ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Budget of the European Communities – Financial Regulation – Provisions applicable to tendering procedures

(Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 94)

2. Budget of the European Communities – Financial Regulation – Provisions applicable to tendering procedures

(Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 146(3), second subpara.)

Summary

1. Article 94 of Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities applies – according to the provisions of that regulation – to all public contracts financed in whole or in part by the Community budget. Thus no distinction is made according to whether the procurement procedure in question relates to a framework contract or another type of contract.

However, that provision permits exclusion of a tenderer from a procurement procedure only if the situation of conflict of interest to which it refers is real and not hypothetical. That does not mean that a risk of conflict of interest is not sufficient to exclude a tender. In principle, it is only when the contract is performed that a conflict of interest can become real. Before conclusion of the contract, a conflict of interest can be only potential and Article 94 of the Financial Regulation therefore implies an assessment in terms of risk. That risk must actually be found to exist, following a specific assessment of the tender and the tenderer’s situation, for that tenderer to be excluded from the procedure. The mere possibility of a conflict of interest cannot suffice for that purpose.

It follows that, in the procedure for the award of a framework contract, account must be taken of the fact that specific contracts, award of which will give rise to a check that there is no risk of conflict of interest, must come into being before the successful tenderer for the framework contract is entrusted with the performance of specific tasks. Thus, in such a case, the risk that a conflict of interest will in fact arise can be considered only where there are material circumstances placing the tenderer in a position where it is unable to avoid the risk of bias in the performance of the majority of the tasks under the framework contract.

(see paras 66-68)

2. The second subparagraph of Article 146(3) of Regulation No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation gives the evaluation committee the option of requesting from tenderers additional information concerning the supporting documents submitted in relation to the exclusion and selection criteria. It follows that that provision cannot be interpreted as imposing a duty on the evaluation committee to request such information from tenderers.

(see para. 102)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; Decision of the European Parliament and Council No 1110/94) (see paras 73-92, 94-107

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought pursuant to Article 238 EC for the recovery of sums advanced within the framework of Contract FAIR-CT98-9544, terminated by the Commission for failure by the defendant to perform its contractual obligations.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders the defendant, Parthenon AE Ikodomikon – Tekhnikon – Touristikon – Viomikhanikon – Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion, to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 154 383.53, plus interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus 1.5 percentage points for the period from 31 July to 31 December 2002 and plus 2 percentage points as from 1 January 2003 until full and final discharge;

2. Dismisses the application as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of the defendant, and orders the defendant to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities’ public procurement – Tendering procedure (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 89(1)) (see paras 45-46)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2)) (see paras 68-69, 75, 78)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders (see para. 89)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities of 15 April 2005 to reject the applicant’s tender in connection with the call for tenders issued on 19 November 2004 (OJ 2004 S 226) for the provision of services in relation to the collection, production and dissemination of electronic publications, in particular the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union , and to award the contract to the successful tenderer.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaiki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE 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 which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 51-55

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 June 2005 (Case R 1122/2004-1), concerning the registration of the word mark LOKTHREAD as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MacLean-Fogg Co. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Support for restructuring and conversion in the wine sector

(Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4) and No 1493/1999, Art. 13; Commission Regulation No 1227/2000, Art. 13)

Summary

Community legislation, more specifically Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation N 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards production potential, expressly states that Member States have competence to lay down provisions governing the precise scope and rate of the support to grant, in particular those providing for the payment of flat-rate amounts, the maximum levels of support per hectare and the adjustment of the support on the basis of objective criteria.

Moreover, as the Community legislation does not define ‘eligible area’, there is no legal basis to prohibit a Member State from including headland, that is, the strips of land between and at the end of the rows necessary for vineyard machinery to pass and turn, in the reference areas for the purpose of determining the payments.

That being so, the national system of awarding support for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards has created no real risk of exceeding the Community financing threshold within the meaning of Article 13 of Regulation No 1493/1999.

First, the costs taken into account by the Member State concerned for the purpose of establishing the amounts to pay to wine-growers are real, the respective data having been collected by regional farming organisations.

Second, only systematic costs are included in calculating the flat-rate, thereby excluding all ad hoc costs incurred by the wine-growers, and the flat-rates are set so as to guarantee that the highest rate of support awarded does not exceed 50% of the lowest cost of a planting.

Consequently, by removing from Community financing expenditure incurred pursuant to Community rules, the Commission has infringed Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

(see paras 55-57, 71-72, 81-82)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Shipbuilding aid

(Council Directive 90/684, Art. 4(1))

Summary

Article 4(1) of Directive 90/684 on aid to shipbuilding provides that ‘production aid in favour of [shipyards] may be considered compatible with the common market provided that the total amount of aid granted in support of a [shipbuilding or ship conversion] contract does not exceed, in grant equivalent, a common maximum ceiling expressed as a percentage of the contract value before aid’.

Therefore, aid paid to cover losses from shipbuilding contracts and competition aid both come within the category of operating aid provided for in Article 4(1) of Directive 90/684.

A decision of the Commission which finds that competition aid has to be accounted under aid granted to a beneficiary to cover shipbuilding contract losses alone is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment where the Commission has, in an initial decision, differentiated between those two types of aid, by taking the view that they are to have different uses, that is to say, on the one hand, to compensate for the beneficiary’s lack of competitivity, and on the other, to cover those contract losses.

(see paras 2, 56, 59-60, 69)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-341/05)

‛Agriculture — Common organisation of the market in milk and milk products — Abolition of export refunds for all milk products to Ceuta and Melilla — Conditions — Principle of non-discrimination — Proportionality’

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Export refunds (Art. 34(2), second para., EC; Council Regulation No 1255/1999, Art. 31(2)(c) and (3); Commission Regulation No 909/2005) (see paras 21, 38, 48, 49, 69, 72, 74, 94-96)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2005 of 16 June 2005 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products (OJ 2005 L 154, p. 10), in so far as its Annex includes Ceuta and Mellila among the destinations grouped together under the destination L 01.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2005 of 16 June 2005 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products, in so far as it mentions Ceuta et Melilla among the destinations grouped together under the destination L 01;
Case T-435/05

Danjaq, LLC

v

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

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Dr. No — Opposition by the proprietor of the non-registered word marks and signs Dr. No and Dr. NO — Failure to satisfy the requirement for earlier marks — Lack of a distinctive sign used in the course of trade — Article 8(1)(a) and (b), (2)(c) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b), (2)(c) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 30 June 2009 II ‐ 2100

Summary of the Judgment

The essential function of a trade mark is to identify the commercial origin of goods or services, thus enabling the consumer who purchases them to repeat the experience if it proves to be positive, or to avoid it if it proves to be negative, on the occasion of a subsequent acquisition. The same sign may be protected as an original creative work by copyright and as an indicator of commercial origin by trade mark law. It is therefore a matter of different exclusive rights based on distinct qualities, that is to say the original nature of a creation, on the one hand, and the ability of a sign to distinguish the commercial origin of the goods and services, on the other. Therefore, even if the title of a film can be protected pursuant to certain national laws as an artistic creation independent of the film itself, it cannot automatically enjoy the protection afforded to indicators of commercial origin, since only signs which develop characteristic trade mark functions may enjoy that protection. (see paras 23, 26)

Under Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the existence of an earlier non-registered trade mark or a sign other than a trade mark gives good grounds for opposition if the sign satisfies the following conditions: it is used in the course of trade; it is of more than mere local significance; it confers on its proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark; rights to the sign in question were acquired, pursuant to the law of the Member State in which the sign was used, prior to the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark. Those conditions are cumulative. Thus, where a sign does not satisfy one of those conditions, the opposition based on the existence of a non-registered trade mark or of other signs used in the course of trade within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 cannot succeed. (see para. 35)

It is clear from Article 8(4) read in conjunction with Article 52(2) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark that the protection provided for by copyright cannot be relied on in opposition proceedings, but only in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity of the Community mark in question. (see para. 41)
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Framework partnership agreement between the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and humanitarian organisations — Prior conciliation procedure before action — Said procedure not used by the parties — Difference not capable of amicable resolution — Admissibility (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 17-18)

2. Commission — Powers — Implementation of the Community budget — Decision to recover by set-off — Balances owed by the Union under subsidy agreements concluded in the context of a framework agreement between the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and humanitarian organisations — Retroactive effect of compensation as from the meeting of the conditions allowing it to operate — Consequences (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 73; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 83) (see para. 40)

3. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 288 TFEU) (see paras 44-45)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2006 – Castell del Remei v OHIM – Bodegas Roda (ODA)

(Case T-13/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Earlier international word mark RODA and earlier national word marks BODEGAS RODA, RODA I and RODA II – Application for a Community word mark ODA – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 56, 61, 63)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2004 (Case R 691/2003-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Bodegas Roda SA and Castell del Remei, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Castell del Remei, SL Community trade mark sought: Word mark ODA for goods in Class 33 – Application No 1655786 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bodegas Roda, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: International word mark RODA (No 703486), Spanish word mark BODEGAS RODA for wines and spirits in Class 33, Spanish word marks RODA (No 1757553), RODA I (No 2006616), RODA II (No 2006615) and national Greek mark RODA (No 137050) for wines and spirits in Class 33, commercial name BODEGAS RODA for the ‘commerce dedicated to the development and growing of wine’ Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed and application for registration dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2007 – MacLean-Fogg v OHIM (LOKTHREAD)

(Case T-339/05)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark LOKTHREAD – Absolute grounds for refusal of registration – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 51-55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 June 2005 (Case R 1122/2004-1), concerning the registration of the word mark LOKTHREAD as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: MacLean-Fogg Co. Community trade mark sought: Word mark LOKTHREAD for goods in Class 6 – Application No 3440666 Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 – Trek Bicycle v OHIM – Audi (ALLTREK)

(Case T-158/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark ALLTREK – Earlier national word mark TREK – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity of goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 49/04

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 83-84)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2005 (Case R 587/2004-4) relating to Opposition Proceedings between Trek Bicycle Corp. and Audi AG.

Information relation to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Audi AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark ALLTREK for goods in Classes 9, 12 and 42 – Application No 1910256 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Trek Bicycle Corp. Mark or sign cited in opposition: German Word mark TREK for goods in Classes 6, 9, 11, 12 and 21 – Application No 2092896 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;

Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Single Judge) of 23 October 2007 – Commission v Impetus

(Case T-138/05)

Arbitration clause – Framework programmes for activities in the field of research and technological development – Contracts concerning projects in the field of telematics applications of common interest – Lack of supporting documentation and failure of part of the declared expenditure to comply with the contractual provisions – Repayment of sums paid

Procedure– Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; European Parliament and Council Decision No 1110/94; Council Decision 90/221) (see paras 69-78, 94-104, 125-133)

Re:

APPLICATION, pursuant to an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC, for an order against Impetus Simvouloi Mikhanikoi – Kainotomia kai Tekhnologia EPE to repay part of the sums paid to it by the European Community under the Invite (Inland Navigation Telematics) contract (reference COP 493) and under the Ausias (ATT in Urban Sites with Integration and Standardisation) contract (reference TR 1006), concluded in the framework of Decision No 1110/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 April 1994 concerning the fourth framework programme of the European Community activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration (1994 to 1998) (OJ 1994 L 126, p. 1), and part of the sums paid under the Artis (Advanced Road Transport Informatics in Spain) contract (reference V 2043), concluded in the framework of Council Decision 90/221/Euratom, EEC of 23 April 1990 concerning the framework programme of Community activities in the field of research and technological development (1990 to 1994) (OJ 1990 L 117, p. 28).

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the Commission’s claim for repayment of the sum of EUR 136 037.30 under the Invite (Inland Navigation Telematics) contract (reference COP 493);

2. Orders Impetus Simvouloi Mikhanikoi – Kainotomia kai Tekhnologia EPE, under the Ausias (ATT in Urban Sites with Integration and Standardisation) contract (reference TR 1006), to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 14 678.41 by way of principal sum, together with interest for late payment, at the statutory annual rate applicable in Spain, from 15 November 2002 until payment in full of the debt;

3. Orders Impetus Simvouloi Mikhanikoi – Kainotomia kai Tekhnologia EPE, under the Artis (Advanced Road Transport Informatics in Spain) contract (reference V 2043), to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 9 230.77 by way of principal sum, together with interest for late payment, at the statutory annual rate applicable in Spain, from 29 January 2003 until payment in full of the debt;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2008 – Guigard v Commission

(Case T-301/05)

Non-contractual liability – Non-renewal of a contract of employment financed by the EDF – Lack of unlawful conduct on the part of the Commission – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance

1. Procedure – Actions for damages (Arts 225 EC, 235 EC, 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 33-40)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not present (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 43-44)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of Community law (Art. 288 EC) (see paras 55-56)

4. Non-contractual liability – Unlawful conduct of the institutions (Art. 288 EC) (see paras 55-80, 82-86)

Re:

ACTION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the allegedly wrongful conduct of the Commission in regard to the non-renewal of his contract of employment concluded in the framework of technical cooperation between the Community and the Republic of Niger financed by the European Development Fund (EDF).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;