ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/19

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Astex Therapeutics v OHIM — Protec Health International (astex TECHNOLOGY)

(Case T-48/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark astex TECHNOLOGY - Earlier Community word mark ASTEX - Ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)

(2008/C 272/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Astex Therapeutics Ltd (Cambridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, barrister, and R. Harrison, solicitor)

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 intervening before the Court of First Instance: Protec Health International Ltd (Cirencester, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2005 (Case R 651/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Protec Health International Ltd and Astex Therapeutics Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Astex Therapeutics Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/28

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2008 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-339/06) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the market in wine - Aid for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards - Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 - Fixing of the definitive financial allocations made to Member States - Decision 2006/669/EC - Binding nature of the time-limit in Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 - Principles of cooperation in good faith, good faith and sound administration, proportionality and effectiveness)

(2009/C 32/52)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and S. Papaioannou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe, M. Konstantinidis and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/669/EC of 4 October 2006 fixing, for the 2006 financial year and in respect of a certain number of hectares, the definitive financial allocations to Member States for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards under Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 62)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
1.

orders Premium SA to pay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 57 605,74, together with default interest: — at the rate of 3,36 % per annum for the period from 1 October to 31 December 1998; — at the rate of 3,47 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 1999; — at the rate of 2,74 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2000; — at the rate of 4,26 % per annum for the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002; — at the rate of 3,29 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003; — at the rate of 2,27 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004; — at the rate of 2,05 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2005; — at the rate of 2,11 % per annum for the period from 1 January 2006 to the date of the present judgment; — at the rate applicable under French law for the period from the date of the present judgment to that of final settlement of the principal sum;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/38

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-281/06) (1)

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Compensatory aid for banana producers - Irregularities in quality controls - Type of financial correction applied - Proportionality)

2009/C 141/77

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, Agent)

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12) in so far as it provides for a financial correction applicable to expenses declared by the Kingdom of Spain pursuant to compensatory aid for banana producers for the financial years 2002 and 2003.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/35

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 February 2009 — Omya v Commission

(Case T-145/06) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Request for information - Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Need for the information requested - Proportionality - Reasonable time - Misuse of powers - Breach of the principle of legitimate expectation)

(2009/C 69/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Omya AG (Oftringen, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Ahlborn, C. Berg, Solicitors, C. Pinto Correia, lawyer, and J. Flynn QC)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by V. Di Bucci, X. Lewis, R. Sauer, A. Whelan and F. Amato, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci, X Lewis, R. Sauer and A. Whelan, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the Commission's decision of 8 March 2006 adopted pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), and requesting the correction of the information communicated in the context of the examination of (Case COMP/M. 3796 Omya v J.M. Huber PCC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Omya AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/40

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 2009 — Vischim v Commission

(Case T-380/06) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance chlorothalonil - Amendment of the entry in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Directive 2006/76/EC - Retroactivity - No transitional period - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Principle of equal treatment)

2009/C 282/75

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vischim Srl (Cesano Maderno, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the second paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Directive 2006/76/EC of 22 September 2006 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the specification of the active substance chlorothalonil (OJ 2006 L 263, p. 9).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vischim Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/32

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Zenab v Commission

(Case T-33/06) (1)

(Community financial support - Programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus) - Call for proposals - Rejection of the proposal - Alleged unlawful delegation of powers which have been transferred to the Commission - Manifest errors of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Access to documents - Action for annulment and for compensation)

2009/C 205/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Zenab SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Windey and P. De Bandt, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action, first, for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 9 November 2005 with reference number 648599 and, secondly, for a finding that the European Community is non-contractually liable, for an order that the Commission should pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 37 807 as compensation for the costs incurred in the context of the call for proposals, the amount of the non-material loss because of damage to reputation and the amount of the material loss resulting from the delay in the implementation of the EuroVOD project, and for the appointment of an expert to assess that loss

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Zenab SPRL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Usha Martin Ltd v Council of the European Union and European Commission

(Case T-119/06) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India - Breach of an undertaking - Principle of proportionality - Article 8(1), (7) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 8(1), (7) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

(2010/C 288/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Usha Martin Ltd (Kolkata, India) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer, and J. Branton, Solicitor, V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer); and European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/38/EC of 22 December 2005 amending Commission Decision 1999/572/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel wire ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India (OJ 2006 L 22, p. 54), and Council Regulation (EC) No 121/2006 of 23 January 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India (OJ 2006 L 22, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Usha Martin Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/38

Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory v Council

(Case T-409/06) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather from China and Vietnam - Market economy treatment - Sampling - Lack of cooperation - Rights of the defence - Injury - Obligation to state reasons)

2010/C 113/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory (Hui Yang) Corp. Ltd (Hui Yang City, China) (represented by I. MacVay, Solicitor, R. Thompson QC and K. Beal, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, Agents); Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and then by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers); BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas (Monte Urano, Italy) and the 16 other interveners listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by G. Celona, P. Tabellini and C. Cavaliere, lawyers)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory (Hui Yang) Corp. Ltd to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission, the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas and the 16 other interveners listed in the annex to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/22

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — FMC v Commission

(Case T-197/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2011/C 226/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FMC Corp. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: C. Stanbrook QC and Y. Virvilis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci, V. Bottka and X. Lewis, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FMC Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/19

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Viega v Commission

(Case T-375/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Participation in the infringement - Obligation to state reasons - Fines - Relevant turnover - Attenuating circumstances)

2011/C 145/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Viega GmbH & Co. KG (Attendorn, Germany) (represented initially by J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and F. Bulst, and subsequently by J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and M. Röhrig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Viega GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/12

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products v OHIM — Werner & Mertz (BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products)

(Case T-308/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products - Earlier national figurative mark BÚFALO - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2012/C 6/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. (Pleasanton, California, United States) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Werner & Mertz GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented initially by M. Thewes and V. Wiot, and subsequently by M. Thewes and P. Reuter, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2006 (Case R 1094/2005-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Werner & Mertz GmbH and Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/32

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Deltafina v Commission

(Case T-12/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Immunity from fines - Cooperation - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)

2011/C 311/53

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Deltafina SpA (Orvieto, Italy) (represented by: R. Jacchia, A. Terranova, I. Van Bael, J.-F. Bellis and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Whelan and F. Amato, subsequently by A. Whelan and V. Di Bucci, and finally by É. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment or, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on Deltafina by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deltafina SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/16

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Vermeer Infrastructuur v Commission

(Case T-353/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Existence and classification of an agreement - Restriction of competition - Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 EC to horizontal cooperation agreements - Calculation of the amount of the fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)

2012/C 355/29

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Vermeer Infrastructuur BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Slotboom, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Bouquet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and L. Gyselen, lawyers, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever)

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in particular in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vermeer Infrastructuur BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/20

Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Budapesti Erőmű v Commission

(Joined Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09) (1)

(State aid - Wholesale electricity market - Favourable terms granted by a Hungarian public undertaking to certain power generators under power purchase agreements - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - New aid - Private investor test)

2012/C 89/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Budapesti Erőmű Zrt (Budapest (Hungary)) (represented, in Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09, by M. Powell, C. Arhold and K. Struckmann, lawyers, and also, in Case T-182/09, by A. Hegyi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented, in Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09, by N. Khan, L. Flynn and K. Talabér-Ritz, and also, in Case T-80/06, by V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, in Case T-80/06, for annulment of the Commission’s decision, notified to Hungary by letter of 9 November 2005, to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in relation to State aid C 41/2005 (ex NN 49/2005) — Hungarian Stranded Costs, and, in Case T-182/09, for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C 41/05 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 53).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Budapesti Erőmű Zrt to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/18

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Italy and Eurallumina v Commission

(Joined Cases T-60/06 RENV II and T-62/06 RENV II) (1)

((State aid - Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise - Selective nature of the measure - Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market - Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection - Guidelines on national regional aid 1998 - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali - Principles of presumption of legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 200/26)

Languages of the case: Italian and English

Parties

Applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato), and Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: L. Martin Alegi, R. Denton, A. Stratakis and L. Philippou, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12), to the extent that it concerns the existence of State aid granted by the Italian Republic, between 3 February 2002 and 31 December 2003, on the basis of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Sardinia (Italy) and that it orders the Italian Republic to recover that aid.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs in Cases T-60/06, T-60/06 RENV I and T-60/06 RENV II and to bear its own costs and pay one fifth of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P;

3. Orders Eurallumina SpA to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases T-62/06, T-62/06 RENV I and T-62/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P;

4. Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Cases T-62/06, T-62/06 RENV I and T-62/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P.

(1) OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.