ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 17 March 2005 − Philips v Council

(Case T-177/00)

Dumping – Failure by the Council to adopt a Commission proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty – Absence of simple majority necessary for the adoption of a regulation – Obligation to state reasons

1. Applications for interim measures – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects – Failure to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty – Effect of the regulatory nature of the anti-dumping procedure – None (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 6(9)) (see paras 30-32)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Failure to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti‑dumping duty (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 384/96) (see para. 35)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the Council’s decision of 8 May 2000 rejecting the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain parts of television camera systems originating in Japan, submitted by the Commission of the European Communities on 7 April 2000 (document COM(2000) 195 final)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 8 May 2000 rejecting the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain parts of television camera systems originating in Japan, submitted by the Commission of the European Communities on 7 April 2000 (document COM(2000) 195 final);
Keywords



Keywords

In Case T-6/01,

Matratzen Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, established in Cologne (Germany), represented by W.-W. Wodrich, avocat,

applicant,

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by A. von Mühlendahl, G. Schneider and E. Joly, acting as Agents,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being:

Hukla Germany SA, established in Castellbispal (Spain),

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 October 2000 (Joined Cases R 728/1999-2 and R 792/1999-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Hukla Germany SA and Matratzen Concord GmbH,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber),

composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges,

Registrar: D. Christensen, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 16 May 2002,

gives the following

JudgmentA
The right to claim protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it appears that the Community administration has, by giving him precise assurances, led him to entertain reasonable expectations.

Thus, where the administration agrees a compromise with an official, giving him precise assurances concerning his assignment to one of its departments, it undertakes to take all reasonable measures to enable the official concerned to remain in that post in so far as that is compatible with the interests of the service. Therefore, although the official cannot base legitimate expectations as to the permanence of his assignment on that compromise, since that would place unacceptable limits on the freedom of the institutions to organise their departments and to adapt them as their needs change, the administration breaches the official's legitimate expectations by reassigning him on the basis of matters or circumstances that were already known when the compromise was agreed and that could therefore have been taken into account when the decision concerning his assignment was taken, which, as long as its validity is not disputed, is presumed to have been taken in accordance with the interests of the service. It follows that the administration may deem it to be contrary to those interests for the official to remain in the post only on the basis of matters or circumstances which arose after that decision was taken.

(see paras 40-47)

See: 161/80 and 162/81 Carbognaniand Coda Zabetta v Commission [1981] ECR 543. para. 18; T-205/01 Ronsse v Commission [2002] ECRSC I-A-211 and II-1065, para. 54; T-102/95 Aubineau v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-357 and II-1053. paras 29 and 31
Registration under Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark of a trade mark which consists of signs or indications that are also used as advertising slogans, indications of quality or incitements to purchase the goods or services covered by that mark is not excluded as such by virtue of such use. However, a sign which fulfils functions other than that of a trade mark is only distinctive for the purposes of Article 7(l)(b) of the regulation if it may be perceived immediately as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or services in question, so as to enable the relevant public to distinguish, without any possibility of confusion, the goods or services of the owner of the mark from those of a different commercial origin.

Under Article 7(1 )(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark ‘trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character’ are not to be registered. The registration of ‘REAL PEOPLE, REAL SOLUTIONS’ for telemarketing (Class 35 of the Nice Agreement), computer hardware maintenance (Class 37), and technical support services for the computer industry, computer services, computer functional testing consulting services for computer software producers and users, customer support services, database conversion services, custom writing and text editing and translating services for product information for others, and navigational services (Class 42), is devoid of distinctive character.

The sign is composed of a configuration of words which, taken as a whole, have an independent meaning and is thus easily understood as signifying that the services consist in providing pragmatic solutions devised by and for real people. It will therefore be perceived by the relevant public primarily as a promotional slogan, based on its inherent meaning, rather than as a trade mark.

(see paras 17, 26, 30)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law — Principles — Rights of the defence — Compliance when the Commission adopts a decision to terminate Community financial support

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Reference to a document annexed — Whether permissible — (Art. 253 EC)

3. Community law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Protection refused to person committing a manifest infringement of the rules in force

Summary

1. Observance of the right to be heard is, in all proceedings initiated against a person which are liable to culminate in a measure adversely affecting that person, a fundamental principle of Community law which must be guaranteed even in the absence of any rules governing the proceedings in question. That principle requires that the addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests should be placed in a position in which they may effectively make known their views.

The Commission decision to terminate Community financial support, concluded with the applicant, within the framework of a grant agreement, when the latter had the opportunity to make observations on the factors taken into account by the Commission as the basis of its decision complies with that principle, even if the auditors ' annual report carried out by the Commission staff concerning the audit of the applicant ' s accounts, to which the decision refers, was only sent when the applicant was notified of the decision.

see paras 56, 61, 63

2. Pursuant to Article 253 EC, the reasons stated for a measure must disclose clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the Community authority which adopted it, so as to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and thus enable them to defend their rights, and so as to enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review. The extent of the obligation to state reasons depends on the nature of the measure at issue and the context in which it was adopted, as well as on all of the legal rules applicable to the subject-matter in question.

In addition, when reference is made to a document annexed to a decision and therefore to its contents, the duty to give reasons for that decision may be satisfied by such a document.

see paras 68-69

3. The right to rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations extends to any economic operator to whom an institution has given justified hopes. However, it is settled law that the principle of protection of legitimate expectations may not be relied upon by an undertaking which has committed a manifest infringement of the rules in force.

see para. 76
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeals before the Community Courts — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Review of the facts in the light of evidence adduced before it for the first time — Not included — (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Figurative mark comprising a representation of a vehicle grille — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

1. In an action for review of the legality of the decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) within the meaning of Article 63 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, it is not the Court ' s function to re-evaluate the factual circumstances in the light of evidence adduced for the first time before it. To admit such evidence is contrary to Article 135(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, which prohibits the parties from changing the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

see para. 18

2. Under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark " trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character" are not to be registered.

With regard, in that context, to the registration, sought in respect of " vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water; parts thereof" in Class 12 of the Nice Agreement, of a figurative mark comprising a representation of the front part of a car having an irregular shape and with seven wide vertical openings in the centre and a circle representing the headlights of the vehicle on each side at the top, the mark is not devoid of any distinctive character in so far as it is an unusual grille design, conveying the impression of an old-fashioned grille, in a simple configuration, which cannot be regarded as altogether commonplace, so that the grille in question must be considered to be capable of leaving an impression on the memory of the target public as an indication of commercial origin and thus of distinguishing and setting apart motor vehicles bearing that grille from those of other undertakings.

see paras 46, 48, 50
It follows from the very wording of Article 82 of the Staff Regulations that pensioners are entitled to have applied to their pensions the weighting laid down for the country in which they prove they have their residence. The applicable weightings are intended to ensure that all former officials receive benefits having the same purchasing power, irrespective of their place of residence, notwithstanding the fact that the amount of the pension paid may be spent in a country other than the country of residence. The choice of the country of residence as the criterion of reference for the purpose of evaluating the living conditions and purchasing power of recipients of pensions is justified by the fact that the concept of residence, within the meaning of Article 82 of the Staff Regulations, is to be understood as the place where the former official has actually established his centre of interests and, accordingly, as the place where he is deemed to incur his expenditure.

With regard to the place where the person concerned has established, and intends to maintain, the permanent or habitual centre of his or her interests, residence implies, irrespective of the purely quantitative element of the time spent by the person in a particular country, not only the actual fact of living in a given place, but also the intention of thereby achieving the continuity which stems from a stable way of life and from the course of normal social relations. This concept of residence is peculiar to the Community civil service and does not necessarily coincide with national meanings of the term.

(see paras 70-72)

See: 284/87 Schäflein v Commission [1988] ECR 4475, para 9; T-285/94 Pfloeschner v Commission [19951 ECRSC I-A-291 and II-889, para 46; T-238/95 to T-242/95 Mongelli and Others v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-319 and II-925. paras 41 to 43; T-60/00 Liaskou v Council [2001] ECRSC I-A-107 and II-489, para 53, and the case-law cited; T-29/01 Puente Manin v Commission [2002] ECRSC I-A-157 and II-833, para 60, and the case-law cited
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Claim for compensation – Application concerning a claim for contractual damages – Arbitration clause – Absence – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community courts

(Arts 235 EC, 238 EC and 240 EC)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which it is based – Application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)( c))

Summary

1. In the absence of an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC, the Court of First Instance lacks jurisdiction, when a claim for compensation is brought before it on the basis of Article 235 EC, to adjudicate on this action inasmuch as it constitutes in reality a claim for contractual damages. To do so would be to extend its jurisdiction beyond the limits placed by Article 240 EC on the disputes of which it may take cognisance, since on the contrary that article specifically gives national courts jurisdiction over disputes to which the Community is a party.

(see para. 50)

2. Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, all applications must state, inter alia, the subject-matter of the dispute and must contain a brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based. This information must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. In order for an action to be admissible, it is necessary for the basic legal and factual particulars relied on to be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the text of the application itself.

In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which the conduct alleged against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the conduct, the damage it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage.

(see paras 56, 58-59)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Objection of inadmissibility – Absolute bar to proceeding – To be considered of the Court’s own motion

(Art. 80 CS; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 113)

2. Actions for annulment – Actions by undertakings or associations brought under Article 33, second paragraph, CS – Capacity to bring proceedings – Undertakings within the meaning of Article 80 CS – Undertaking not having that status at the time of bringing the application or at the time of the conduct complained of in the complaint which was rejected by the contested decision – No capacity to bring proceedings

(Arts 33, second para., CS and 80 CS)

3. Actions for failure to act – Actions by undertakings or associations brought under Article 35 CS – Capacity to bring proceedings – Undertakings within the meaning of Article 80 CS

(Arts 35 CS and 80 CS)

Summary

1. Under Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure the Court may at any time of its own motion consider whether there exists any absolute bar to proceeding with an action, including the jurisdiction of the Community judicature to entertain the application. Review by the Court is therefore not limited to absolute bars to proceedings raised by the parties.

An objection relating to the absence of the status of undertaking within the meaning of Article 80 CS raises the question whether there is an absolute bar to proceeding with the case, in so far as it concerns the applicant’s capacity to bring proceedings and its access to certain remedies, and may therefore be considered by the Court of its own motion.

(see paras 51-52)

2. The enumeration in Article 33, second paragraph, CS of the persons entitled to bring an action for annulment is limitative, so that persons who are not referred to there may not validly institute such proceedings.

An undertaking which, because it is not engaged in production, cannot claim the status of an undertaking within the meaning of Article 80 CS at the time of bringing its application, and also could not do so at the time of the conduct complained of in the complaint whose rejection it is contesting, does not therefore have capacity to bring an action for annulment against an ECSC decision.

(see paras 53-54, 56, 59-62)

3. An action for failure to act is, by virtue of Article 35 CS, admissible only if the applicant has the status of an undertaking within the meaning of Article 80 CS.

(see para. 55)
Case T-174/01





Jean M. Goulbourn

v

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





«(Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark Silk Cocoon – Earlier word mark COCOON – Proof of genuine use of earlier mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Right to be heard)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 12 March 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Third-party observations and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Definition

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2))

2.. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Observance of the rights of the defence

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

1.

2.
Case T-137/01





Stadtsportverband Neuss eV

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Action for annulment – Eurathlon Programme – Community financial assistance – Partial repayment – Obligation to state reasons – Method of calculation – Limitation period – Ineligible expenditure)»

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

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision ordering partial repayment of financial assistance – Reference to an audit report sent to the recipient – Reference to a document annexed – Whether permissible

(Art. 253 EC)

2.. Budget of the European Communities – Community financial assistance – Eurathalon Programme – Rules governing the grant of assistance – Conditions set out in the decision granting assistance – Terms of the application for assistance – Declaration by the recipient – Included



3.. Community law – Principles – Legal certainty – Limitation periods – Fixing of duration and detailed rules for application – Powers of the Community legislature – Application by analogy of legislative provisions unconnected with the case in point – Not permissible



4.. Community law – Principles – Action within a reasonable time – Administrative procedure – Criteria of assessment



1.

2.

3.

4.
Case T-109/01





Fleuren Compost BV

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Actions for annulment – State aid – Aid granted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands to manure-processing undertakings – Scheme approved by the Commission for a fixed period – Aid granted before or after the approved period)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), 14 January 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. State aid – Administrative procedure – Obligation on the Commission to give the interested parties an opportunity to submit their comments – Right of the aid recipient to a fair hearing – Limits

(Art. 88(2) EC)

2.. State aid – Commission decision – Duty of care on the Member State granting the aid and the recipient of that aid as regards the communication of all relevant information

(Art. 88(2) EC)

3.. State aid – Investigation by the Commission – No observations from interested parties – No effect on the validity of the Commission's decision – Obligation to consider of its own motion information which has not been expressly invoked – No such obligation

(Art. 88(2) EC)

4.. State aid – Commission decision – Judicial review – Limits – Legality to be assessed in the light of the information available when the decision was adopted

(Arts 88(3) EC and 230 EC)

5.. State aid – Prohibition – Derogations – Aid which can be regarded as compatible with the common market – Commission's discretion – Judicial review – Limits

(Art. 87(3) EC)

6.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision defining an aid measure – Commission decision finding non-notified aid incompatible with the common market

(Arts 87(1) EC, 88(3) EC and 253 EC)

7.. State aid – Recovery of illegally granted aid – Application of national law – Possible legitimate expectations on the part of the recipients – Protection – Conditions and limitations

(Arts 87 EC and 88 EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.