ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/42

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

(Case T-308/05) (1)

(Structural funds - Co-financing - Regulations (EC) No 1260/1999 and (EC) No 448/2004 - Conditions concerning the eligibility of payments on account made by national bodies within the framework of State aid schemes - Proof of use of the funds by the final beneficiary - Actions for annulment - Challengeable act)

(2008/C 22/78)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: initially by A. Cingolo, and subsequently by P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and M. Velardo, Agents, assisted by G. Faedo, avocat)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission decisions allegedly contained in Commission letters No 5272 of 7 June 2005, No 5453 of 8 June 2005, Nos 5726 and 5728 of 17 June 2005 and No 5952 of 23 June 2005.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/21

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Nalocebar v OHIM — Limiñana y Botella (Limoncello di Capri)

(Case T-210/05) (1)

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

(2009/C 6/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Nalocebar — Consultores e Serviços Lda (São Pedro, Portugal) (represented by: G. Pasquarella and R. Pasquarella, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially M. Capostagno and then O. Montalto, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Limiñana y Botella, SL (Monforte del Cid, Spain)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2005 (Case R 646/2004-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Limiñana y Botella, SL and Nalocebar — Consultores e Serviços Lda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nalocebar — Consultores e Serviços Lda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/17

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council

(Case T-348/05) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Ukraine - Amendment of the definition of the product concerned - Application of existing measures to new product types)

(2008/C 272/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat (Kirovo-Chepetsk, Russia) (represented: initially by B. Servais and Y. Melin, and subsequently by B. Servais, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2005 L 160, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96;

2. Orders the Council to bear its own costs and those incurred by JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/32

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — Peugeot and Peugeot Nederland v Commission

(Case T-450/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Distribution of Motor vehicles - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Limitation of parallel exports from the Netherlands - System of remuneration of dealers and pressure - Agreement with an anti-competitive aim - Fines - Seriousness and length of the infringement)

2009/C 205/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Automobiles Peugeot SA (Paris, France) and Peugeot Nederland NV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: O. d'Ormesson and N. Zacharie, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet, F. Arbault and A. Whelan, initially, and A. Bouquet and M. Kellerbauer, subsequently, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C (2005)3683 final of 5 October 2005 relating to proceedings under Article 81 [EC] (Cases COMP/F2-36.623, COMP/F2-36.820 and COMP/F2-37.275 — SEP and Others/Automobiles Peugeot SA) and, in the alternative, an application for the reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by the decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders that the fine imposed on Automobiles Peugeot SA and Peugeot Nederland NV by Article 3 of Commission Decision C (2005) 3683 final of 5 October 2005 relating to proceedings under Article 81 [EC] (Cases COMP/F2-36.623, COMP/F2-36.820 and COMP/F2-37.275 — SEP and Others/Automobiles Peugeot SA) be fixed at EUR 44.55 million;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Automobiles Peugeot and Peugeot Nederland to bear nine-tenths of their own costs and to pay nine-tenths of the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities;

4. Orders the Commission to bear one tenth of its own costs and to pay one tenth of the costs incurred by Automobiles Peugeot and Peugeot Nederland.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.03.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/22

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2009 — Aker Warnow Werft and Kvaerner v Commission

(Case T-68/05) (1)

(State aid - Shipbuilding - Former German Democratic Republic - Aid paid to cover losses from shipbuilding contracts - Competition aid - No excess payment)

2009/C 90/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Aker Warnow Werft GmbH (Rostock, Germany); and Kvaerner ASA (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: M. Schütte, lawyer, and B. Immenkamp, Solicitor, and then by M. Schütte)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/374/EC of 20 October 2004 on a State aid measure implemented by Germany for Kvaerner Warnow Werft (OJ 2005 L 120, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2005/374/EC of 20 October 2004 on a State aid measure implemented by Germany for Kvaerner Warnow Werft;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Aker Warnow Werft GmbH and Kvaerner ASA.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/24

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Amann & Söhne and Cousin Filterie v Commission

(Case T-446/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in industrial thread - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Concept of a single infringement - Definition of the market - Fines - Upper limit for the fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

2010/C 148/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Amann & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Bönnigheim, Germany) and Cousin Filterie SAS (Wervicq-Sud, France) (represented by: A. Röhling, M. Dietrich and C. Horstkotte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents, assisted by G. Eickstädt, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.337 — PO/Thread), as amended by Commission Decision C(2005) 3765 of 13 October 2005, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Amann & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG and Cousin Filterie SAS to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/36

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission

(Case T-175/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for monochloroacetic acid - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Market sharing and price fixing - Attributability of the infringement - Fines - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Deterrent effect)

2009/C 282/67

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Arnhem, Netherlands); Akzo Nobel Nederland BV (Arnhem); Akzo Nobel AB (Stockholm, Sweden); Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV (Amersfoort, Netherlands); Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV (Amersfoort); Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB (Skoghall, Sweden); and Eka Chemicals AB (Bohus, Sweden) (represented initially by C. Swaak and A. Käyhkö, and subsequently by C. Swaak and M. van der Woude, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by P. Hellström and F. Amato, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and X. Lewis, Agents)

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — MCAA) and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel AB, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB and Eka Chemicals AB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/20

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — NLG v Commission

(Joined Cases T-109/05 and T-444/05) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning the cost elements arising from public service obligations relating to State aid - Refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Professional secrecy - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Documents originating from a Member State)

2011/C 204/34

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Navigazione Libera del Golfo Srl (NLG), formerly Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA (Naples, Italy) (represented by: S. Ravenna, and A. Abate, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented initially by I. Braguglia, Agent, and M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato, and subsequently by M. Fiorilli and R. Adam, Agent, and finally by I. Bruni, avvocato dello Stato) (Case T-444/05); Council of the European Union, (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, Agents (Case T-444/05); Caremar SpA (Naples) (represented initially by G.M. Roberti, A. Franchi and G. Bellitti, and subsequently by G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers) (Cases T-109/05 and T-444/05)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decisions D(2005) 997 of 3 February 2005 and D(2005) 9766 of 12 October 2005 refusing the applicant access to certain information which was not reproduced in the published version of Commission Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group) (OJ 2005 L 53, p. 29).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision D(2005) 997 of 3 February 2005 in so far as it concerns refusal of access to detailed elements of the extra costs borne annually by Caremar SpA relating to passenger transport services on the Naples-Beverello/Capri line both by ferries and by high-speed craft;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action in Case T-109/05;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear one-third of its costs and to pay one-third of the costs incurred by Navigazione Libera del Golfo Srl (NLG), and the latter to bear two-thirds of its costs and to pay two-thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission in Case T-109/05;

4. Orders Caremar to bear its own costs in Case T-109/05.

5. Annuls Commission Decision D(2005) 9766 of 12 October 2005;

6. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs in Case T-444/05;

7. Orders the Italian Republic, the Council of the European Union and Caremar to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/29

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Wieland-Werke and Others v Commission

(Case T-11/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Ne bis in idem principle - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the relevant market - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)

2010/C 179/47

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Wieland-Werke AG (Ulm, Germany); Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH (Amstetten, Austria); and Austria Buntmetall AG (Enzesfeld, Austria); (represented by: R. Bechtold and U. Soltész, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Huber and G. Kimberley, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes); second, in the alternative, for reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants by that decision; and third, by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for those fines to be increased.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

3. Orders Wieland-Werke AG, Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH and Austria Buntmetall AG to bear their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

4. Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs;

5. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/35

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 January 2008 — Dorel Juvenile Group v OHIM (SAFETY 1ST)

(Case T-88/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark SAFETY 1ST - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 64/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. (Canton, United States of America) (represented by: G. Simon, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 616/2004-2) relating to an application for registration of the word mark SAFETY 1ST as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/14

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 November 2007 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL FIT)

(Case T-111/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark VITAL FIT - Earlier national word mark VITAFIT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Right to a fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons)

(2008/C 8/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2006 in Case R 3/2005-2 relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/21

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2008 — Coca-Cola v OHIM — San Polo (MEZZOPANE)

(Case T-175/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark MEZZOPANE - Earlier national word marks MEZZO and MEZZOMIX - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - No likelihood of confusion)

(2008/C 197/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and L. Rampini, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: San Polo Srl (Montalcino, Italy) (represented by: G. Casucci and F. Luciani, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 April 2006 (Case R 99/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between The Coca-Cola Company and San Polo Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders The Coca-Cola Company to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 212 of 2.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 158/16

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2008 — Redcats v OHIM — Revert & Cía (REVERIE)

(Case T-246/06) (1)

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

(2008/C 158/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Redcats SA (Roubaix France) (represented by: A. Bertrand, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Manuel Revert & Cía, SA (Onteniente, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2006 (Case R 171/2005-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Manuel Revert & Cía, SA, and Redcats SA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Redcats SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.
—

Council Regulation (EC) No 2603/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Malaysia and Thailand and terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (OJ 2000 L 301, p. 1), Council Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand (OJ 2000 L 301, p. 21), and Commission Decision 2000/745/EC of 29 November 2000 accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand (OJ 2000 L 301, p. 88), in so far as those measures may purport to apply to the applicant in the period after 1 December 2005,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/25

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 September 2008 — Gualtieri v Commission

(Case T-413/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Seconded National Expert - Order for referral - Decision against which an appeal may be lodged - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 272/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Claudia Gualtieri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Gualtieri and M. Gualtieri, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent, and G. Faedo, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 October 2006 in Case F-53/06 Gualtieri v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking the annulment of that order

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Claudia Gualtieri to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/26

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-263/06) (1)

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Measures ancillary to rural development - Time-limit of 24 months - Assessment of the expenditure to be excluded - Key controls - Principle of ne bis in idem - Extrapolation of the findings of default - Principle of proportionality)

(2009/C 19/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and G. Kanellopoulos, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents, and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the sector of measures ancillary to rural development

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.