ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Subsidiaries having directly participated in infringements of Article 81(1) EC may legitimately invoke the expiry, in relation to them, of the limitation period laid down by Article 25(1)(b), where the Commission’s first actions for the purpose of the investigation or proceedings in respect of those infringements were taken after the expiry, for those subsidiaries, of the said limitation period.

However, expiry of the limitation period under Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 neither causes an infringement to cease to exist nor prevents the Commission from establishing, in a decision, liability for such an infringement, but merely enables those that benefit from the limitation period’s expiry to avoid proceedings aimed at imposing penalties. Furthermore, it is clear from a textual, contextual and purposive interpretation of Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 that the expiry of the limitation period under Article 25(1) benefits, and may be invoked by, each of the legal persons separately when they are the subject of proceedings brought by the Commission. Thus, the mere fact that a subsidiary of a group of companies, in the sense of an economic unit, benefits from the expiry of the limitation period does not result in the parent company’s liability being called into question and prevent proceedings being brought against that parent company.

(see paras 124-126, 128)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2018 –

Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T‑379/10 RENV and T‑381/10 RENV)

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — French bathroom fittings and fixtures market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Participation of certain entities in a cartel — Reassessment of the evidence)

1. Judicial proceedings — Judgment of the Court of Justice binding the General Court — Conditions — Reference back following an appeal — Points of law finally determined by the Court of Justice in the context of the appeal — Res judicata — Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 61; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 215) (see paras 26, 27)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Documentary proof — Assessment of the probative value of a document — Criteria (Art. 101(1) TFEU; Commission notice 2002/C 45/03) (see paras 47, 49, 52, 58)

3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Permissibility of an overall assessment of a body of evidence (Art. 101(1) TFEU) (see para. 62)

4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Documentary proof — Assessment of the probative value of a document — Criteria — Document established in immediate connection with the facts or by a direct witness of those facts — High probative value (Art. 101 TFEU) (see para. 63)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, first, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), and, secondly, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 September 2011 – Spain v Commission

(Case T-67/10)

EAGGF – Guidance Section – Reduction of financial assistance – Financial assistance awarded to an operational programme for the improvement of the processing and marketing of agricultural products – Effectiveness of checks – Proportionality

1. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Obligation on Member States to establish management and control systems – Serious inadequacies capable of leading to systemic irregularities – Consequence – Suspension of intermediate payments (Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Arts 38(1) and 39(2)(c) and (3); Commission Regulation No 438/2001, Arts 3, 4 and 7) (see paras 23-25)

2. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Decision to reduce financial aid by reason of irregularities – Financial consequences not ascertainable – Flat-rate correction – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Art. 39(3)) (see paras 36-38)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9827 of 10 December 2009 applying financial corrections to the EAGGF assistance, Guidance Section, awarded to the operational programme CCI 2000.ES.16.1.PO.007 (Spain, Castilla y León) in relation to the measure improving processing and marketing of agricultural products.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 June 2011 – Graf-Syteco v OHIM – Teco Electric & Machinery (SYTECO)

(Case T-229/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark SYTECO – Earlier figurative national and Benelux marks TECO – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Partial refusal to register

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24-27, 41)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2010 (Case R 230/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Teco Electric & Machinery Co. Ltd and Graf-Syteco GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Graf-Syteco GmbH & Co. KG Community trade mark sought: Word mark SYTECO for goods and services in Classes 9, 37 and 42 – Application No 5061494 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Teco Electric & Machinery Co. Ltd Mark or sign cited in opposition: Four national figurative marks including the word element TECO for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 – medi v OHIM – Deutsche Medien Center (deutschemedi.de)

(Case T-247/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark deutschemedi.de – Earlier Community word mark World of medi, earlier national figurative and word marks medi.eu, medi welt, medi-Verband and medi, and earlier trading name and company name medi – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 38, 44, 49, 53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 March 2010 (Case R 1336/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Weihermüller & Voigtmann GmbH & Co. KG and Deutsche Medi Präventions GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 March 2010 (Case R 1336/2008-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Medi GmbH & Co. KG;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2011 – LG Electronics v OHIM (DIRECT DRIVE)

(Case T-561/10)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark DIRECT DRIVE – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character and lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 24-25)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2010 (Case R 1027/2010‑2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign DIRECT DRIVE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2012 – Cervecería Modelo v OHIM – Plataforma Continental (LA VICTORIA DE MEXICO)

(Case T-205/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark LA VICTORIA DE MEXICO – Earlier Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘victoria’ and earlier national word mark VICTORIA – Registration refused in part – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-32, 81-82)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2010 (Case R 322/2009-2) in relation to opposition proceedings between Plataforma Continental, SL and Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 – Xeda International and Pace International v Commission

(Case T-71/10)

Plant protection products – Active substance diphenylamine – Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC – Withdrawal of authorisations of plant protection products containing that substance – Action for annulment – Locus standi – Admissibility – Proportionality – Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414 – Rights of the defence – Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007

1. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 91/414 – Procedure for inclusion of the active substances of those products in Annex I to the directive – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial review – Scope (Council Directive 91/414, Annex I) (see paras 69-71)

2. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 91/414 – Procedure for inclusion of the active substances of those products in Annex I to the directive – Residual scientific uncertainty as to the existence or scope of risks to human health – Application of the precautionary principle – Scope – Limits (Art. 174(2) EC; Council Directive 91/414, Art. 5(1)(b), and Annex I) (see paras 74-76)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Scientific assessment of risks – Requirement for a high level of health protection – Scope (Art. 152(1), first para., EC) (see paras 77-78)

4. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 91/414 – Commission decision not to enter an active substance in Annex I to the directive – Lack of sufficient information to conclude that no risks present – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Council Directive 91/414, Art. 5(1), and Annex I) (see paras 126-128, 132, 137)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 April 2012 – Samskip Multimodal Container Logistics v Commission

(Case T-166/10)

Action for annulment — Decision awarding Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system — Marco Polo II programme — Termination of the grant agreement and definitive abandonment of the project — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate

Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for such an interest to exist when the action brought and continue until delivery of the court’s decision — Action brought against a Commission decision granting a subsidy in accordance with a convention terminated during the proceedings — No further interest in bringing an action — No need to adjudicate (Art. 230, fourth para, EC) (see paras 14, 16, 18-19)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 580 of 27 January 2010 on the financial assistance for proposals for actions submitted in the 2009 selection procedure in the European Union programme ‘improving the environmental performance of the freight transport system’ (the Marco Polo II programme), in so far as it selects Proposal TREN/B4/SUB/01‑2009 MP‑II/6 concerning the G2G@2XL project for funding in the amount of EUR 2 190 539.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear four fifths of the costs of Samskip Multimodal Container Logistics BV and four fifths of its own costs;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 —

Insula v Commission



(Case T-110/10)

Arbitration clause — Financing contract for research and development projects — El Hierro contract — Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of the declared expenses — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Counterclaim by the Commission

1. Proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contract subject to national law — Application of national provisions on jurisdiction — Exclusion (Art. 272 TFEU) (see para. 30)

2. Proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contract providing for Community financial assistance for a research and development project — Claim for repayment of certain costs — Counterclaim with claim for interest for delay — Application of national law — Finding of non-compliance with contractual obligations — Commission’s right to repayment of the advance, plus interest for delay at the rate applied by the European Central Bank (Art. 272 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 86(2)) (see paras 29, 44, 66)

Re:

APPLICATION, submitted on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration, first, that the Commission’s request for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 84 120 is unfounded and, second, that the Commission be ordered to issue a ‘credit note’ in the amount of EUR 84 120.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 84 120, increased by default interest at the rate of 2.5% per annum, from 26 January 2010 until full payment of that principal sum;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the Commission’s counterclaim;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2012 —

JBF RAK v Council



(Case T‑555/10)

Subsidies — Imports of certain types of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates — Definitive countervailing duty and definite collection of provisional duty — Articles 11(8), 15(1) and 30(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 — Principle of sound administration

1. Common commercial policy — Protection against subsidisation practices of non-Member States — Imposition of a definitive countervailing duty — Calculation error following incorrect information supplied by the main exporter (Council Regulation No 597/2009, Arts 15(1) and 30(1)) (see paras 37-42, 65, 66)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against subsidisation practices of non-Member States — Course of the investigation — Communication to the parties concerned of the information gathered — Observations of the parties on the final information — Obligation on the Commission to take into account — Scope (Council Regulation No 597/2009, Art. 30(1), (2) and (5)) (see paras 68-87)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against subsidisation practices of non-Member States — Course of the investigation — Powers of the Commission — Limits — Obligation of the undertakings concerned by a complaint to cooperate — Scope (Council Regulation No 597/2009, Arts 11(2) and 26) (see para. 80)

4. Common commercial policy — Protection against subsidisation practices of non-Member States — Course of the investigation — Obligation to check whether information provided by the parties concerned correct — Scope (Council Regulation No 597/2009, Art. 11(8)) (see paras 97-101, 104, 105)

5. Union law — Principles — Principle of sound administration — Duty of diligence — Administrative procedure — Investigation concerning subsidisation practices of non-Member States — Scope (see paras 112, 113)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain types of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (OJ 2010 L 254, p. 10).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders JBF RAK LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2012 —

H.Eich v OHIM — Arav (H.EICH)



(Case T-557/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark H.EICH — Earlier national figurative mark H SILVIAN HEACH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 — Verbal mark H.EICH and figurative mark H SILVIAN HEACH (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21-23, 70, 91)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010 (Case R 1411/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Arav Holding Srl and H.Eich Srl.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 September 2010 (Case R 1411/2009-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by H.Eich Srl in the proceedings before the General Court;

3. Orders OHIM to pay the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2012 — Commission v EU Research Projects

(Case T-220/10)

Arbitration clause — Contract concluded in the framework of the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on a ‘User-friendly information society’ — Withdrawal from the project — Reimbursement of part of the amount advanced by the Commission — Default interest — Procedure by default

1. EU budget — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Financing covering only expenses actually incurred — No proof of the reality of the expenses declared — Ineligible expenses (Art. 317 TFEU) (see paras 28, 29)

2. Proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contract providing for Community financial assistance for a research and development project — Claim for repayment of certain costs — Reduction of the eligible costs — Commission’s right to repayment of the advance, plus default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 30-47)

Re:

ACTION under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the defendant reimburse part of the amount advanced by the Commission, together with default interest, under contract IST-2001-34850.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders EU Research Projects Ltd to repay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 102 039.32, plus accrued default interest calculated at the rate of 4.80% per annum from 29 December 2006 until the date of full payment of the amount due;
229

By contrast, the Commission is not obliged to extend to another subsidiary (‘the fellow subsidiary’) the benefit of a reduction of the fine which has been granted to the first subsidiary, which has made an application under the 2002 Leniency Notice, merely because the two subsidiaries belong, together with their common parent company, to an undertaking within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraphs 62 and 63 above. Indeed, unlike the parent company’s liability, which, in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 228 above, can be regarded as purely derivative, secondary and dependent upon that of its subsidiary (see, to that effect, Commission v Tomkins, paragraph 228 above, paragraph 39), a subsidiary’s liability is not derived from that of a fellow subsidiary, as the liability arises as a result of its own participation in the cartel. In those circumstances, it is only when (i) an application for a reduction of the fine is made on behalf of the fellow subsidiary and (ii) that subsidiary has actually cooperated with the Commission, that the fellow subsidiary may benefit from a reduction of the fine upon the application of another subsidiary belonging to the same undertaking. That situation can thus be distinguished from the situation in which a parent company makes, on its own behalf and on behalf of its subsidiaries, an application for reduction of the fine, since, in such a situation, all the companies forming the undertaking within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraphs 62 and 63 above are obliged to cooperate with the Commission.