ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
It follows from the provisions of Article 13 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations that the procedure to establish invalidity may be initiated only in relation to an official who is obliged to end his service because he is suffering from invalidity. Consequently, an official who left the service several years ago and who suffers from an illness which would render him incapable of performing his duties if he were still in active employment is not entitled to request, on that ground alone, the initiation of the procedure to establish invalidity. Furthermore, that official also does not satisfy the second of the cumulative conditions laid down in Article 13, which states that an official requesting an invalidity pension must be acquiring pension rights at the time when the Invalidity Committee recognises him to be suffering from total permanent invalidity.

It is not apparent from the case-law of the Court or from any other source of Community law that there is a general obligation for a Community institution to determine whether an official who has left voluntarily is fit for work.

Where an official considers that his state of health makes it necessary for him to leave the service, it is for him to submit a request before leaving, in accordance with Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, for the award of an invalidity pension under Article 78 of the Staff Regulations. Since officials are deemed to be familiar with the provisions of the Staff Regulations, an official finding himself in such a situation must take advantage of this option if he wishes to receive an invalidity pension. Not to do so must be regarded as failure to exercise due care, particularly as he is bound to be more familiar than the institution to which he is attached with his medical history and his state of health at the time of his resignation. Thus, unless there are exceptional circumstances, it may not be alleged that an institution, at least in the case of an official who leaves voluntarily without being asked to do so by that institution, has failed to convene an invalidity committee on its own initiative when the official concerned had not himself made such a request.

(see paras 38. 40)

See: Bähr v Commission, cited above; T-27/99 Drabbe v Commission [2000] ECRSC I-A-213 and II-955
Genuine use of the earlier Community trade mark, within the meaning of Article 43(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark implies real use of the mark on the market concerned for the purpose of identifying the goods or services. Genuine use therefore excludes minimal or insufficient use when determining that a mark is being put to real, effective use on a particular market. In that regard, even if it is the owner's intention to make real use of his trade mark, if the trade mark is not objectively present on the market in a manner that is effective, consistent over time and stable in terms of the configuration of the sign, so that it cannot be perceived by consumers as an indication of the origin of the goods or services in question, there is no genuine use of the trade mark.

Accordingly, not only does genuine use of a trade mark exclude artificial use for the purpose of maintaining the mark on the register; genuine use means that the mark must be present in a substantial part of the territory where it is protected, inter alia exercising its essential function, which is to identify the commercial origin of the goods or services, thus enabling the consumer who acquired them to repeat the experience, if it proves to be positive, or to avoid it, if it proves to be negative, on the occasion of a subsequent purchase.

(see paras 36-37)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)

7 May 2003

Case T-327/01

Luciano Lavagnoli

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Delay in drawing up staff report — Action for damages’

Full text in French II-691

Application for:

payment of damages in compensation for non-material damage caused by the delay in drawing up a definitive staff report for the period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999.

Held:

The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 2000. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report — Drawing up — Delay — Breach of administrative duty giving rise to nonmaterial damage (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report — Drawing up — Time-limit — Mandatory nature of the time-limits set by an institution's internal rules (Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the owner of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar products or services — Risk of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS and figurative marks including the word GIORGI — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

There is no risk of the Spanish public being confused between the word mark " GEORGIO BEVERLEY HILLS" , for which registration as a Community trade mark is sought in respect of toilet soaps, perfumes etc. falling within class 3 of the Nice Agreement, and figurative marks including the word signs " J GIORGI" , " GIORGI LINE" and " MISS GIORGI" , previously registered in Spain to designate perfumes and cosmetics in the same class. Even though there is identity or similarity between the goods covered by the conflicting marks, the visual, aural and conceptual differences between the signs constitute sufficient grounds for discounting the existence of that risk, so that one of the conditions for applying Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark is not satisfied.

see paras 52, 54
Case T-295/01





Nordmilch eG

v

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





«(Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – OLDENBURGER – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Geographical origin – Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) – Limitation of the right conferred – Article 12(b) – Statement as to the scope of protection – Article 38(2))»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 15 October 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of the goods – OLDENBURGER

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

2.. Community trade mark – Effects of a Community trade mark – Limitations – Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94 – Purpose – Conditions of application – Existence of a validly registered trade mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 12(b))

3.. Community trade mark – Registration procedure – Examination of the application – Trade mark containing an element which is devoid of distinctive character – Option for the Office to request a statement relating to that element – Scope

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 38(2))

1.

2.

3.
Joined Cases T-116/01 and T-118/01





P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya), SA

and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya



v

Commission of the European Communities





«(State aid – Actions for annulment – Decision terminating a review procedure initiated under Article 88(2) EC – Concept of State aid – Purchase of services by the State at the market price – Aid having a social character granted without discrimination related to the origin of the products concerned – Failure to order a Member State to produce the necessary information – Obligation to repay aid – Legitimate expectations of recipients – Statement of reasons)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), 5 August 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. State aid – Unnotified aid – Acceptance by the Commission of the notification of a new agreement between recipient and grantor – No effect on the unlawfulness of the aid

(Art. 88(3) EC)

2.. Procedure – Force of res judicata attaching to a judgment – Scope – Inadmissibility of a second action – Conditions – Same parties, subject-matter and grounds in both actions



3.. State aid – Definition – Purchases from an undertaking – Assessment on the basis of the private investor test – State aid excluded only in the case of a normal commercial transaction

(Art. 87 EC)

4.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope

(Art. 253 EC)

5.. State aid – Commission decision finding aid which has not been notified incompatible with the common market – Obligation to state reasons – Scope

(Art. 88(3) EC)

6.. EC Treaty – Systems of property ownership – Principle of neutrality – Limits – Bound by the fundamental rules of the Treaty – No effect on the scope of the concept of State aid

(Arts 87(1) EC and 295 EC)

7.. State aid – Prohibited – Derogations – Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market – Aid having a social character – Conditions

(Art. 87(2)(a) EC)

8.. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules in Article 88 EC – Possibility of legitimate expectation on the part of recipients only – Protection – Conditions and limits

(Arts 87 EC and 88 EC)

9.. Community law – Principles – Need for judicial review – Recovery of unlawful aid notwithstanding the requirements of legal certainty

(Arts 88 EC, 220 EC, 230, first para., EC and 233 EC; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 47; European Convention on Human Rights, Arts 6 and 13)

10.. State aid – Review by the Commission – Initiation of formal review procedure – Maximum period of two months – Inapplicable in the case of unnotified aid

(Art. 88(2) and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 4(6))

11.. State aid – Proposed aid – Implementation before the final decision of the Commission – Commission decision ordering repayment of the aid – Obligation to state reasons – Scope

(Art. 88(3) EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.
Joined Cases T-215/01, T-220/01 and T-221/01





Calberson GE

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 – Food aid to Russia – Regulation (EC) No 1799/1999 – Supply of beef – Regulation (EC) No 1815/1999 – Supply of skimmed-milk powder – Tender procedure for the supply of transport – Contractual relationship – Arbitration clause – Contractual liability – Non-contractual liability – Admissibility)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 10 February 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Procedure – Action brought before the Court of First Instance on the basis of an arbitration clause – Condition – Existence of a contract – Relationship created between the successful tenderer for food aid and the Commission – Contractual nature

(Council Regulation No 2802/98; Commission Regulation No 111/1999, Art. 16)

2.. Procedure – Action brought before the Court of First Instance on the basis of an arbitration clause – Claim for payment of default interest – Admissibility



3.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Food aid – Implementation – Award of tender for the supply of transport for skimmed-milk powder – Obligation on the successful tenderer to take care of the operation of loading the goods – None – Principle of sound management of the Community's financial resources

(Commission Regulations Nos 1643/89 and 1815/1999, Art. 2)

4.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Food aid – Implementation – Award of tender for the supply of transport for beef – Obligation on the successful tenderer to take care of the operation of loading the goods

(Commission Regulations Nos 1643/89 and 1799/1999, Art. 2)

5.. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Summary of the pleas in law relied on – Application for compensation for damages caused by a Community institution

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Case T-154/01

Distilleria F. Palma SpA

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 – Common organisation of the market in wine – Regulation (EEC) No 1780/89 – Regulation (EEC) No 2710/93 – Regulation (EC) No 416/96 – Disposal of alcohol obtained by distillation – Regulation (EEC) No 3390/90 – Sale by tender for use as motor fuel – Refusal by the Commission to amend a number of conditions for the tender – Force majeure – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Admissibility)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 25 May 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1. Procedure – Claim for compensation – Application concerning a claim for contractual damages – Arbitration clause – Absence – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community courts

(Arts 235 EC, 238 EC and 240 EC)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which it is based – Application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)( c))

1. In the absence of an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC, the Court of First Instance lacks jurisdiction, when a claim for compensation is brought before it on the basis of Article 235 EC, to adjudicate on this action inasmuch as it constitutes in reality a claim for contractual damages. To do so would be to extend its jurisdiction beyond the limits placed by Article 240 EC on the disputes of which it may take cognisance, since on the contrary that article specifically gives national courts jurisdiction over disputes to which the Community is a party.

(see para. 50)

2. Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, all applications must state, inter alia, the subject-matter of the dispute and must contain a brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based. This information must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. In order for an action to be admissible, it is necessary for the basic legal and factual particulars relied on to be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the text of the application itself.

In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which the conduct alleged against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the conduct, the damage it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage.

(see paras 56, 58-59)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

19 June 2003

Case T-78/02

Stephan-Harald Voigt

v

European Central Bank

‛Officials — Staff of the European Central Bank — Reprimand’

Full text in German II-839

Application for:

annulment of the decision of Mr Noyer, Vice-President of the European Central Bank, of March 2002, imposing the disciplinary sanction of a reprimand on the applicant.

Held:

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

Summary

Officials — Duty of the administration to have regard for the interests of officials — Scope — Obligation to notify the decision imposing a disciplinary sanction to persons other than the member of staff concerned — None

The duty of the administration to have regard for the interests of its officials reflects the balance of the reciprocal rights and obligations established by the Staff Regulations in the relationship between the official authority and the civil servants. However, in the absence of any request to that effect by the person concerned, that duty does not entail an obligation on the European Central Bank to notify persons other than the member of staff concerned, such as his lawyer, of a decision imposing a disciplinary sanction. (see paras 24-25) See: T-33/89 and T-74/89 Blackmann v Parliament [199.3] ECR II-249, para. 96

In the course of disciplinary proceedings, an employer is obliged to submit the information it has on the facts alleged for final legal assessment, regardless of whether the member of staff concerned actively assisted in the establishment of the facts or refused to express any view on the substance. Moreover, the silence maintained by the member of staff concerned during the disciplinary proceedings cannot be taken as an admission. However, in a situation where the member of staff declines to assist in the establishment of the facts and thus fails to fulfil his duty to cooperate under Article 4(a) of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank and that of loyalty to his employer, the employer may make a final assessment of the complaints at issue confining itself to the facts established in the course of the procedure and, if appropriate, conclude that the facts alleged must be considered proven. (see paras 28-30) See: T-273/94 N v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-97 and II-289, para 132
Case T-80/02

Tetra Laval BV

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision ordering separation of undertakings — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 4064/89 — Illegality of the decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market — Ensuing illegality of the divestiture decision’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 25 October 2002 II-4521

Summary of the Judgment

Competition — Concentrations — Decision ordering separation of undertakings — Decision having as its legal basis a decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market — Annulment of the incompatibility decision necessarily rendering the divestiture decision illegal

(Council Regulation No 4064/89, Arts 7(3) and 8(4)

When a concentration has been implemented pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, the separation of the undertakings involved in the concentration is the logical consequence of the decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the common market.

The adoption of a divestiture decision subsequent to the adoption of a decision pursuant to Article 8(4) of the Regulation declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market presupposes that the latter decision is valid.

(see paras 36-37)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

17 September 2003

Case T-233/02

Charis Aleandratos and Maria Panagiotou

v

Council of the European Union

‛Officials — Action for annulment — Open competition — Decision of the selection board refusing admission to the oral tests — Scope of the obligation to state reasons — Scope of judicial review — Compliance with the rules governing the deliberations of the selection board’

Full text in Greek II-989

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the selection board in the Council's open competition A/393 (2000/C98 A/02) refusing to admit the applicants to the oral tests for that competition.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

The criteria for marking adopted by the selection board prior to the tests form an integral part of the comparative assessments which it makes of the candidates' respective merits. Where the selection board decides not to admit candidates to the oral tests in a competition, compliance with the obligation to state reasons does not entail communicating to the candidates concerned the criteria used for marking or the marked scripts on which the selection board's assessments are noted, or supplying further information about the value judgments made by the selection board concerning each of them. The communication of the mark obtained by each candidate disputing his elimination constitutes an adequate statement of reasons for the selection board's decision not to admit him to the oral tests. This conclusion is not affected by the fact that unsuccessful candidates can, in some circumstances, obtain from the institution organising the competition in question their marked scripts and/or the general marking criteria used by the selection board, either by means of the disclosure of documents during court proceedings between that institution and the candidates concerned, or under a practice adopted by the institution in order to ensure transparency in recruitment procedures while at the same time observing the secrecy of the selection board's proceedings as required under Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. (see paras 30-31) See: Parliament v Innamorati, cited above, para. 29; T-289/94 Innamorati v Parliament [1995] ECRSC I-A-123 and II-393
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. 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 – Word marks CALPICO and CALYPSO

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Boards of Appeal – Office on administrative body – Right of the parties to a fair ‘hearing’ – None

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 60 to 62)

3. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Observance of the rights of the defence – Scope of the principle

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73)

Summary

1. There is, for the average German consumer, no likelihood of confusion between the word sign CALPICO, for which registration as a Community trade mark is sought in respect of ‘mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks, in particular physiologically functional drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices as well as beverages with a fruit juice base; syrups and other preparations for making beverages’ in Classes 29, 30 and 32 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement, and the word mark CALYPSO, registered earlier in Germany in respect of ‘fruit powders and non-alcoholic fruit preparations for making non-alcoholic beverages (all the aforesaid goods also in instant form)’ in Class 32 of that Agreement, in so far as, despite the fact that the goods designated by the conflicting marks are partly identical and partly highly similar, the visual difference and the clear aural and conceptual differences between the conflicting marks make it possible to preclude any likelihood of confusion between those marks on the part of the relevant public and that is so even if the target consumer pays no particular attention to them.

(see paras 45, 54-55)

2. The possibility of relying on a right to a fair ‘hearing’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, before the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is precluded, since proceedings before the Boards of Appeal are administrative and not judicial in nature.

(see para. 62)

3. Although the right to be heard, as laid down by the second sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, covers all the factual and legal evidence which forms the basis for the act of making the decision taken by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), it does not apply to the final position which the administration intends to adopt.

(see para. 65)