ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. ECSC - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Agreements between undertakings - Examination by the Commission - Examination of a non-notified agreement on own initiative - Whether permissible - Factors to be taken into consideration

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65)

2. ECSC - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Prohibited - System for the exchange of information - Sensitive and accurate nature of recent data exchanged - Incorrect assessment by the Commission - Effects

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(1))

Summary

1. In the context of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty, the absence of notification of an agreement cannot prevent the Commission from examining its legality, since the Commission is entitled to act on its own initiative in order to ensure that the rules of competition are complied with. However, in such an examination of the legality of an agreement, the Commission is bound to take account of the legal and factual context and, in particular to rely on the precise provisions of the agreement.

( see paras 32-33 )

2. Information exchange agreements are not generally prohibited automatically by Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty but only if they have certain characteristics relating, in particular, to the sensitive and accurate nature of recent data exchanged at short intervals.

Where the Commission has based its assessment of an agreement on the combined effect of the exchange of the three ECSC questionnaires 2-71, 2-73 and 2-74, even though the notified agreement does not provide for the exchange of ECSC questionnaire 2-73, which specifically furnishes the most accurate and detailed data and is accordingly likely to reveal the strategy of the various producers, this has the effect of completely invalidating the analysis made by the Commission. If the Commission had taken account of the real scope of the notified agreement, which is limited to the exchange of data on the sales of the participating undertakings alone, without distinguishing between the different consumer sectors, and which allows market shares to be calculated only approximately, it is not inconceivable that its evaluation would have been different and that it would have considered that the agreement was not contrary to Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty.

( see paras 44-45 )
It follows from Article 24 of the Staff Regulations that the institutions of the Communities are required to assist their officials only in respect of acts on the part of third parties to which the officials are subjected by reason of their position or duties.

In that regard, the mere fact that a child was admitted to a Community crèche because one of his parents was a member of the Community civil service, and was there the victim of extremely serious assaults, does not support the conclusion that the link, for the purposes of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, between the acts of the third parties concerned and the parent's position as an official is established.

Thus, while it is indisputable that Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is intended to protect the working conditions of officials and that the introduction of a system of crèches and Community schools also seeks to achieve that objective, the acts of third parties inside those crèches and schools cannot be regarded as being necessarily caused by the parents' position as officials and their duties in that capacity.

(see paras 32, 36, 38 and 40)

See: 180/87 Hamill v Commission [1988] ECR 6141, para. 15
Neither Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations nor Article 3(1) of the Rules on sickness insurance for officials makes admission of a member's spouse to the common scheme conditional on sickness cover being available under other provisions laid down by law or regulation solely by virtue of that person's being gainfully employed. Therefore, the argument that it is the fact that an official's spouse is gainfully employed that either places the spouse under an obligation to be insured against sickness or gives entitlement to voluntary sickness insurance cannot be accepted.

Consequently, an official's spouse whose annual income from former employment does not exceed the threshold laid down in the second indent of Article 3(1) of the insurance rules and who is entitled to join a sickness insurance scheme of a Member State solely by virtue of residence in that State can benefit from the common sickness insurance scheme only on a supplementary basis.

(see para. 43)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark - Definition of a Community trade mark and obtaining a Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Marks devoid of any distinctive character - TRUSTEDLINK

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

$$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. In that regard, the term TRUSTEDLINK, registration of which has been applied for in respect of electronic commerce services and other related goods and services, is not capable of being registered as a Community trade mark since it is devoid of any distinctive character. The sign in question is made up of two words, one of which is generic and merely designates an essential technical feature of electronic commerce and the second of which indicates the desired quality thereof, in this case reliability. Coupling them together without any graphic or semantic modification does not imbue them with any additional characteristic such as to render the sign, taken as a whole, capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.

( see paras 36-38 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Commission - Public's right of access to Commission documents - Decision 94/90 - Exceptions to the principle of access to documents - Interpretation - Scope

(Commission Decision 94/90)

Summary

$$The code of conduct adopted by Decision 94/90 on public access to Commission documents sets out two categories of exceptions to the right of access to Commission documents. The first category, framed in compulsory terms, comprises the mandatory exceptions which are intended to protect the interests of third parties or of the general public. The second, framed in discretionary terms, concerns the internal deliberations of the institution, in which case solely the interests of the institution are at stake.

In that connection, just as the Commission is entitled to invoke jointly an exception from the first category and an exception from the second category in order to refuse access to the documents in its possession, so may it also jointly invoke more than one exception from the first category. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the disclosure of certain documents may be harmful both to the public interest and to the individual interests of third parties.

( see paras 39-40 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Commission - Powers - Implementation of the Community budget - Decision to effect set-off between a debt owed to the Commission and sums payable by way of Community contributions - Principles of effectiveness of Community law and of sound financial management - Breach

(EC Treaty, Art. 205 (now Art. 274 EC))

Summary

$$In the absence of express rules on the right of the Commission, as the institution responsible for the implementation of the Community budget under Article 205 of the Treaty (now Article 274 EC), to effect set-off against entities to which Community funds are owed but which also owe sums of Community origin and in order to determine whether a Commission decision to effect such set-off has a legal basis, it is necessary to look to the rules of Community law applicable to the activity of that institution and to refer to the case-law of the Court of Justice. In that context, it is necessary, in particular, to take account of the principle of the effectiveness of Community law and the principle of sound financial management. The principle of the effectiveness of Community law implies that the funds of the Community must be made available and used in accordance with their purpose. As regards the principle of sound financial management, it must not be reduced to a purely accounting definition which considers as essential the mere possibility of regarding a debt as formally paid. On the contrary, a correct interpretation of that principle must include a concern for the practical consequences of the acts of financial management, using as a reference point, in particular, the principle of the effectiveness of Community law.

A decision effecting set-off between a debt owed to the Commission and sums payable by way of Community contributions, which the Commission adopted without first ensuring that it did not pose a risk for the use of the funds for the purposes for which they were intended and for the carrying out of the activities at issue, when it could have acted otherwise without jeopardising the recovery of the applicant's alleged debt to it and the proper use of the sums concerned, does not fulfil those requirements and must therefore be annulled.

( see paras 59-60, 73-75 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade marks - Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusing registration - Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product - Word marks UNIVERSALTELEFONBUCH and UNIVERSALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICHNIS

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

Summary

$$The signs mentioned in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark are signs which exclusively define or indicate the goods or services in issue by reference to their nature, properties, qualities or their intended use and which are regarded as incapable of performing the essential function of a mark, namely that of identifying the origin of the goods or services, thus enabling the consumer who acquired 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 signs UNIVERSALTELEFONBUCH and UNIVERSALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICHNIS cannot constitute a Community trade mark for recorded memory media for data processing installations and apparatus, in particular CD-ROMs; printed matter, reference works; publishing services, in particular the publication of texts, books, magazines, newspapers; and editing of written texts since they enable members of the public concerned, in the present case the average German-speaking consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to establish immediately and without further reflection a concrete and direct association with the goods and services covered by the applications for registration of the disputed trade marks.

( see paras 23, 25-31 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 
6 March 2002 
Case T-77/99 REV 
Girish Ojha 
v 
Commission of the European Communities 
(Officials - Application for revision of a judgment - New fact - None -
Inadmissible) 
Full text in French II - 131 
Application for: revision of the judgment of the court of First Instance of 
6 March 2001 in Case T-77/99 Ojha v Commission [2001] 
ECR-SC I-A-61 and II-293. 
Held: The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible. 
The applicant for revision is ordered to pay the costs. 
I-A - 29 
SUMMARY - CASE T-77/99 REV 
Summary 
Procedure - Revision of a judgment — Conditions of admissibility of application 
— New fact — Meaning — Fact known at the time when judgment was delivered — 
Excluded — Inadmissible 
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 41 and 46, first para.; Rules of Procedure 
of the Court of First Instance, Art. 126(1)(c)) 
Revision is not an appeal procedure but an exceptional review procedure that allows 
the authority of res judicata attaching to a final judgment to be called in question 
on the basis of the findings of fact relied upon by the court. Revision presupposes 
the discovery of elements of a factual nature which existed prior to the judgment 
and which were unknown at that time to the court which delivered it as well as to 
the party applying for revision and which, had the court been able to take them into 
consideration, could have led it to a different determination of the proceedings. 
An application for revision, in support of which the applicant relies on a document 
lodged at the Court of First Instance by the defendant during the hearing of the case 
and distributed to all the members of the chamber and to the representative of the 
applicant who submitted his observations on it without disputing its content, is 
therefore inadmissible. 
(see paras 12, 19, 21) 
See: C-185/90 P-REV Gill v Commission [1992] ECR I-993, para. 12; C-130/91 REV 
II ISAE/VP and Interdatav Commission [1996] ECR I-65, para. 6; C-2/98 P De Compte 
v Parliament [1999] ECR 1-1787, para. 24; C-5/93 P DSM v Commission [1999] ECR 
I-4695, para. 43; T-8/89 REV DSM v Commission [1992] ECR II-2399, para. 14; 
I-A - 30 
OJHA v COMMISSION 
T-26/89 REV De Compte v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-305 and II-313, para. 15; 
T-91/96 REV Council v Hankan [1998] ECR-SC I-A-597 and II-1809, para. 13 
I-A - 31
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

5 December 2002

Case T-209/99

Paul Edwin Hoyer

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Temporary staff — Implementation of a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Actions for damages — Admissibility’

Full text in Dutch II-211

Application for:

compensation for the material and nonmaterial damage allegedly suffered as a result of the judgments given by the Court of First Instance on 17 March 1994 in Case T-43/91 Hoyer v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-91 and II-297 and Case T-51/91 Hoyer v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-103 and II-341.

Held:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary
Case T-61/99





Adriatica di Navigazione SpA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Competition – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Definition of the relevant market – Statement of reasons – Price fixing agreements – Evidence of participation in a cartel – Evidence of distantiation – Principle of non-discrimination – Fines – Criteria for assessment)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 11 December 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Definition of the market – Purpose – Assessing the impact of the cartel on competition and trade between Member States – Consequences as regards the objections raised against the definition of the market

(EC Treaty, Arts 85 and 86 (now Arts 81 EC and 82 EC))

2.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision – Identification of sanctioned infringements – Operative part taking priority over the statement of reasons

(EC Treaty, Arts 85 and 86 (now Arts 81 EC and 82 EC))

3.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope

(Art. 253 EC)

4.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Concerted practice – Concept – Coordination and cooperation incompatible with the obligation on each undertaking to determine its market conduct independently

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

5.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation in meetings held by undertakings for an anti-competitive purpose – Sufficient basis for concluding that, if an undertaking has not distanced itself from the decisions taken, it participated in the subsequent arrangements

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

6.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Onus on the Commission to prove the duration of the infringement

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

7.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Commission's margin of discretion

(Council Regulation No 4056/86, Art. 19(2))

8.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Seriousness of the infringements – Compliance with the principles of proportionality and equity

(Council Regulation No 4056/86, Art. 19(2))

9.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Reduction in fine in exchange for cooperation – Actions for annulment – Fresh review of the size of the reduction – Excluded

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusing registration - Trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product - Term EASYBANK

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

2. Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusing registration - Marks devoid of distinctive character - Determination whether a trade mark has a distinctive character - Criteria

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3))

Summary

1. Under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, registration is refused for trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time ... of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the [latter]. In that connection, the term EASYBANK, registration of which is requested in respect of the services of an on-line bank, and electronic banking services in particular, cannot be regarded as being exclusively descriptive in character, since the term does not as such enable potential customers to identify immediately and precisely either the specific banking services capable of being provided or, a fortiori, one or more of their characteristics. Therefore, the link between the meaning of the term EASYBANK on the one hand and the services capable of being provided by an on-line bank on the other, appears to be too vague and indeterminate to confer a descriptive character on that term in relation to those services.

( see paras 22, 31-32 )

2. Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, according to which registration is to be refused to trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character, requires the examiner and, in appropriate cases, the Board of Appeal, to examine - in the context of an a priori examination apart from any actual use of the sign for the purposes of Article 7(3) - whether there appears to be no possibility that the sign in question may be capable of distinguishing, in the eyes of the public to which it is addressed, the products or services referred to from those of a different origin, where the public will be called upon to make its choice in commerce.

( see para. 40 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

15 November 2000

Case T-20/00

Ivo Camacho-Fernandes

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Occupational disease — Exposure to asbestos and other substances — Unlawfulness of the opinion of the Medical Committee — Default procedure’

Full text in French II-1149

Application for:

annulment of the Commission decision of 10 February 1999 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the lung cancer which resulted in the death of the applicant's wife.

Held:

The Commission's decision of 10 February 1999 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the disease suffered by Arlette Fernandes-De Corte is annulled. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Social security — Insurance against accidents and occupational disease — Accident and occupational disease — Medical Committee — Principle of collegiality — Consideration of a case and preparation of final report in the absence of the doctor appointed by the official — Not permissible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 23)

While the task of the Medical Committee is not to determine a dispute after hearing both sides, the interests of the official are none the less safeguarded by the presence on the Medical Committee of a doctor enjoying his confidence and by the appointment of the third doctor by agreement between the two members appointed by the parties or, if they fail to agree, by the President of the Court of Justice. That safeguard is only effective if the Medical Committee carries out its work collegially, with each of its members having an opportunity to put forward his point of view.

While it is true that the Medical Committee may decide by a majority to terminate its work and that its report is not vitiated by a formal defect because one of its members has refused to sign it, it does not follow that two of the three members of the Medical Committee may meet in the absence of the third doctor appointed by the official in order to discuss, for the first time, the origin of the disease of the person concerned and draw up their final report on the subject when they know that their colleague is unable to attend the meeting. Such a procedure is not compatible with the requirement that the Medical Committee should operate collegially and vitiates its opinion with a procedural defect.

(see paras 31-32, 35)

See: 277/84 Jänsch v Commission [1987] ECR 4923, para. 14; 2/87 Biedermann v Court of Auditors [1988] ECR 143, para. 16; T-62/96 De Corte v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-31 and II-71, para. 81