute a reserve pool for 20 posts of Administrator (AD5) in the field of ‘Information Science (Library/Documentation)’, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 8 May 2007 (OJ 2007 C 103 A, p. 7).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Parliament.

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs which it has incurred in this action in so far as it is directed against the Parliament. The Parliament is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the President of the of the Court of First Instance of 9 November 2007 – Poland v Commission

(Case T-183/07 R)

Application for interim measures – Directive 2003/87/EC – Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – National allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 – Commission decision rejecting that plan – Application for suspension of operation – Lack of urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 17-19)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38-39)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007, concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012, in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003, establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2007 – Kronberger v Parliament

(Case T-18/07 R)

Interim proceedings – Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament – Application for interim measures – Inadmissibility

1. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – ‘Prima facie case’ – Cumulative conditions (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 23-24)

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Irrelevance – Limits (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1), second subpara.) (see para. 27)

3. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community Courts (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 37-38)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures seeking to obtain, first, a provisional declaration that the award of a seat in the European Parliament to its current holder is invalid, and second, a provisional award of that seat to the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 14 May 2008 – Lactalis Gestion Lait and Lactalis Investissements v Council

(Case T-29/07)

Action for annulment – Directive 2006/112/EC – Repeal of the First VAT Directive – Partial annulment – No individual concern – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directives Nos 67/227, Art. 1, first and third paras, and 2006/112, Art. 411(1)) (see paras 24-28, 34-40)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) to the extent that it repeals the fourth and eighth recitals in the preamble to and the first and third paragraphs of Article 1 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes of 11 April 1967 (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14).

Operative part

1. Action dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene made by the Commission and the Kingdom of Spain.
Order of the President of the of the Court of First Instance of 7 January 2008 – Pellegrini v Commission

(Case T-375/07 R)

Interim measures – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Commission’s failure to act – Provisional payment of damages sought in main proceedings – No prima facie case

1. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 225 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 11-14)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c) and 104(3)) (see para. 15)

Re:

REQUEST that the Commission be ordered to pay compensation, on a provisional basis, for the financial damage allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the Commission’s failure to ensure full application and correct interpretation of the provisions of Community law governing the activities of financial intermediaries.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 20 October 2008 – Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (FACTORY FINISH)

(Case T-487/07)

Procedural issue – Community trade mark – Representation by a lawyer

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19) (see paras 10, 13-23, 28)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance for W. Johnston to be allowed to act as representative of the applicant in the present case.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rejects the application for the Court of First Instance to allow W. Johnston to act as representative of Imperial Chemical Industries plc.