ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Agreements between undertakings - Onus on the Commission to prove the duration of the infringement

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

2. Competition - Administrative procedure - Whether Commission obliged to warn undertakings that their conduct is illegal - No such obligation - Consequences of such a warning

3. Competition - Administrative procedure - Inapplicability of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Applicability of the general principles of Community law

Summary

1. If there is no evidence directly establishing the duration of an infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC), the principle of legal certainty requires that the Commission should adduce at least evidence of facts sufficiently proximate in time for it to be reasonable to accept that that infringement continued uninterruptedly between two specific dates.

( see para. 62 )

2. The Commission is not required, during an investigation pursuant to Regulation No 17, to warn the undertakings concerned that their conduct is illegal or of what the consequences of continuing it will be.

However, the fact that an undertaking participating in an infringement of the Community competition rules receives an express warning from the Commission may have consequences on the assessment of its conduct for the purpose of determining the amount of the fine. Such a warning, in so far as it informs an undertaking that an investigation by the Community authorities responsible for competition is taking place, may encourage the undertaking concerned to put an end to the conduct being investigated, which may lead to a reduction in the duration of the infringement, one of the factors which the Commission must take into account when determining the amount of the fine in accordance with Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17. The fact that an undertaking receives a warning that its conduct is illegal may also have legal consequences, since when the Commission is taking mitigating or aggravating circumstances into account, its assessment of whether the undertaking concerned ceased or continued the infringement depends on whether or not it received a warning.

( see paras 148-150 )

3. Although the Commission is not a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is none the less obliged to observe the general principles of Community law during the administrative procedure concerning an infringement of the competition rules.

( see para. 155 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Competition - Fines - Amount - Determination thereof - Turnover figure taken into account - Value of deliveries internal to the undertaking - Included - Effect of the exclusion of internal sales when calculating the total turnover of undertakings in the context of concentrations - None

(Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 4064/89, Art. 5)

Summary

$$When determining the amount of the fine to be imposed for an infringement of the Community competition rules, the Commission is entitled to use a turnover figure which comprises, in addition to the turnover from sales of the product concerned to third persons, the value of internal deliveries of the product to establishments which are owned by the undertaking and do not therefore have separate legal personality from it.

There is no inconsistency with that principle in the exclusion of any internal sales when calculating the overall turnover figure for undertakings in the context of concentrations, as provided for in certain provisions of Article 5 of Regulation No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings in so far as that exclusion is explained by the fact that if such transactions were included the same turnover would be counted twice.

( see paras 358, 361 )
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Subject-matter (Art. 88(2), first para., and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 7(2) to (5) and 14; Commission Decisions Nos 2001/851 and 2005/163) (see paras 43-45)

2. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2)) (see paras 56, 58-59)

3. Procedure – Obligation on the Court to remain within the framework of the dispute (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2)) (see paras 102-103, 107)

4. State aid – Commission decision – Assessment of legality by reference to information available at the time the decision was adopted (see para. 108)

5. Actions for annulment – Action brought before the Court of First Instance by a State aid beneficiary against a Commission decision – Obligation on the Court of First Instance, after a suspension of proceedings, to hold to the interpretation given by the Court of Justice in a judgment delivered in the interim (Council Regulation No 3577/92, Art. 4(3)) (see paras 162-165)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of the Commission’s decision of 6 August 1999 to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC concerning the State aid granted by the Italian Republic to undertakings in the Tirrenia di Navigazione group (OJ 1999 C 306, p. 2).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission and the interveners Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA, Linee Lauro Srl, Traghetti Pozzuoli Srl and Alilauro SpA;

3. Orders the intervener Aliscafi Società Navigazione Alta Velocità SpA (Aliscafi SNAV) to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2007 – Tirrenia di Navigazione and Others v Commission

(Case T-246/99)

State Aid – Maritime transport – Decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC – New aid – Existing aid

1. Actions for annulment – Subject-matter (Art. 88(2), first para., and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 7(2) to (5) and 14; Commission Decisions Nos 2001/851 and 2005/163) (see paras 43-45)

2. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2)) (see paras 56, 58-59)

3. Procedure – Obligation on the Court to remain within the framework of the dispute (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2)) (see paras 102-103, 107)

4. State aid – Commission decision – Assessment of legality by reference to information available at the time the decision was adopted (see para. 108)

5. Actions for annulment – Action brought before the Court of First Instance by a State aid beneficiary against a Commission decision – Obligation on the Court of First Instance, after a suspension of proceedings, to hold to the interpretation given by the Court of Justice in a judgment delivered in the interim (Council Regulation No 3577/92, Art. 4(3)) (see paras 162-165)

Re:

ANNULMENT of the Commission’s decision of 6 August 1999 to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC concerning the State aid granted by the Italian Republic to undertakings in the Tirrenia di Navigazione group (OJ 1999 C 306, p. 2).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission and the interveners Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA, Linee Lauro Srl, Traghetti Pozzuoli Srl and Alilauro SpA;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade marks - Filing of Community trade mark applications - Date of filing - Payment of the application fee after expiry of the time-limit of one month from filing of the application for registration - Compatibility with certain international conventions on the protection of industrial property

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 27)

2. Community trade marks - Filing of Community trade mark applications - Date of filing - Payment of the application fee after expiry of the time-limit of one month from filing of the application for registration - Lapse of the right to be accorded the date when the application was lodged as a filing date - Entitlement to restitutio in integrum - Conditions

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 27 and 78)

Summary

1. Under Article 27 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the award of a date of filing in respect of a trade mark application that coincides with the date on which documents are filed with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is subject to payment of the application fee within a period of one month. None of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 20 March 1883, the Munich Convention of 5 October 1973 on the Grant of European Patents, or the Patent Cooperation Treaty adopted in Washington on 19 June 1970 establish any principle with which Article 27 of Regulation No 40/94, in so far as it imposes such a condition, must be considered to be incompatible.

( see paras 33-36 )

2. Where a member of staff of the applicant's representative inadvertently places the file on a Community trade mark application on a stack of pending national files with entirely different time-limits for the payment of the application fee, that constitutes an instance of non-observance within the meaning of Article 78 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

In that situation, where the error is not noticed within a short time by means of the system for verifying time-limits in force in the representative's office, all due care required by the circumstances which is a condition for entitlement to restitutio in integrum, is not shown to have been taken.

( see paras 55-61 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

13 February 2001

T-166/00

Peter Hirschfeldt

v

European Environment Agency (EEA)

‛Officials — Internal competition — Annulment — Transfer — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regulations’

Full text in French II-157

Application for:

annulment, first, of the decision of the EEA of 24 September 1999 to annul internal competition EEA/T/99/1 for the post of head of the ‘Finance’ department and, secondly, the decision of the EEA of 13 December 1999 to transfer the applicant from the Commission to the EEA inasmuch as it classifies him in Grade A 5, step 3, with effect from 1 November 1999

Held:

The application is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Recruitment — Procedures — Choice — Discretion of the administration — Internal competition procedure of doubtful legality — Annulment — Whether permissible (Staff Regulations, Art. 29) Officials — Interinstitutional transfer — Establishment in a higher grade — Conditions (Staff Regulations, Arts 8, third para., and 45)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Second Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Act of the Parliament amending its Rules of Procedure concerning the internal investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

(Art. 230, first para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, Rule 9a)

2. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Act of the Parliament affecting its current and future Members without distinction - Legislative character - Inadmissibility

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Parliament)

Summary

1. An act of the European Parliament which on the one hand amends its internal Rules of Procedure by adding a Rule 9a concerning the internal investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and on the other approves the Parliament's decision concerning the terms and conditions of internal investigations, and which is one of the measures intended to protect the Communities' financial interests and to combat fraud and any other illegal activities which might be detrimental to those interests, goes in both its object and its effects beyond the internal organisation of the work of the Parliament. It may therefore be the subject of an action for annulment under the first paragraph of Article 230 EC.

( see paras 56-57 )

2. An action brought by Members of the European Parliament against an act of that institution which applies without distinction to the Members of that institution in office at the time of its entry into force and to any other person subsequently coming to perform the same duties is inadmissible. Such an act applies without temporal limitation to objectively determined situations and has legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged generally and in the abstract. Such an act, although called a decision, therefore constitutes a measure of general application.

( see paras 61-62, 78 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusing registration - Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product - Signs devoid of any distinctive character - DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

Summary

$$In order to be caught by Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, a mark must consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate a characteristic of the goods or services concerned. As regards a word sign composed of several elements, it follows from that requirement that descriptiveness must be assessed on the basis of all the elements of which the word sign is composed and not on the basis of only one of those elements. Consequently, as regards the registration of DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT as a Community trade mark sought in respect of land vehicles and their parts, and household and office furniture, even if the Bequemlichkeit element designates, on its own, a quality of the goods concerned which may be relevant when the class of persons targeted makes the decision to purchase, DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT, when considered on the basis of all its elements and read in its entirety, cannot be regarded as consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the quality of the goods concerned.

Moreover, as regards the assessment of distinctiveness, it is not appropriate to apply to slogans criteria which are stricter than those applicable to other types of sign. The words in question could only be regarded as lacking any distinctive character, on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, if it were demonstrated that the combination of the words das Prinzip der ... (the principle of ...) alone with a term designating a characteristic of the goods or services concerned is commonly used in business communications and, in particular, in advertising.

( see paras 27-28, 44, 46 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

27 June 2002

Joined Cases T-373/00, T-27/01, T-56/01 and T-69/01

Carmine Salvatore Tralli

v

European Central Bank

‛Officials — Staff of the European Central Bank — Extension of probationary period — Dismissal during probationary period — Admissibility — Manifest error of assessment — Statement of grounds — Costs’

Full text in German II-453

Application for:

annulment of the decision of 18 September 2000 extending the probationary period in respect of the applicant's employment contract, the decision of 29 November 2000 dismissing the applicant, the decisions rejecting complaints relating to the abovementioned decisions to extend the probationary period and to dismiss the applicant, and for a finding that the President of the European Central Bank failed to act when he unlawfully refrained from replying to the complaint lodged by the applicant against the decision to extend the probationary period.

Held:

Cases T-373/00, T-27/01, T-56/01 and T-69/01 are joined for the purposes of the judgment. The application in Case T-373/00 is dismissed. There is no further need to adjudicate in Cases T-27/01, T-56/01 and T-69/01. Each party in Case T-373/00 is ordered to bear its own costs. The applicant in Cases T-27/01, T-56/01 and T-69/01 is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay a third of those incurred by the defendant.

Summary
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

23 April 2002

Case T-372/00

Mário Campolargo

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Recruitment procedures — Application of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Recruitment of a member of the temporary staff — Withdrawal of an administrative act’

Full text in French II-223

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 15 February 2000 annulling the applicant's assignment to the post of Head of Unit XIII.G.2.

Held:

The decision of the Commission of 15 February 2000 annulling the assignment of Mr Campolargo to the post of Head of Unit XIII.G.2. is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state grounds — Scope — Annulment of the appointment of an official or the assignment of a member of the temporary staff to a vacant post in response to another candidate's complaint — Right of the person concerned to have the relevant points communicated to him

The purpose of the obligation to state grounds is both to give the person concerned a sufficient indication to determine whether the decision taken by the administration is well founded and whether it is appropriate to bring an action before the Court of First Instance and to enable the latter to carry out its review. The extent of that obligation must be determined on the basis of the specific circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the act, the nature of the grounds put forward and the interest which the addressee may have in receiving explanations. Where a decision as serious as the annulment of the appointment of an official or of the assignment of a member of the temporary staff to a vacant post is adopted in response to an unsuccessful candidate's complaint, the person concerned is entitled to have communicated to him, if not the text of the complaint itself, at least the relevant points of that complaint and the grounds on which, in the appointing authority's view, it should be allowed. (see paras 49, 52) See: T-60/94 Pierrot v Court of Justice [1995] ECRSC I-A-23 and II-77, paras 31 and 32; T-283/97 Thinus v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-69 and II-353, para. 73; T-10/99 Vicente Nunez v Commission [2000] ECRSC I-A-47 and II-203, para. 41
Article 4(2) of the general provisions implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, on the transfer to the Community scheme of pension rights acquired before entering the service of the Communities, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where the amount, transferred to the Communities' account, of the actuarial equivalent or the flat-rate redemption value of pension rights acquired by an official under a national social security scheme has been uprated or had interest added by the pension fund to which the official belonged before he entered the service of the Communities, the Community institution, before calculating the number of years of pensionable service to be taken into account under the Community scheme, is justified in making a flat-rate deduction from the sums transferred, payable to the Community budget, of 3.5% per year for the period — between the date of the official's establishment and the date of actual transfer of the national pension rights — covered by the uprating or interest. Where the reverse applies, the institution may not make any deduction from the amount transferred, and the years of pensionable service must therefore be calculated on the basis of the whole amount.

In the absence of more precise guidance, ‘interest’ within the meaning of Article 4(2) must be construed broadly. It refers to any type of interest paid by the national pension fund in relation to all or part of the period between the date of the official's establishment and the date of actual transfer of the amount of the national pension rights.

(see paras 72-73)
Under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of the same statute, and under Article 44(1) (c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, all applications must contain the subject-matter of the dispute and a brief statement of the pleas in law. Irrespective of any question of terminology, that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to exercise its power of judicial review. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic matters of law and fact relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. The Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance do not require the applicant to state the specific provisions of the Treaty which entitle him to bring legal proceedings.

(see paras 40-41)

See: 2/6.3 to 10/63 San Michele and Others v High Authority [1963] ECR 327, 341 and 342; T-85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II-523, para. 20; T-277/97 Ismeri Europa v Court oj Auditors [1999] ECR II-1825, para 29; T-164/01 Lucacciom v Commiision [2003] ECRSC I-A-67 and II-367, para 63
Case T-190/00





Regione Siciliana

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(State aid – Operating loans – Admissibility – Time-limit for bringing an action – Confirmatory act – Action for annulment – Existing aid or new aid – Principle of tempus regit actum – Export aid – Operating aid – Reasonable time-limit)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), 27 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for annulment – Time-limit – Starting point – Date of publication – Date of becoming aware of the measure – Subsidiary character

(Art. 230, fifth para., EC)

2.. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures with binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Excluded

(Art. 230 EC)

3.. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures with binding legal effects – Commission decision concluding the formal review procedure for examining State aid, provided for in Article 88(2) EC – Possibility of challenging the classification as new aid, even where there was no such challenge by an action against the decision to open the formal review procedure

(Arts 88(2) EC and 230 EC)

4.. State aid – Prohibition – Derogations – Aids capable of benefiting from the derogation under Article 87(3)(c) EC – Operating aid – Excluded

(Art. 87(3)(c) EC)

5.. State aid – Planned aid – Review by the Commission – Compliance with a reasonable time-limit – Principle of good administration

(Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7(6))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.