ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
155

Moreover, with regard to Qualcomm’s submission that the GPS interface commitment does not result in any cost savings, the Court observes that recital 72 of the contested decision does not state that the saving of EUR 150 to EUR 200 per unit arises solely from the purchase price of the unit, as suggested by Qualcomm. In its defence, the Commission asserts, and Qualcomm does not dispute, that the savings also relate to the costs of the antenna, the wiring and the installation of the GPS function, costs which must be borne by third parties who wish to provide their own telematics equipment with a GPS function. Furthermore, the Commission’s estimate of the cost savings is not erroneous given the positions taken during the administrative procedure by operators on the market. Thus, one operator estimated that a GSM/GPS interface would allow savings on the costs of a telematics system of around EUR 500, a second operator took the view that a telematics unit without a GPS and GSM module would cost only EUR 500 and a third operator stated that the costs of the GPS and GSM module would account for more than half of the cost of the telematics unit, itself estimated at between EUR 1000 and EUR 2500 in the contested decision (recital 62 of the contested decision). Furthermore, the mere fact that third parties offering telematics services through the GPS interface incur costs related to the adaptation of their own equipment and the Toll Collect on-board unit in order to be able to take advantage of that interface does not, in the Court’s view, support the conclusion that the Commission’s estimate is manifestly incorrect. Apart from the fact that the Commission considered the sum of EUR 150 to EUR 200 per unit to be a cautious estimate of the savings which might be made as a result of the GPS interface commitment, Qualcomm admits that the costs involved in adapting third-party equipment and the Toll Collect on-board unit in order to use the GPS interface cannot at present be quantified with a sufficient degree of accuracy. Finally, Qualcomm’s assertion that, in any event, the total amount of the costs will probably completely eliminate the cost savings for a GPS unit is wholly unsubstantiated and is therefore not such as to call in question the Commission’s assessment. Accordingly, there are no grounds for concluding that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the GPS interface commitment may entail cost savings of between EUR 150 to EUR 200 per unit for third parties supplying telematics systems.
Keywords

Summary



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 trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

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

Summary

There exists, for the average Spanish consumer, a likelihood of confusion between the word mark PAM-PIM’S BABY-PROP, the registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘napkin-pants made out of paper or cellulose (disposable)’ failing within Class 16 of the Nice Agreement and the word mark PAM-PAM, registered earlier as a Community trade mark for ‘any ready-made clothing, in particular napkin pants, footwear’, falling within Class 25 of that Agreement. First, as the goods designated by the earlier mark in question were, in particular, babies’ nappies, they are included in the more general category covered by the trade mark application which covers both babies’ nappies and adults’ nappies and, second, there are no conceptual differences capable of neutralising the visual and phonetic differences which exist between the signs concerned of such a kind that the relevant public could think that the goods covered by the trade mark applied for and those sold under the earlier mark come from the same manufacturer or, as the case may be, from manufacturers that are economically linked.

(see paras 36, 67, 77)
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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 51

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPEAL lodged against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2005 (Case R 537/2004-1) relating to cancellation proceedings between Gruppo La Perla SpA and Worldgem Brands – Gestão e Investimentos L da .

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 January 2005 (Case R537/2004-1);

2. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs and to bear one third of the applicant’s costs;

3. Orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs;

4. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs.
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 69-71

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2004 (Case R 379/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Quelle AG and Nars Cosmetics, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of serving to designate the characteristics of a product (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 25-26

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 October 2005 (Case R 1059/2004-2) concerning an application for registration of the manufacturing score card word mark as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b) to (d) and (g) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 43-45, 52-54, 60-63, 66-68

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 April 2005 (Case R 124/2004-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between MP Temporärpersonal GmbH and Manpower Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Review procedure – Amendment of the method of calculating the adjustment made in respect of import charges and indirect taxes (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 2(10), 11(9) and 17) (see paras 39, 41-42, 48-51, 55, 60)

2. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Claim for adjustment under Article 2(10)(g) of Regulation No 384/96 – Burden of proof (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘the 1994 Anti-dumping Code’, Art. 2(4); Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(10)(g)) (see paras 71-78, 82, 92, 98-101)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for the annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 of 10 March 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan (OJ 2005 L 71, p. 1) and, second, for a declaration under Article 241 EC that the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) are inapplicable to the extent to which they support the disputed conclusions contained in Regulation No 428/2005.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 of 10 March 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan, to the extent to which the anti-dumping duty imposed on exports into the European Community of goods produced and exported by Huvis Corp. exceeds that which would be applicable if the ‘input’ method, used in the initial investigation, had been used to calculate the adjustment to the normal value for import charges and indirect taxes;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay 70% of the costs incurred by Huvis Corp.;

4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 66-73)

2. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Definition (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 84)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Plea alleging lack of or insufficient statement of reasons – Plea alleging inaccurate statement of reasons – Distinction (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 110-111)

Subject of the case

Re:

Operative part

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 18 May 2005 by which it informed the applicant that it had taken the decision to declare, as regards various contracts referred to, that there had been a serious breach of contract under Article 93(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Centre européen pour la statistique et le développement ASBL (CESD-Communautaire) to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 53-56)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 62-64)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Discretion of the Community institutions – Scope – Judicial review – Limits (see paras 94, 114)

4. International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Direct effect – Conditions – Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention (Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention on 15 December 1989, Art. 168 and Protocol No 5; ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement, Protocol No 5, Art. 1) (see paras 97-106, 119, 131)

5. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – System of importation (Council Regulation No 1637/98; Commission Regulation No 2362/98) (see paras 116, 146-159, 164-170, 178-182)

6. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints (Council Regulation No 856/1999; ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement, Protocol No 5, Art. 1) (see paras 132-133)

7. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Legal measure – Real damage, causal link and unusual and special damage – Cumulative nature (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 187-188)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for damages pursuant to Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, based, principally, on the unlawful conduct of the Council and the Commission in the establishment of the rules relating to the import of bananas into the Community and, alternatively, on the liability of the Community in the absence of unlawful conduct by those two institutions.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 September 2009 — AceaElectrabel v Commission

(Case T-303/05)

‛State aid — Energy sector — Investment aid for the construction of a district heating system — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market — Obligation to repay first aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market — Concept of economic unit’

1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision on State aid — Characterisation of adverse effect on competition and the effects on trade between Member States (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 42-45, 51)

2. State aid — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Measure benefiting a local business in an economic sector which has been liberalised (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 59-61, 70, 71)

3. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Discretion of the Commission (Arts 87(3) EC and 88 EC) (see paras 101-103, 110)

4. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Commission decision making authorisation for the payment of aid subject to prior repayment by the undertaking concerned of unlawful aid previously received (Arts 87(3)(c) EC and 88(2) EC) (see paras 165-167)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/598/EC of 16 March 2005 concerning State aid that Italy (Regione Lazio) intends to grant for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (OJ 2006 L 244, p. 8).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA to pay the costs, except those referred to in point 3 below;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 – Commission v Alexiadou

(Case T-312/05)

Arbitration clause – Contract concerning a project for the development of a new technology for producing impermeable leathers – Reimbursement of an advance payment – Interest – Default proceedings

1. Procedure – Reference to the Court pursuant to an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 33-35)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Summary statement of pleas (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)) (see para. 37)

Re:

APPLICATION brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC with a view to securing repayment of an advance made to the defendant in the context of a contract concerning a project for the development of technology for producing impermeable leathers (contract G1ST-CT-2002-50227).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

20 November 2007

Case T-103/05

P

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Remuneration – Unauthorised absence – Loss of the benefit of remuneration – Article 59 of the Staff Regulations – Medical certificate)

Application: for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 May 2004 declaring the applicant’s absence improper from 16 March 2004 and suspending payment of her salary from 15 April 2004 until the date on which she commenced performing her duties at the DG Press and Communication in Brussels.

Held: The application is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Decision declaring an official’s absence unauthorised in the light of the outcome of a medical examination – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

2. Officials – Sick leave – Proof of sickness – Medical officer’s examination – Finding that official is able to work – Effect

(Staff Regulations, Arts 59 and 60)

1. The reasons given for a decision are sufficient if the measure against which the action is brought was adopted in circumstances known to the official concerned which enable him to understand the scope of the measure concerning him. That is the case of a decision declaring unauthorised the absence of an official who has not returned to work even though he was judged, following a medical examination, to be able to work half-time following a period of sick leave, if that decision, while not containing a detailed statement of reasons relating to the official’s ability to work, refers to an attached note from the Medical Service setting out the history of his illness, and, in addition, if it falls within a context where the administration’s intention was to protect the official’s interests by allowing him to return to work gradually.

(see paras 35-36, 38)

See: 791/79 Demont v Commission [1981] ECR 3105, para. 12; C‑116/88 and C‑149/88 Hecq v Commission [1990] ECR I‑599, para. 26; C‑294/95 P Ojha v Commission [1996] ECR I‑5863, para. 35; T‑98/96 Costacurta v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑21 and II‑49, para. 86

2. An official cannot avoid the obligation to return to work which results from a medical examination establishing that he is able to work, by producing a medical certificate which refers to his ongoing medical treatment but does not state that he has been unable to work, and therefore does not mention the dates on which that incapacity started and ended. Such a document cannot, under any circumstances, constitute a certificate showing with sufficient clarity and beyond all argument the official’s incapacity for work.

(see paras 61-63)

See: T‑135/95 Z v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑519 and II‑1413, para. 34; T‑169/95 Quijano v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑91 and II‑273, para. 40
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2007 – Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie v Commission

(Case T-254/05)

State Aid – Measures to promote the use of insulation material from renewable raw materials – Decision declaring aid compatible with the common market – Preliminary examination – Action for annulment – Professional association – Meaning of ‘party concerned’ in Article 88(2) EC – Pleas in law on validity of decision – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding aid compatible with the common market without opening the formal investigation procedure (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 30-36, 47)

2. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Interpretation by the court – Limits (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 48)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 379 of 11 February 2005 relating to State Aid N 260b/2004 (Germany – Prolongation of the scheme to promote the use of insulation material from renewable raw materials).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie eV Deutsche Gruppe der Eurima – European Insulation Manufacturers Association to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2008 – Huvis v Council

(Case T-221/05)

Dumping – Imports of polyester staple fibres from Korea – Regulation terminating an interim review – Application of a different methodology to that used in the initial investigation – Requirement of a change in circumstances – Adjustment claimed for credit costs – Credit periods – Burden of proof – Principle of sound administration – Article 2(10)(b) and (g) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96

1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Review procedure – Amendment of the method of calculating the adjustment made in respect of import charges and indirect taxes (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 2(10), 11(9) and 17) (see paras 39, 41-42, 48-51, 55, 60)

2. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Claim for adjustment under Article 2(10)(g) of Regulation No 384/96 – Burden of proof (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘the 1994 Anti-dumping Code’, Art. 2(4); Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(10)(g)) (see paras 71-78, 82, 92, 98-101)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for the annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 of 10 March 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan (OJ 2005 L 71, p. 1) and, second, for a declaration under Article 241 EC that the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) are inapplicable to the extent to which they support the disputed conclusions contained in Regulation No 428/2005.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 of 10 March 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan, to the extent to which the anti-dumping duty imposed on exports into the European Community of goods produced and exported by Huvis Corp. exceeds that which would be applicable if the ‘input’ method, used in the initial investigation, had been used to calculate the adjustment to the normal value for import charges and indirect taxes;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay 70% of the costs incurred by Huvis Corp.;