ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-131/03

Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co.

v

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

(Community trade mark – Court procedure – Substitution of one party to the dispute – Transfer of rights from the holder of an earlier trade mark)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 27 July 2004

Summary of the Order

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Transfer of the intellectual property right in question – Successor substituted for the former holder of the right – Order of the Court of First Instance needed

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 115 and 116; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

Where an intellectual property right at issue in an appeal against a decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings is transferred, the new owner of that right, claiming through the party before the Board of Appeal, may be authorised by order to substitute itself for the transferor in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, where the former owner of the right has no objection and the Court of First Instance, having consulted the other parties to the action, considers it appropriate.

In the absence of any provisions in the Statute of the Court of Justice and the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance expressly governing the substitution of one party for another, the provisions of Articles 115 and 116 of the Rules of Procedure should be applied by analogy. In particular, the party claiming through the previous litigant must accept the dispute in the state in which it is at the time of the substitution.

(see paras 8-9)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 27 January 2006 − Van Mannekus v Council

(Case T-280/03)

Dumping – Imports of dead-burned (sintered) magnesia originating in China – Amendment of anti-dumping measures previously imposed – Action for annulment – Objection of inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 108-116, 121)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 986/2003 of 5 June 2003 amending the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 360/2000 on imports of dead-burned (sintered) magnesia originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2003 L 143, p. 5)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the Council;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Originating application – Formal requirements – Conditions relating to a signatory – Third party capacity in relation to the parties – Company represented by its managing director in his capacity as a lawyer – Inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third para., and 53, first para.)

Summary

In order to bring an action before the Court of First Instance, a party within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, must use (if the action is not to be inadmissible) the services of a third person authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

A lawyer who is also a managing director of a company and who thus acts as its ‘governing body’ cannot be regarded as a ‘third person’ and so is not authorised to sign the application initiating proceedings on behalf of that company.

(see paras 8, 10-12)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Originating application – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer – Applicant represented by a patent and trade mark agent who is not a lawyer – Inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19)

Summary

It is clear from Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 53 of the Statute, that only a lawyer authorised to practice before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area may represent or assist parties, other than the States and institutions referred to in the first and second paragraphs of that article, before the Community Courts, since that is an essential procedural requirement, which, if not observed, will lead to the action being inadmissible.

An application lodged by a non-privileged party and signed by a patent and trade mark agent who, although entitled to represent parties in certain actions before the courts and tribunals of a Member State, is not a lawyer is therefore inadmissible.

(see paras 9, 11)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 48-49, 51, 60

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not present (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 31)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 32-33)

3. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions (see para. 39)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants because of the Commission’s conduct in the treatment of their complaint concerning alleged infringements by the Hellenic Republic of Community environmental law

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
Case T-14/04

Alto de Casablanca, SA

v

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

(Community trade mark – Representation by a lawyer – Manifest inadmissibility)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 9 September 2004

Summary of the Order

Procedure – Originating application – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer – Applicant represented by a patent and trade mark agent who is not a lawyer – Inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19)

It is clear from Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 53 of the Statute, that only a lawyer authorised to practice before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area may represent or assist parties, other than the States and institutions referred to in the first and second paragraphs of that article, before the Community Courts, since that is an essential procedural requirement, which, if not observed, will lead to the action being inadmissible.

An application lodged by a non-privileged party and signed by a patent and trade mark agent who, although entitled to represent parties in certain actions before the courts and tribunals of a Member State, is not a lawyer is therefore inadmissible.

(see paras 9, 11)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to implement – No remedy based on Articles 220 EC and 233 EC – Possibility for parties to argue their rights on the basis of Articles 230 EC and 232 EC (Arts 220 EC, 230 EC, 232 EC and 233 EC) (see paras 22-23)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Meaning – Costs of a bank guarantee arising from an undertaking’s choice not to pay the fine imposed by the Commission – No direct causal link (EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 192, first para. (now Arts 242 EC and 256, first para., EC); Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 31-40)

3. Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Judgment annulling the fine imposed on an undertaking for infringement of the competition rules or reducing the amount of the fine – Obligation to implement – Scope – Repayment of the sum unduly paid and payment of default interest – Included – Costs of bank guarantee – Not included (Art. 233 EC) (see paras 58-65)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the Commission letter of 6 January 2004 refusing to repay the costs of the bank guarantees which the applicants entered into following the imposition of fines by Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of 16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) (Case No IV/35.134 – Trans‑Atlantic Conference Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95, p. 1), annulled by judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2003 in Joined Cases T‑191/98 and T‑212/98 to T‑214/98 Atlantic Container Line and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II‑3275, and, secondly, for damages seeking repayment of those costs.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2006 − Komninou and Others v Commission

(Case T-42/04)

Action for damages – Non-contractual liability – Decision to take no further action on a complaint putting in issue a Member State’s conduct capable of giving rise to proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations – Treatment of the complaint by the Commission – Principle of sound administration

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not present (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 31)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 32-33)

3. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions (see para. 39)

Re:

Application for compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants because of the Commission’s conduct in the treatment of their complaint concerning alleged infringements by the Hellenic Republic of Community environmental law

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2007 – Atlantic Container Line and Others v Commission

(Case T-113/04)

Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance – Repayment of the costs of bank guarantees provided in order to defer payment of a fine imposed by the Commission and subsequently annulled by the Court of First Instance – Action for annulment and damages – Non‑contractual liability of the Community – No direct causal link between the allegedly unlawful conduct of the institution and the damage claimed

1. Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to implement – No remedy based on Articles 220 EC and 233 EC – Possibility for parties to argue their rights on the basis of Articles 230 EC and 232 EC (Arts 220 EC, 230 EC, 232 EC and 233 EC) (see paras 22-23)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Meaning – Costs of a bank guarantee arising from an undertaking’s choice not to pay the fine imposed by the Commission – No direct causal link (EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 192, first para. (now Arts 242 EC and 256, first para., EC); Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 31-40)

3. Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Judgment annulling the fine imposed on an undertaking for infringement of the competition rules or reducing the amount of the fine – Obligation to implement – Scope – Repayment of the sum unduly paid and payment of default interest – Included – Costs of bank guarantee – Not included (Art. 233 EC) (see paras 58-65)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the Commission letter of 6 January 2004 refusing to repay the costs of the bank guarantees which the applicants entered into following the imposition of fines by Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of 16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) (Case No IV/35.134 – Trans‑Atlantic Conference Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95, p. 1), annulled by judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2003 in Joined Cases T‑191/98 and T‑212/98 to T‑214/98 Atlantic Container Line and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II‑3275, and, secondly, for damages seeking repayment of those costs.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 9 June 2006 – Achaiber Sing v Commission

(Case T-4/04)

Non-contractual liability of the Community – Animal health – Requirements for the import of birds – Agreement on the application of health and phytosanitary measures – Compensation for damage – Partial inadmissibility – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 25-29)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Illegality – Damage – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(e)) (see paras 32-33, 36-38)

Re:

ACTION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to the application of Commission Decision 2000/666/EC of 16 October 2000 laying down the animal health requirements and the veterinary certification for the import of birds, other than poultry, and the conditions for quarantine (OJ 2000 L 278, p. 26).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Decision to exclude a tenderer from a tender procedure – Damage to its reputation – Non-financial damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Damage which may subsequently be made good by compensation or by means of an action for damages – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable

(Arts 242 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Assessment – Consideration of the size of the undertaking

(Arts 242 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Meaning (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 66, 71, 77)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 73)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 81)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 89)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION (i) for suspension of Commission Directive 2005/53/EC of 16 September 2005 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include chlorothalonil, chlorotuloron, cypermethrin, daminozide and thiophanate-methyl as active substances (OJ 2005 L 241, p. 51) and (ii) for the adoption of certain other interim measures.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures (Art. 230, first para., EC; Council Regulations Nos 3605/93 and 2223/96) (see paras 37-63

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Commission contained in a letter of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) of 3 February 2005 concerning the classification of Madrid, infraestructuras del transporte (Mintra) in the sector ‘public administrations’ within the European system of accounts 1995 (ESA 1995).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 30)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 1150/2000) (see para. 32)

3. European Communities’ own resources – Establishment and making available by the Member States (Council Regulation No 1150/2000) (see para. 33)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the Commission decision (Budget Directorate-General) contained in the letter of 28 February 2005 and in the confirmatory letter of 25 April 2005, whereby the Commission refused to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Finland on the conditional payment of retroactive duties, plus default interest up to the date of payment, which the Commission claimed from the Republic of Finland in the context of infringement proceedings 2003/2180, brought under Article 226 EC

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Commission decision finding State aid incompatible with the common market without opening the formal investigation procedure (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 27-31, 33-36

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 592 final of 16 March 2005 not to raise objections with regard to aid N 372/2003 concerning the floriculture sector, notified by the Netherlands authorities.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

2. Orders Adomex International BV to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – ‘Prima facie case’ – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16-17)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 109) (see paras 32-34)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 39)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 27 October 2005 − GAEC Salat v Commission

(Case T-89/05)

Action for failure to act – Complaint concerning the protected designation of origin ‘Salers’ – Regulation (EC) No 828/2003 – Definition of position by the Commission – Manifest inadmissibility

1. Actions for failure to act – Failure remedied before commencement of proceedings – Inadmissibility – Definition of position failing to satisfy the applicant – Not relevant (Art. 232 EC) (see paras 19, 22)

2. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Omission to initiate proceedings for failure to act – Inadmissibility (Arts 226 EC and 232, third para., EC) (see paras 24-25)

3. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Establishment of the subject-matter of a claim – Amendment of the forms of order initially sought at the stage of observations on the plea as to inadmissibility – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1) and 48(2)) (see para. 28)

Re:

ACTION for declaration of failure to act in that the Commission failed to adopt a decision on the applicant’s complaint against the French Republic

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2006 – Italy v Commission

(Case T-110/05)

Avian influenza – Exceptional support measures in the egg sector – Absence of exceptional support measures in the poultrymeat sector – Action for annulment – Inadmissible

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Commission Regulation No 2102/2004) (see paras 45-50)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2102/2004 of 9 December 2004 on certain exceptional market support measures for eggs in Italy (OJ 2004 L 365, p. 10), in so far as it fails to provide exceptional market support measures in the poultrymeat sector in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (OJ 1975 L 282, p. 77).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 19 September 2006 – Bavendam and Others v Commission

(Case T-80/05)

Action for annulment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Decisions 2004/798/EC and 2004/813/EC – List of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region and the Atlantic biogeographical region – Persons directly and individually concerned – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 92/43; Commission Decisions 2004/798 and 2004/813) (see paras 41-49, 67-73)

2. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC) (see para. 52)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/798/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 382, p. 1), and Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 387, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;