ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/23

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Duravit and Others v Commission

(Case T-364/10) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Single and continuous infringement - Burden of proof - Fines - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis)

2013/C 325/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Duravit AG (Hornberg, Germany); Duravit SA (Bischwiller, France); and Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: R. Bechtold, U. Soltész and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Antoniadis, Agents, assisted by P. Thyri, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) and for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls point (8) of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) in so far as the European Commission finds that Duravit AG, Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA and Duravit SA participated in an infringement in Italy, Austria and the Netherlands;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Duravit AG, Duravit BeLux and Duravit SA to bear three quarters of their own costs;

4. Orders the Commission to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Duravit AG, Duravit BeLux and Duravit SA and to bear its own costs;

5. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/20

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt v OHIM — Castel Frères (CASTEL)

(Case T-320/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark CASTEL - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Admissibility - Absolute ground for refusal not put forward before the Board of Appeal - Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 313/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell (Castell, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Castel Frères SAS (Blanquefort, France) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2010 (Case R 962/2009-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell and Castel Frères SAS

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2010 (Case R 962/2009-2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell;

3. Orders Castel Frères SAS to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/18

Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2013 — Grebenshikova v OHIM — Volvo Trademark Holding (SOLVO)

(Case T-394/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark SOLVO - Earlier Community word mark VOLVO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 24/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Elena Grebenshikova (St Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Björkenfeldt, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented: initially by T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers, and subsequently by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, and I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 861/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Ms Elena Grebenshikova.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 June 2010 in Case R 861/2010-1;

2. Orders OHIM to pay, in addition to its own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by Ms Elena Grebenshikova;

3. Orders Volvo Trademark Holding AB to pay, in addition to its own costs, one third of the costs incurred by Ms Grebenshikova.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/18

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Iliad and Others v Commission

(Case T-325/10) (1)

(State Aid - Compensation for public service costs in connection with a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Altmark judgment - Service of general economic interest - Market failure - Overcompensation)

2013/C 336/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Iliad (Paris, France); Free infrastructure (Paris); and Free (Paris) (represented by: T. Cabot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: The French Republic (represented: initially by G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents); the Republic of Poland (represented initally by M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, and subsequently by B. Majczyna, acting as Agents); the Hauts-de-Seine department (France) (represented by: J.-D. Bloch and G. O’Mahony, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009 concerning the compensation for public service costs for the establishment and operation of a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department (State Aid N 331/2008 — France).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Iliad, Free infrastructure and Free to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Hauts-de-Seine department, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/23

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Riva Fire v Commission

(Case T-83/10) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices and payment terms - Limiting or controlling output or sales - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Competence of the Commission - Legal basis - Consultation of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Monopolies - Rights of the defence - Definition of the geographical market - Application of the principle of lex mitior - Infringement of Article 65 CS - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Extenuating circumstances - Proportionality - Application of the 1996 Leniency Notice))

(2015/C 034/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Riva Fire SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, M. Pappalardo and T. Ubaldi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, and subsequently by R. Sauer and R. Striani, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Moretto, lawyer)

Re:

Primarily, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, and in the alternative application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Riva Fire SpA at EUR 2 6 0 93 000;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Riva Fire to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission; orders the Commission to bear one-quarter of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/17

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2014 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-117/10) (1)

((ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - 2000 - 2006 regional operational programme for the region of Apulia (Italy) covered by objective No 1 - Serious failings in the management or control systems which could lead to systemic irregularities - Partnership principle - Proportionality - Article 39(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Articles 4, 8, 9 and 10 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 - Duty to state reasons - Lack of competence))

2014/C 151/21

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and D. Recchia, Agents)

Re:

Application to annul Commission Decision C (2009) 10350 final of 22 December 2009 reducing the financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund allocated to the Italian Republic pursuant to Commission Decision C(2000) 2349 of 8 August 2000, approving the regional operational programme POR Puglia, in respect of the period 2000-2006, under objective No 1.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/30

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission

(Case T-47/10) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in heat stabilisers - Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Duration of the infringements - Limitation period - Duration of the administrative procedure - Reasonable time - Rights of the defence - Attribution of the infringements - Infringements committed by the subsidiaries, by a partnership without legal personality of its own and by a subsidiary - Calculation of the amount of the fines))

(2015/C 302/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH (Düren, Germany); Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV (Amersfoort, Netherlands); and Akcros Chemicals Ltd (Warwickshire, United Kingdom) (represented initially by C. Swaak and M. van der Woude, and subsequently by Mr Swaak and R. Wesseling, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Bourke, and subsequently by Mr Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fines imposed.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2, points 4, 6, 21 and 23, of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) in respect of the fines imposed on Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and on Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV;

2. Reduces the total amount of fines imposed in Article 2, points 1 to 7, and 18 to 24, of Decision C(2009) 8682 final to EUR 40 194 million for Akzo Nobel NV and EUR 1 1 8 81 980 for Akcros Chemicals Ltd;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear two fifths of the costs of Akzo Nobel, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akcros Chemicals and to pay three fifths of its own costs. Akzo Nobel, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akcros Chemicals, shall bear three fifths of their own costs and two fifths of the Commission’s costs.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/24

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Niki Luftfahrt v Commission

(Case T-162/10) (1)

((Competition - Mergers - Air transport - Decision declaring the merger compatible with the common market - Assessment of the effects of the merger on competition - Undertakings))

(2015/C 213/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Niki Luftfahrt GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Asenbauer and A. Habeler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Noë, R. Sauer and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by: S. Noë, R. Sauer and H. Leupold, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented initially by: C. Pesendorfer, E. Riedl and A. Posch, and subsequently by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Klamert, acting as Agents); Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented initially by: S. Völcker and A. Israel, and subseqeuntly by: S. Völcker and J. Orologas, lawyers), and Österreichische Industrieholding AG (Vienna) (represented by: H. Kristoferitsch, P. Lewisch and B. Kofler-Senoner, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C (2009) 6690 final of 28 August 2009 declaring a merger compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.5440 — Lufthansa/Austrian Airlines).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Niki Luftfahrt GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, Österreichische Industrieholding AG and Deutsche Lufthansa AG.

3. Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

(Case T-207/10) (1)

((State aid - Tax scheme allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its partial recovery - Provision enabling the scheme to continue to apply in part - Application for a stay of execution - Continuing interest in bringing proceedings - Legitimate expectations - Precise assurances given by the Commission - Legitimacy of the expectation - Temporal scope of the legitimate expectation))

(2019/C 25/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: initially, A. Cordewener and J. Schönfeld, and, subsequently, J. Schönfeld, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially B. Martenczuk, T. Maxian Rusche and C. Urraca Caviedes, and, subsequently, T. Maxian Rusche and C. Urraca Caviedes, and, finally, T. Maxian Rusche, C. Urraca Caviedes and K. Blanck-Putz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Ebro Foods, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, and, subsequently, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, and, subsequently, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers), Iberdrola, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, and, subsequently, J. Ruiz Calzado, J. Domínguez Pérez and S. Völcker, lawyers) and Telefónica, SA (Madrid) (represented by: initially, J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, and, subsequently, J. Ruiz Calzado, J. Domínguez Pérez and S. Völcker, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 1(2) and (3) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Telekom AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/27

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Wesergold Getränke v OHIM Lidl Stiftung — (WESTERN GOLD)

(Case T-278/10 RENV) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark WESTERN GOLD - Earlier national, Community and international word marks WeserGold, Wesergold and WESERGOLD - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Decision on the appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: T. Melchert, P. Goldenbaum and I. Rohr, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx and M. Wolter, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG in the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 126/15

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — EyeSense v OHIM — Osypka Medical (ISENSE)

(Case T-207/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ISENSE - Earlier national word mark EyeSense - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 126/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EyeSense AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Osypka Medical GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2011 (Case R 1098/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between EyeSense AG and Osypka Medical GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EyeSense AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/15

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Nolin v Commission

(Case T-58/11) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Withdrawal of merit points and priority points following a promotion on the basis of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations - Legal basis - Competence of the author of the act - Principle of non-discrimination)

2012/C 6/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Michel Nolin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 December 2010, delivered in Case F-82/09 Nolin v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Michel Nolin to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal.

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/14

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX)

(Case T-135/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CLORALEX - Earlier national word marks CLOROX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 250/25

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: The Clorox Company (Oakland, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Chaudri, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Industrias Alen SA de CV (Nuevo León, Mexico) (represented by: J. Astiz Suárez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between The Clorox Company and Industrias Alen SA de CV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by The Clorox Company;

3. Orders Industrias Alen SA de CV to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.