ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Actions before the Community Court – Transfer of the intellectual property right affected – Replacement of the former proprietor of the right by the person claiming under him – Order of the Court of First Instance necessary

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 115, 116 and 134; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

Summary

Since neither the Statute of the Court of Justice nor the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance contain any provisions expressly governing a situation whereby a party to the proceedings before a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), which has become a party before the Court of First Instance following the commencement of an action before that court, transfers the intellectual property right affected by the proceedings after the decision of the Board of Appeal, and since the possibility of intervening pursuant to Article 40 of the Statute and Articles 115 and 116 of the Rules of Procedure available to the new owner of the right is not sufficient, in all respects, to take account of the particular situation of the parties to an action in the field of intellectual property, the person claiming under the party before the Board of Appeal must be allowed to replace that party for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court of First of Instance as an intervener under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

That replacement may, however, be allowed only by order of the Court of First Instance, having regard to the positions of the former proprietor of the right and the other parties to the proceedings. Since, essentially, it involves a decision to join a new party to the action, the procedural provisions of Articles 115 and 116 of the Rules of Procedure must, in addition, apply by analogy.

(see paras 15-16, 20, 24-25, 27, 32)
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 41, 48, 50

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C (2000) 2621 of 29 December 2000 relating to the withdrawal of aid which was allocated by the European Social Fund (ESF) by application of Decision C (91) 2852 of 19 December 1991 adopting the Community initiative ‘Euroform’ for Spain (P.O. 913051ES8) and ESF funds which the Spanish authorities allocated to the Cámara de Comercio e Industria (Chamber of Commerce), Zaragoza, for the ‘Tricoin’ project (ref.: EUR-82), for the implementation of which the company Copy Aragón de Zaragoza was responsible.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza to pay the costs.
28

In the present case, first, Aventis's allegation that the action seeks to challenge the Commission's finding that it did not play a leading role in the cartels is factually incorrect. In its action, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in attributing to it the role of leader and instigator as regards the cartels relating to vitamins A, E, B5, C, D3, beta-carotene and Carotinoids. It states that its conduct was no more serious than that of the other participants in the cartels in question, who were not described as leaders or instigators. As regards, more particularly, the cartels relating to vitamins A and E, far from maintaining that Aventis should have been regarded as the leader of those cartels, the applicant merely states that the Commission should have found, as it ‘correctly’ did in Aventis's case, that it was also a mere participant and not a leader in those cartels (paragraphs 129 to 131 of the application).
Case T-167/02





Établissements Toulorge

v

European Parliament and Council of the European Union





«(Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Acts of direct and individual concern to them – Directive 2002/2/EC – Inadmissibility – Action for damages)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 21 March 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Directive requiring the indication of the exact percentages by weight of the feed materials in animal feedingstuffs – Inadmissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/2)

2.. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of measures of the institutions – Measures of general application – Need for natural or legal persons to have recourse to a plea of illegality or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity – Obligation of the national courts to apply national procedural rules so as to allow challenges to the legality of Community measures of general application – Availability of an action for annulment before the Community Courts in the event of an insurmountable obstacle at the level of national procedural rules – Excluded

(Arts 234 EC, 241 EC and 230, fourth para., EC)

1.

2.
Case T-94/02

Hugo Boss AG

v

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

(Community trade mark – Judicial proceedings – Replacement of a party to the action – Transfer of the rights of the applicant for a Community trade mark)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 5 March 2004

Summary of the Order

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Actions before the Community Court – Transfer of the intellectual property right affected – Replacement of the former proprietor of the right by the person claiming under him – Order of the Court of First Instance necessary

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 115, 116 and 134; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

Since neither the Statute of the Court of Justice nor the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance contain any provisions expressly governing a situation whereby a party to the proceedings before a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), which has become a party before the Court of First Instance following the commencement of an action before that court, transfers the intellectual property right affected by the proceedings after the decision of the Board of Appeal, and since the possibility of intervening pursuant to Article 40 of the Statute and Articles 115 and 116 of the Rules of Procedure available to the new owner of the right is not sufficient, in all respects, to take account of the particular situation of the parties to an action in the field of intellectual property, the person claiming under the party before the Board of Appeal must be allowed to replace that party for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court of First of Instance as an intervener under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

That replacement may, however, be allowed only by order of the Court of First Instance, having regard to the positions of the former proprietor of the right and the other parties to the proceedings. Since, essentially, it involves a decision to join a new party to the action, the procedural provisions of Articles 115 and 116 of the Rules of Procedure must, in addition, apply by analogy.

(see paras 15-16, 20, 24-25, 27, 32)
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

17 November 2003

((Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition procedure – Rule 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Action manifestly inadmissible))

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Second Chamber),

gives the following

Order

Background to the dispute

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

─ annul the contested decision;

─ refer the case back to the First Board of Appeal;

─ order each party to pay its own costs.

19

─ declare the action inadmissible;

─ in the alternative, dismiss the action as unfounded;

─ order the applicant to pay the costs.

20

─ uphold the contested decision;

─ dismiss the opposition and allow the mark sought to be registered;

─ order the applicant to pay the costs.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

(2)

(3)

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber),

1.

2.

H. Jung J. Pirrung
Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that an application for interim relief is to specify the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim relief applied for. Those conditions are cumulative, so that an application for interim relief must be dismissed if any one of them is absent. Where appropriate, the judge hearing the application for interim relief also weighs up the interests involved.

The measure requested must be provisional in the sense that it must not prejudge the points of law or fact in issue or neutralise in advance the effects of the decision subsequently to be given in the main action.

In the context of his overall examination, the judge hearing the application enjoys a broad discretion and is free to determine, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, the manner and order in which those various conditions are to be examined, there being no rule of Community law imposing a pre-established scheme within which the need to order interim measures must be analysed and assessed.

(see paras 37-39)

See: C-149/95 P(R) Commission v Atlantic Container Line and Others [1995] ECR I-2165, para. 22; C-268/96P(R) SCK and FNK v Commission [1996] ECR I-4971, para. 30; C-445/00 R Austria v Council [2001] ECR I-1461, para. 73; T-120/01 R De Nicola v EIB [2001] ECRSC I-A-171 and II-783, para. 13
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Intervention – Interested parties – Representative association the object of which is to protect the interests of its members – Admissibility in cases raising questions of principle liable to affect those members

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, second para., and 53, first para.)

Summary

Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to the Court of First Instance pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, the right to intervene in cases before the Court is open to representative associations which have as their object the protection of their members’ interests in cases raising questions of principle liable to affect those members. More specifically, an association may be granted leave to intervene if it represents an appreciable number of undertakings active in the sector concerned; if its objects include that of protecting its members’ interests; if the case may raise questions of principle affecting the functioning of the sector concerned; and if the interests of its members may therefore be affected to an appreciable extent by the forthcoming judgment.

An association does not meet these criteria if its objective is merely to promote exchanges of information and contact between its members and to organise conferences intended to facilitate the study of certain areas of law.

(see paras 17-20)
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Conditions for granting

–

Urgency

–

Prima facie case

–

Cumulative requirements (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 28, 49

)
Case T-198/03 R





Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Application for interim measures – Admissibility – Competition – Publication of a decision to impose a fine – No urgency)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 7 November 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative requirements – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing an application for interim measures

(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 of admissibility – Admissibility prima facie of the main action

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

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))

4.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Pecuniary damage – Situation that could endanger the existence of the applicant company

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

1.

2.

3.

4.
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 addressed to a Member State withdrawing financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 21-26

)

Subject of the case

Re:

FIRST, APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 2890 final of 13 August 2003 concerning cancellation of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted to the applicant by Commission Decision C(90) 2363 025 of 14 December 1990 in respect of an infrastructure project in Sicily and the recovery of the sums already paid by the Commission in connection with that contribution; secondly, application for annulment of Commission debit note No 3240504102 of 26 September 2003; and, thirdly, annulment of any other connected or prior measure.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Regione Siciliana to pay the costs.
Case T-252/03 R





Fédération nationale de l'industrie et des commerces en gros des viandes (FNICGV)

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Interim proceedings – Competition – Payment of fine – Bank guarantee – Admissibility – Urgency – None)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 21 January 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2.. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Admissibility of the main action – Not relevant – Limits

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

3.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Admissibility of the main action – Jurisdiction of the court hearing the application for interim measures – Creation by Article 229 EC of an independent legal remedy – Not included

(Arts 229 EC and 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

4.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Exemption from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for the fine not being recovered immediately – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances

(Art. 242 EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case T-252/03

Fédération nationale de l'industrie et des commerces en gros des viandes (FNICGV)

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Competition – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Market in beef and veal – Action for annulment – Unlimited jurisdiction – Time-limit for bringing application – Introduction out of time – Inadmissibility)

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

Summary of the Order

Court of Justice – Court of First Instance – Unlimited jurisdiction – Exercise in the context of an action for annulment – Absence of an autonomous remedy with unlimited jurisdiction

(Arts 229 EC, 230, fifth para., EC and 231 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 17)

The Treaty does not recognise the ‘action under the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction’ as an autonomous remedy. Article 229 EC confines itself to providing that regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty may give the Community judicature unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the penalties provided for in those regulations.

On the basis of Article 229 EC, a number of regulations have given the Community judicature unlimited jurisdiction with regard to penalties. In particular, Article 17 of Regulation No 17 provides that ‘[t]he Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction within the meaning of Article [229 EC] to review decisions whereby the Commission has fixed a fine or periodic penalty payment’. The Court of First Instance has power to assess, in the context of the unlimited jurisdiction accorded to it by Article 229 EC and Article 17 of Regulation No 17, the appropriateness of the amounts of fines. In the context of its unlimited jurisdiction, the powers of the Community judicature are not limited to declaring the contested decision void, as provided in Article 231 EC, but allow it to vary the penalty imposed by that decision.

However, that unlimited jurisdiction can be exercised by the Community judicature only in the context of the review of acts of the Community institutions, more particularly in actions for annulment. The sole effect of Article 229 EC is to enlarge the extent of the powers the Community judicature has in the context of the action referred to in Article 230 EC. Consequently, an action in which the Community judicature is asked to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction with respect to a decision imposing a penalty necessarily comprises or includes a request for the annulment, in whole or in part, of that decision. Such an action must therefore be brought within the time-limit laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

(see paras 22-25)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 25 September 2008 – Regione Siciliana v Commission

(Case T-363/03)

Action for annulment – ERDF – Cancellation of a financial contribution – Recovery of the sums already paid – Regional or local entity – Lack of direct effect – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision addressed to a Member State withdrawing financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 21-26)

Re:

FIRST, APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 2890 final of 13 August 2003 concerning cancellation of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted to the applicant by Commission Decision C(90) 2363 025 of 14 December 1990 in respect of an infrastructure project in Sicily and the recovery of the sums already paid by the Commission in connection with that contribution; secondly, application for annulment of Commission debit note No 3240504102 of 26 September 2003; and, thirdly, annulment of any other connected or prior measure.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2006 – Juchem and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-321/03)

Action for damages – Non-contractual liability – Marketing of compound feedingstuffs for animals – Actual damage

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Actual and certain damage (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/2, Art. 1(1)(b) and (4) (see paras 19, 27-29, 35)

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants owing to Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ 2002 L 63, p. 23).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicants and the Parliament and the Council to bear their own costs;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

Direct concern to the applicant, as a condition of the admissibility of an action for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, requires that the impugned Community measure must directly affect the applicant’s legal situation and leave no discretion to the addressees entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from Community rules without the application of other intermediate rules. This means that, where a Community measure is addressed to a Member State by an institution, if the action to be taken by the Member State to implement that measure is automatic or a foregone conclusion, it is of direct concern to any person affected by that action. If, on the other hand, the measure leaves it to the Member State whether or not to act, or does not require it to act in a definite way, it is the Member State’s action or inaction which directly concerns the person affected, and not the measure itself.

In that regard, Decision 2004/69 adopting, pursuant to Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats, the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region, which designates areas of Germany as sites of Community importance, affects neither the rights or obligations of the land owners nor the exercise of those rights since it imposes no obligation whatsoever on economic operators or private persons and contains no provision as regards the system of protection of sites of Community importance, such as conservation measures or authorisation procedures.

Likewise, the obligations arising from Directive 92/43, and particularly from Articles 4 and 6 thereof, which bind the Member States once sites of Community importance have been designated by the contested decision, are not directly applicable to those operators since they necessitate a measure on the part of the Member State concerned, in order to specify how it intends to implement them.

(see paras 58-60, 65)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point – Publication or notification – Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant – Subsidiary nature – Commission decision addressed to a Member State finding State aid compatible with the common market without initiating the formal investigation procedure – Publication – Definition

(Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 26(1))

Summary

It follows from the wording itself of the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC that the criterion of the day on which the contested decision came to the knowledge of the applicant as the start of the period for instituting proceedings is subsidiary to the criteria of publication or notification of the measure.

The provision by the Commission of access to a full version of the text of a decision placed on its website, coupled with the publication of a summary notice in the Official Journal of the European Union allowing interested parties to identify the decision in question and informing them of the possibility of viewing it on the internet, must be considered to constitute publication within the meaning of the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

The right of an interested party to obtain a copy of such a decision provided for in Article 20(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] does not undermine that conclusion.

(see paras 32, 34-35)