ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Direction issued to an institution – Not permissible – Application for declaration of unlawful failure to act – Admissibility (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see para. 40)

2. Actions for failure to act – Commission’s duty to act – Reasonable time-limits within which to respond to a call to act – Unlawfulness of EU law provisions – Obligation on the Commission to amend them – None – Obligation not arising from any provision or general principle of EU law (Arts 211 EC and 232 EC) (see paras 57, 59-60, 65-67)

3. Actions for annulment – Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act – Admissibility to be assessed in relation to the possibility of challenging the act at issue (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 79, 86)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION, firstly, seeking a declaration of the Commission’s failure to act in that it unlawfully refrained from amending certain provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (OJ 2000 L 228, p. 6) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8 and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ 2003 L 307, p. 1) and, in the alternative, action for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 20 July 2004 refusing to grant the applicants’ requests and, secondly, action for compensation for the loss which the applicants suffered as a result of the Commission’s failure to act and, in the alternative, action for compensation for the loss caused by the Commission’s letter of 20 July 2004.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Arch Chemicals, Inc., Arch Timber Protection Ltd, Rhodia UK Ltd, Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc and Troy Chemical Co. BV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 30 November 2005 − Almdudler-Limonade v OHIM (Shape of a lemonade bottle)

(Case T-12/04)

Community trade mark – Three-dimensional mark – Shape of a lemonade bottle – Refusal to register – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark – Shape of a lemonade bottle (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2003 (Case R 490/2003-2) in relation to the registration of a three-dimensional mark in the shape of a lemonade bottle.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Almdudler-Limonade A. & S. Klein Community trade mark applied for: Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a lemonade bottle – Application No 2193753 Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the action





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2006 – Italy v Commission

(Case T-282/04)

EAGGF – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Financial corrections – Rural development – Aid to the least well-off

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 60)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Principles (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Arts 1(2)(c) and 3(1)) (see para. 64)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Support for rural development (Commission Regulation No 1750/1999, Arts 35(2) and (37)(1)) (see paras 69-78)

4. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulations Nos 729/70 and 1258/1999) (see paras 95-97)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 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 2004 L 202, p. 35) in as far as it excludes certain expenditure made by the Italian Republic.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2006 – Greece v Commission

(Case T-251/04)

EAGGF – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Public storage of rice – Force majeure – Processed fruit and vegetable products – Assistance to the needy – Restructuring programme in the fruit and vegetables sector – Flat-rate corrections – Time-limit of 24 months

1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Rice – Public storage of rice (Commission Regulation No 708/98, Art. 6(1)) (see paras 46-54)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulations Nos 729/70, as amended by Regulation No 2245/1999, Art. 5(2)(c), and 2201/96; Commission Regulations Nos 708/98 and 1663/95, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 74, 76-78, 96-101, 106-107, 136-137, 179-182)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aids and premiums (Commission Regulation No 3149/92, Art. 9) (see paras 138-142)

4. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Support to producers for the purpose of restructuring in the fruit and vegetable sector (Commission Regulation No 3816/92, Art. 2) (see paras 162-169)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 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 2004 L 202, p. 35), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure by the Hellenic Republic in the sectors of fruit and vegetables and public storage.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2007 – FG Marine v Commission

(Case T-360/04)

Non-contractual liability – Decision ordering repayment of State aid granted by France to the company Stardust Marine – Annulment of the decision by judgment of the Court

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 33-34)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Cumulative nature – Damage – Causal link – Burden of proof (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 40-41, 50-53)

Re:

CLAIM for compensation for loss allegedly caused by Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999 on aid granted by France to the company Stardust Marine.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as unfounded;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 – Spain v Commission

(Case T-266/04)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Withdrawal of fruit and vegetables – Check on all products withdrawn – Arable crops and beef premiums – Period of 24 months

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulations Nos 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c) and 1258/1999, Art. 7(4); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 98, 105, 122-123, 141-143, 213, 217, 248-250)

2. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures (see paras 120, 261)

Re:

PARTIAL ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 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 2004 L 156, p. 48, corrigendum in OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35), inasmuch as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by Spain.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 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 2004 L 156, p. 48, corrigendum in OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35), inasmuch as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the Autonomous Communities of the Basque Region and La Rioja in financial year 1998/1999 relating to arable crops and beef premiums, on the one hand, and expenditure incurred before 22 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain in the Autonomous Community of the Basque Region in financial year 1999/2000 relating to arable crops and beef premiums, on the other;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Seventh Chamber)

15 October 2008

Case T-160/04

Gerasimos Potamianos

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Temporary staff – Failure to renew a fixed-term contract)

Application: for annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff.

Held: The action is dismissed. Mr Gerasimos Potamianos and the Commission are each to bear their own costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1))

2. Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Renewal of a fixed-term contract – Administration's discretion

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 8 and 47, first para.)

1. While it is true that it is usually from the date of its signature that a contract produces its effects and it is therefore from the date of signature that the period for lodging a complaint in due time in accordance with Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations must be calculated, a decision not to renew the contract of a member of the temporary staff constitutes a separate decision from the contract in question and may therefore be the subject of a complaint or even an appeal within the periods provided for in the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 21)

See: T‑137/99 and T‑18/00 Martinez Paramo and Others v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑119 and II‑639, para. 56

2. Although Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants makes it possible to renew a temporary staff contract, it is not an entitlement, but merely a possibility left to the discretion of the competent authority. The Community institutions have a wide discretion to organise their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign the staff available to them in the light of such tasks on condition, however, that the staff are assigned in the interest of the service.

(see para. 30)

See: 176/82 Nebe v Commission [1983] ECR 2475, para. 18; 69/83 Lux v Court of Auditors [1984] ECR 2447, para. 17
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 – Valero Jordana v Commission

(Case T-161/04)

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Reserve list for an open competition and individual decisions concerning the appointment of officials – Refusal of access – Exception concerning privacy and the integrity of the individual – Protection of personal data – Regulation (EC) No 45/2001

1. European Union – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Duty to state reasons – Scope (Art. 253 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 48-49)

2. European Union – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Scope – Duty to assess in accordance with EU legislation on the protection of personal data (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 45/2001, Arts 1(1) and 2(a) and (b), and No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see paras 87-89, 91, 95-96, 102)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Reasoning put forward during proceedings not mentioned in the contested decision – Not permissible (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 107)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 10 February 2004 refusing the applicant’s request for access to the reserve list for open competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 10 February 2004 refusing to give Mr Gregorio Valero Jordana access to the reserve list for open competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay Mr Valero Jordana’s costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs;

4. Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear his own costs;

5. Removes the Kingdom of Denmark as an intervener in Case T‑161/04;

6. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 52-54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2005 (Case R 556/2003-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Henkel KGaA and Serra Y Roca, SA (SERCA).

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant 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 aid compatible with the common market without opening the formal investigation procedure (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 30-36, 47)

2. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Interpretation by the court – Limits (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 48)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 379 of 11 February 2005 relating to State Aid N 260b/2004 (Germany – Prolongation of the scheme to promote the use of insulation material from renewable raw materials).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie eV Deutsche Gruppe der Eurima – European Insulation Manufacturers Association to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Determination of priorities by the Commission (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC and 85(1) EC) (see paras 38-41, 44, 60-61)

2. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Effect on trade between Member States – Criteria (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 42-43)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2005) D/201832 of 18 April 2005 rejecting a complaint concerning alleged infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Greek organisations for collective management of rights related to copyright in music.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders AEPI Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 59, 62-64

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2004 (Case R 433/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Indo Internacional SA and Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — NHL Enterprises v OHIM — Glory & Pompea (LA KINGS)

(Case T-414/05)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LA KINGS — Earlier national figurative mark KING — Relative ground for refusal — No 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 35, 51, 57, 58, 75-77)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2005 (Case R 371/2003-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Glory & Pompea, SA and NHL Enterprises BV.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: NHL Enterprises BV Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark LA KINGS for goods in Classes 16, 25 and 41 — Application No 1041102 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Manufacturas Antonio Gassol SA. The mark cited in the opposition was later assigned to Glory & Pompea, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark KING for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the goods applied for in Class 25 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 July 2005 (Case R 371/2003-4);
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Temporal application – Immediate application of the new rule (see para. 77)

2. Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Reduction of financial assistance where essential obligations infringed – Lawfulness (see para. 89)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3243 final of 1 September 2005 reducing the financial assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/09/65/040 (new Athens International Airport at Spata) by Commission Decision C(96) 1356 final of 24 May 1996.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2009 — Austria v Commission

(Case T-368/05)

‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Cattle premium — Suckler cow premium — Payment for extensification — Key controls — Duty to use a computerised geographical information system — Control of Alpine forage areas — Duty to cooperate — Duty to state reasons — Type of financial correction applied — Extrapolation of the findings of default’

1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 71, 72, 116, 117)

2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Grant of aids and premiums — Obligation of Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks — Scope (Art. 10 EC; Council Regulations Nos 3508/92, Art. 8, and 1258/1999, Art. 8(1); Commission Regulation No 3887/92, Arts 6(1) and 9(2)) (see paras 78-88)

3. Member States — Obligations — Duty of loyal cooperation with the Community institutions — Reciprocity (Art. 10 EC; Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 128-131)

4. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Accounts clearance procedure — Conciliation procedure — Opinion of the conciliation body — No binding effect (see para. 141)

5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 148, 149)

6. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules — Financial correction — Assessment of the level of failure to act and the degree of risk for the Fund (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 181-184)

7. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of Community rules — Extrapolation of findings of deficiencies in the control system of a Member State from one region to other regions (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 199-201)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2005/555/EC of 15 July 2005 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 2005 L 188, p. 36), inasmuch as it excluded certain expenditure by the Republic of Austria.

Operative part

1. Dismisses the action;