ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2008 – Stepek v OHIM – Masters Golf Company (GOLF-FASHION MASTERS THE CHOICE TO WIN)

(Case T-294/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark ‘GOLF-FASHION MASTERS THE CHOICE TO WIN’ – Earlier national figurative mark ‘The Masters GOLF COMPANY’ – Withdrawal of appeal brought before the Board of Appeal – Costs incurred before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Allocation of costs (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 81(3) and (6), and 89(1); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 94(3) and (7)(d)(vi)) (see paras 29-35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2007 (Case R 95/2007‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between The Masters Golf Company Ltd and Mr Wilhelm Stepek.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Wilhelm Stepek Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark GOLF-FASHION MASTERS THE CHOICE TO WIN for goods in Classes 3, 9, 12, 18, 24, 25 and 28 – Application No 3136041 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Masters Golf Company Ltd Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark The Masters for goods in Class 25 and figurative mark The Masters GOLF COMPANY (Community mark No 1582535) for goods in Classes 12, 25 and 28 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application dismissed for goods in Classes 12, 25 and 28 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 25 March 2009 – Scientific and Technological Committee of AGH and Others v Commission

(Case T-125/07)

Proceedings for failure to act – Technologies for subterranean storage of carbon dioxide – Commission’s failure to adopt a position – Inadmissibility

Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Failure of the Commission to adopt a position on the problem of the risks linked to subterranean storage of carbon dioxide and its escape (Art. 232, third para., EC) (see paras 22-30)

Re:

ACTION for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act by: (1) failing to adopt a position concerning the risks for the population of the European Union from the subterranean storage of carbon dioxide and its escape from geological formations towards the earth’s surface; and (2) failing to take effective measures for the protection of the population and the environment.

Operative part:

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application 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 – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18-19)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38-39)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 43-44)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 47-48)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of being remedied by the granting of compensation in the main action (Arts 242 EC, 243 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 49-51)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company or irremediably alter its position in the market – Inclusion – Conditions (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC ; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 52-54)

7. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Decision to exclude a tenderer from a tender procedure – Damage to its reputation – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 56-57)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures in the context of the tendering procedure launched by the Commission for the construction of a building.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Conditions of admissibility

–

Prima facie admissibility of the main action

–

Summary assessment of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 46-48

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures in relation to certain measures taken in the context of the proceeding under Article 82 EC in Case COMP/3-37.990 Intel.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim relief;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 225 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-25)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Burden of proof – Realisation of the damage depending on future and uncertain events (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 39-40, 55-58, 64)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Article 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 July 2009 — Thoss v Court of Auditors

(Case T-545/08)

‛Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing an action — Lateness — Absence of excusable error — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Procedure — Division of jurisdiction between the various Community courts — Action for annulment brought by a Member of the Court of Auditors against a decision of that institution — Lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal (Art. 230 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 8(2)) (see paras 26-27)

2. Procedure — Time-limits for instituting proceedings — Mandatory (see paras 35-36, 40)

3. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Notification (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 41-42)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 20 March 2006 refusing to allocate to the applicant, the widow of a former Member of the Court of Auditors, a survivor’s pension on the ground that the condition that the couple had to have been married for five years at the time of death has not been satisfied (case registered as F-46/08 and referred by the Civil Service Tribunal).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for damages

–

Limitation period

–

Point from which time starts to run

–

Liability as the result of an individual measure

–

Date on which the injurious effects of the measure are produced (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.) (see paras 34-39, 47-52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of allegations of misuse of Community subsidies in the performance of certain contracts concluded by the Commission with the applicant’s companies.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Claude Perry is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Action for compensation for damage caused by a Community institution – Failure to comply with requirements – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 55-58)

2. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Account taken of a subjective assessment of the reality of the damage – Not permissible (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 69-71, 82)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following a Commission decision not to include them on the list of exporters eligible to receive payment, via funds of the European Development Fund (EDF), in respect of the debts owed to them by a State body of the Central African Republic.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. R. Cattin & Cie and Yves Cattin are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2009 — Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission

(Case T-2/08)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market — Action brought by an authority forming an integral part of the State, not having budgetary independence and subject to State control — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 31, 38, 42)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/708/EC of 23 October 2007 on the State aid C 34/06 (ex N 29/05, ex CP 13/04) which the Federal Republic of Germany is planning to implement for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in North Rhine-Westphalia (OJ 2008 L 236, p. 10).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 2008 – CLL Centres de langues v Commission

(Case T-202/08 R)

Application for interim measures – Public procurement – Community tendering procedure – Rejection of application to participate – Application for suspension of operation and interim measures – No prima facie case – Loss of opportunity – No serious and irreparable damage – No urgency

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature (Arts 225 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16-18)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Prima facie examination of the pleas raised in support of the main action – Commission decision to exclude a later candidature from a tendering procedure (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 140, 143 and 145) (see paras 31-45)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Prima facie examination of the pleas raised in support of the main action – Commission decision to exclude a later candidature from a tendering procedure (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 123(1) and (3) and 145) (see paras 47-53)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 67-68, 70-72)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 73-77)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC, 243 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 78- 80)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures, essentially to permit the Centre de langues à Louvain-la-Neuve et -en-Woluwe (CLL Centres de Langues) to participate in the tendering procedure ADMIN/D1/PR/2008/004 regarding the contract ‘Language training for staff at the European Union (EU) institutions, bodies and agencies in Brussels’ and to suspend the Commission’s decision to exclude it until the Court has ruled on the action for annulment of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rejects the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 10 February 2009 – Okalux v OHIM – Ondex (ONDACELL)

(Case T-126/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Failure to pay the opposition fee – Decision deeming the opposition non-existent – Action manifestly devoid of any legal basis

Community trade mark – Registration procedure – Observation of third parties and opposition (Commission Regulation No 2869/95, Arts 5 and 8) (see paras 27-28, 35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2008 (Case R 1384/2007‑4) regarding opposition proceedings between Okalux GmbH and Ondex SAS.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2008 – KODA v Commission

(Case T-425/08 R)

Application for interim measures – Commission decision ordering the cessation of a concerted practice in connection with the collective management of copyright – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 225 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-25)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Burden of proof – Realisation of the damage depending on future and uncertain events (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 39-40, 55-58, 64)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Article 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2009 – Hoo Hing v OHIM – Tresplain Investments (Golden Elephant Brand)

(Case T-300/08)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Article 63(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 65(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Act which upheld the applicant’s claims in their entirety – Inadmissibility

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings – Persons whose claims not upheld by a decision (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(4)) (see paras 30-32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 889/2007-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd and Tresplain Investments Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘Golden Elephant Brand’ for goods in Class 30 – Community trade mark registration No 241810 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Tresplain Investments Ltd Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The unregistered figurative mark ‘GOLDEN ELEPHANT’, which had been in use in the United Kingdom Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division





Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 April 2009 – Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter and Others v Council

(Case T-217/08)

Action for annulment – Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 – Milk quota scheme – Increase in national milk quotas – Applicants not individually concerned –Inadmissible

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them –Regulation modifyingnational quotas for milk – Measure of general scope – Action by milk producers – Applicants not individually concerned– Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 248/2008) (see paras 29, 33-40, 46)

2. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC, 235 EC, 241 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 50-52)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action brought by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members – Admissibility – Conditions (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 55)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 of 17 March 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the national quotas for milk (OJ 2008 L 76, p. 6).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. The Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter eV, Romuald Schaber, Stefan Mann and Walter Peters are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 April 2010 – Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-529/08 to T-531/08)

Application for annulment – State aid – Tax advantages – Recovery of State aid declared unlawful – Application of compound interest scheme – Confirmatory act – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Action against a decision confirming an earlier decision not challenged within the time-limits – Inadmissibility – Meaning of confirmatory decision – Decision adopted following a re-examination of the earlier decision and on the basis of new factors – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 28-30)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 2 October 2008, informing the applicants that it was necessary to apply compound interest in the context of the recovery of State aid declared unlawful by Commission Decisions 2002/820/EC, 2002/894/EC and 2003/27/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in respectively Álava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45% of investments (respectively, OJ 2002 L 296, p. 1, OJ 2002 L 314, p. 26, and OJ 2003 L 17, p. 1), and Commission Decisions 2002/892/EC, 2002/540/EC and 2002/806/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in respectively Álava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya (respectively, OJ 2002 L 314, p. 1, OJ 2002 L 174, p. 31 and OJ 2002 L 279, p. 35), which were upheld by the judgments of the General Court in Joined Cases T-227/01 to T-229/01, T-265/01, T-266/01 and T‑270/01 Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission [2009] ECR II-3029; and judgment of 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T‑230/01 and T-267/01 to T-269/01 Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission , not published in the ECR.

Operative part

1. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2009 — TerreStar Europe v Commission

(Case T-196/09 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Decision on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services — Application for suspension of operation of the measure and interim relief — No urgency’

1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Cumulative nature (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see. paras 24-26)

2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 53-54)

3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss (Arts 242 EC, 243 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 70-75, 80-83)

4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 85)

Re:

In essence, APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2009 L 149, p. 65).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Keywords



Keywords

Application for interim measures

–

Interim measures

–

Main action previously dismissed

–

Application which has become devoid of purpose

–

No need to adjudicate (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 3-4

)
Keywords



Keywords

Application for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Request which has become devoid of purpose

–

No need to adjudicate (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art.104(2)) (see paras 3-4

)