ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/33

Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2014 — Schenker v Commission

(Case T-534/11) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Administrative file and final Commission decision concerning a cartel, non-confidential version of that decision - Refusal of access - Obligation to carry out a specific, individual examination - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations - Overriding public interest))

2014/C 409/47

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schenker AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. von Hammerstein, B. Beckmann and C. D. Munding, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially M. Kellerbauer, C. ten Dam and P. Costa de Oliveira, then Mr. Kellerbauer, P. Costa de Oliveira and H. Leupold, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer); Martinair Holland NV (Haarlemmermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Wesseling and M. Bredenoord-Spoek, lawyers); Société Air France SA (Roissy-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann abd S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers); Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Queensway, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: initially by B. Bär-Bouyssière, lawyer, M. Rees, Solicitor, D. Vaughan, QC, and R. Kreisberger, Barrister, then by M. Rees, D. Vaughan and R. Kreisberger); Air Canada (Québec, Canada) (represented by: J. Pheasant, Solicitor, and C. Wünschmann, lawyer); Lufthansa Cargo AG (Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany) and Swiss International Air Lines AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: initially S. Völcker and E. Arsenidou, then S. Völcker and J. Orologas, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 3 August 2011 refusing to grant access to the administrative file of decision C (2010) 7694 final (Case COMP/39.258 — Air Cargo), to the full version of that decision and its non-confidential version.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission decision of 3 August 2011 refusing access to the administrative file of decision C (2010) 7694 final (Case COMP/39.258 — Air Cargo), to the full version of that decision and its non-confidential version, in that the Commission has refused access to the part of the non-confidential version of the decision at issue for which the undertakings concerned by it had not requested, or continued to not request, confidentiality;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Schenker AG to bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

4. Orders Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Martinair Holland NV, Société Air France SA, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, Air Canada, Lufthansa Cargo AG and Swiss International Air Lines AG to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/44

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council

(Case T-643/11) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in China - Review - Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Rights of defence - Error of fact - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 046/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China); and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG (Roding, Germany) (represented by: K. Neuhaus, H.-J. Freund and B. Ecker, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and initially by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, and subsequently by A. Polcyn and D. Gerardin, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Re:

Action for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 of 10 October 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China as extended to imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2011 L 268, p. 1), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay four fifths of those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3) Orders the Council to bear one fifth of its own costs;

4) Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/14

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — FSL and Others v Commission

(Case T-655/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European banana market in Italy, Greece and Portugal - Coordination in the fixing of prices - Admissibility of evidence - Rights of defence - Misuse of powers - Evidence of the infringement - Calculation of the fine))

(2015/C 262/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: FSL Holdings (Antwerp, Belgium); Firma Léon Van Parys (Antwerp); and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, C. Verdonck, B. Van Vooren and B. Gielen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, primarily, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 7273 final of 12 October 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] (Case COMP/39482 — Exotic Fruit (Bananas)), and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 7273 final of 12 October 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] (Case COMP/39482 — Exotic Fruit (Bananas)) in so far as it refers to the period from 11 August 2004 to 19 January 2005, to the extent that it concerns FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA;

2) Annuls Article 2 of Decision C(2011) 7273 final in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA at EUR 8 9 19 000;

3) Sets the amount of the fine imposed on FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys and Pacific Fruit Company Italy in Article 2 of Decision C(2011) 7273 final at EUR 6 6 89 000;

4) Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

5) Orders FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys and Pacific Fruit Company Italy to bear a third of their own costs and half of the European Commission’s costs;

6) Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs and two thirds of the costs of FSL Holdings, of Firma Léon Van Parys and of Pacific Fruit Company Italy.

(1) OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/18

Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2015 — United Kingdom v ECB

(Case T-496/11) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - ECB - Action for annulment - Eurosystem Oversight Policy Framework - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Oversight of payment and securities settlement systems - Application to central counterparty clearing systems of a requirement to be located in a Member State party to the Eurosystem - Competence of the ECB))

(2015/C 127/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Ossowski, S. Behzadi-Spencer and E. Jenkinson, subsequently by S. Behzadi-Spencer and E. Jenkinson, and finally by V. Kaye, acting as Agents, and by K. Beal QC and P. Saini QC)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented initially by A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso and K. Laurinavičius, subsequently by A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso and P. Papapaschalis and finally by P. Papapaschalis and P. Senkovic, acting as Agents, and by R. Subiotto QC, F.-C. Laprévote, lawyer, and P. Stuart, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, C. Stege, S. Johannesson, U. Persson and H. Karlsson, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado); and French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, D. Colas and E. Ranaivoson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the Eurosystem Oversight Policy Framework published by the ECB on 5 July 2011, in so far as it sets a location requirement applicable to central counterparties established in Member States that are not party to the Eurosystem.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Annuls the Eurosystem Oversight Policy Framework, published by the European Central Bank (ECB) on 5 July 2011, in so far as it sets a requirement to be located within a Member State party to the Eurosystem for central counterparties involved in the clearing of securities;

2) Orders the ECB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

3) Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/32

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission

(Case T-38/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Queensway, Hong Kong, China) (represented initially by D. Vaughan QC, R. Kreisberger, Barrister, B. Bar-Bouyssiere, lawyer, and M. Rees, Solicitor, then by D. Vaughan, R. Kreisberger and M. Rees)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and J. Bourke, and subsequently by A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Cathay Pacific Airways.

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/26

Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki Luxembourg and Others v OHIM

(Case T-299/11) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supplies of external service provision for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Award criteria - Equal opportunities - Transparency - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability - Loss of an opportunity))

(2015/C 398/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg); Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) and European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, and subsequently by I. Ampazis, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: N. Bambara and M. Paolacci, acting as Agents, and P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Re:

Action, first, for annulment of the decision of OHIM adopted in the context of the open call for tenders AO/021/10, entitled ‘External service provision for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies’, and notified to the applicants by letter of 28 March 2011, to rank the first applicant’s bid third in the ‘cascade’ mechanism for the purpose of awarding a framework contract; and, second, for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of OHIM adopted in the context of the open call for tenders AO/021/10, entitled ‘External service provision for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies’, and notified to European Dynamics Luxembourg SA by letter of 28 March 2011, to rank the latter’s bid in third position in the ‘cascade’ mechanism for the purposes of awarding a framework contract and to rank the bids of Consortium Unisys SLU and Charles Oakes & Co. Sàrl, on the one hand, and of ETIQ Consortium (by everis and Trasys), on the other hand, in first and second positions respectively;

2. Orders the European Union to pay compensation for the harm suffered by European Dynamics Luxembourg for the loss of an opportunity to be awarded the framework contract as the contractor ranked first in the cascade;

3. Dismisses the claim for compensation as to the remainder;

4. Orders the parties to inform the Court, within three months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement;

5. Orders that, in the absence of agreement, the parties shall transmit to the Court, within the same period, a statement of their views with supporting figures;

6. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Deutsche Post v Commission

(Case T-388/11) (1)

(State aid - Postal services - Funding of additional salary and social costs relating to some of the staff of Deutsche Post by means of subsidies and revenue generated by remuneration for price-regulated services - Decision to extend the formal investigation procedure - Decision finding that there was new aid at the end of the preliminary investigation phase - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Consequences of the annulment of the final decision - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 187/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund, T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: UPS Europe SPRL/BVBA, formerly UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium); and United Parcel Service Deutschland Sàrl & Co. OHG, formerly UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany) (represented initially by T. Ottervanger and E. Henny, and subsequently by T. Ottervanger and R. Wojtek, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 3081 final of 10 May 2011 extending the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU on State aid C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) granted by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of Deutsche Post, a summary of which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2011 C 263, p. 4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the plea of inadmissibility;

2) Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 3081 final of 10 May 2011 extending the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU on State aid C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) granted by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of Deutsche Post;

3) Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by Deutsche Post AG;

4) Orders UPS Europe SPRL/BVBA and United Parcel Service Deutschland Sàrl & Co. OHG each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/20

Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission

(Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12) (1)

((State aid - Oil exploration - Implied and unlimited guarantee of the State conferred on the French Petroleum Institute (IFP) by the granting of the status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (EPIC) - Advantage - Presumption of advantage))

(2016/C 251/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: French Republic (represented initially by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, B. Beaupère-Manokha and J. Gstalter, then by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and S. Menez, then by G. de Bergues, S. Menez, D. Colas and J. Bousin, and lastly by G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents) (Case T-479/11); and IFP Énergies nouvelles (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented initially by É. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, and subsequently by É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers) (Case T-157/12)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, D. Grespan and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08)) (OJ 2012 L 14, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1(3) to (5) and Articles 2 to 12 of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08));

2. Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs in Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12 and to pay two thirds of the costs borne by the French Republic and IFP Énergies nouvelles;

4. Orders the French Republic to bear one third of its own costs and one third of the Commission’s costs in Case T-479/11;

5. Orders IFP Énergies nouvelles to bear one third of its own costs and one third of the Commission’s costs in Case T-157/12.

(1) OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/18

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — AMC-Representações Têxteis v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO KIDS COMPANY)

(Case T-50/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark METRO KIDS COMPANY - Earlier international figurative mark METRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 101/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda (Taveiro, Portugal) (represented by: V. Caires Soares, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 November 2011 (Case R 2314/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/78

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET)

(Case T-411/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PHARMASTREET - Earlier national word mark PHARMASEE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/173

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Celtipharm (Vannes, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and C. Fendeleur, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alliance Healthcare France SA (Gennevilliers, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Celtipharm and Alliance Healthcare France SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2);

2. Upholds the opposition as regards goods in Class 5 corresponding to the description ‘pharmaceutical preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use’, on the one hand, and services in Class 35 corresponding to the description ‘business management, business administration and office functions’, on the other;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/10

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Unister v OHIM (fluege.de)

(Case T-244/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark fluege.de - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 178/18

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Unister GmbH (Leipzig (Germany)) (represented by: H. Hug and A. Kessler-Jensch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2012 (Case R 2149/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign fluege.de as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Unister GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/55

Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2013 — Cartoon Network v OHIM — Boomerang TV (BOOMERANG)

(Case T-285/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BOOMERANG - Earlier Community figurative mark BoomerangTV - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 344/97

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Cartoon Network, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Boomerang TV, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2012 (Case R 699/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Boomerang TV, SA and The Cartoon Network, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders The Cartoon Network, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.