ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012; Commission Regulation No 1268/2012) (see para. 31)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Assessment in the light of information available to the applicant at the time the action brought — Information provided to the applicant not showing sufficiently clearly the reasons for rejection of the tender and not sufficiently explaining the characteristics and advantages of the successful tender — Inadequate statement of reasons (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 113(2); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 161(3)) (see paras 32-34, 37-40, 42, 43, 47, 58-67)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer — Obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed analysis of the tender accepted and the tender of the unsuccessful tenderer — None (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 113(2); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 161(3)) (see para. 41)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Council of 29 October 2013 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure UCA 034/13, relating to the purchase or hire of black and white multifunction printers (MFPs) and associated maintenance services in the buildings occupied by the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ 2013/S 83-138901), and to award the contract to another tenderer.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Council of 29 October 2013 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure UCA 034/13, relating to the purchase or hire of black and white multifunction printers (MFPs) and associated maintenance services in the buildings occupied by the General Secretariat of the Council in so far as it concerns lot No 4;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Medicinal products for human use — Authorisation to market — Abridged procedure — Global marketing authorisation — Scope — Developments of a medicinal product authorised to be marketed and of a name distinct — Included — No regulatory protection period granted (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/200; Council Regulation No 2309/93; Commission Regulations No 1085/2003 and No 1234/2008; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Arts 6(1), and 10(1)) (see paras 45, 46, 52, 54, 56, 59)

2. Approximation of laws — Medicinal products for human use — Authorisation to market — Abridged procedure — Generic medicinal product of a reference medicinal product — Exemption from the obligation to supply the results of pharmaceutical, pre-clinical and clinical trials — Objectives (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Arts 6(1), 8(3)(i), and 10(1)) (see paras 62, 63)

3. Approximation of laws — Medicinal products for human use — Authorisation to market — Protection differing by reference to use of a national or centralised authorisation procedure — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004; Council Regulation No 2309/93; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83; European Parliament and Council Directive 65/65) (see paras 73, 74, 77, 80)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 8605 final of 19 November 2012 granting a marketing authorisation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the medicinal product for human use ‘Zoledronic acid Hospira — zoledronic acid’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Novartis Europharm Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Hospira UK Ltd.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community designs — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 62, first sentence, of Regulation No 6/2002 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62) (see paras 15, 16)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Informed user — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 24, 25)

3. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Representation of a handbag (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 26, 27, 30, 40)

4. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 29, 32)

5. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Determination of the overall impression having regard to the manner of use of the product (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 39)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2013 (Case R 208/2012-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between H & M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG and Yves Saint Laurent SAS.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders H & M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG to pay the costs, including those incurred by Yves Saint Laurent SAS in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 September 2013 (Case R 1387/2012-2) as regards the goods in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘[r]etailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ services in Class 35 of that agreement covered by the mark applied for;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 November 2015 —

Orthogen v OHIM — Arthrex (IRAP)

(Case T‑253/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark IRAP — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Competence of the Boards of Appeal — New full examination of the merits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1)) (see para. 21)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 38, 47, 48)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Verbal mark IRAP (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(b) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 35, 41, 56, 58)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2013 (Case R 382/2012-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Arthrex GmbH and Orthogen AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
2.

In State aid matters, according to the first criterion in the Altmark judgment, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and the obligations must be clearly defined. Whilst Member States have wide discretion to define what they regard as a service of general economic interest (SGEI), that power is not unlimited and cannot be exercised arbitrarily for the sole purpose of removing a particular sector from the application of the competition rules. In order to be classified as an SGEI, the service in question must be of a general economic interest exhibiting special characteristics by comparison with the general economic interest of other economic activities. In that regard, the scope of the General Court’s review of the Commission’s assessments necessarily takes account of the fact that a Member State’s definition of a service as an SGEI can be questioned by the Commission only in the event of a manifest error. That review must nevertheless ensure respect for certain minimum criteria relating, inter alia, to the presence of an act of the public authority entrusting the operators in question with an SGEI mission, and to the universal and compulsory nature of that mission. As regards the performance of public service obligations, the mere fact that a service is designated in national law as being of general interest does not mean that any operator providing that service is entrusted with performing clearly defined public service obligations within the meaning of the judgment in Altmark. The classification of a service as an SGEI within the meaning of that judgment requires that responsibility for its management be entrusted to certain undertakings. In that regard, where public contracts are concluded between the public authorities and the operators concerned, whilst the mandate entrusting the public service mission may also encompass contractual acts, provided that they emanate from the public authority and are binding, a fortiori where such acts give effect to the obligations imposed by legislation, the mere fact that a service forms the subject-matter of a public contract does not mean that that service automatically assumes, without any specific explanation on the part of the authorities concerned, the status of an SGEI within the meaning of the judgment in Altmark. Finally, the existence of a weakening in the market is insufficient for a finding that an SGEI exists. (see paras 53, 61-63, 67, 71, 78)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 December 2015 —

European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Entreprise commune Fusion for Energy

(Case T‑553/13)

‛Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of IT services, consulting, software development, Internet and support — Rejection of the tender of one tenderer and award of the contracts to other tenderers — Non-contractual liability’

1. European Union public contracts — Tender procedure — Period of validity of tenders — Purpose — Possibility of the tendering authority asking tenderers for an extension of validity — No obligation on contracting authority to conclude assessment of tenders before the expiry date of their validity — Consequences of late assessment (Commission Regulations No 2342/2002, Art. 130(2)(c), and No 1268/2012, Art. 138(2)(c)) (see paras 23-27)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer — No obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed analysis of the tender accepted and the tender of the unsuccessful tenderer — Account taken, by way of reasoning, of the replies of an institution to the requests of a discarded tenderer — Limits (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 113(2); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 161(2)) (see paras 38-42)

3. Actions for annulment — Action against a decision, in the procedure for award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Decision to award the contract closely linked to the decision to allocate the contract — Dismissal of the application for annulment of the award decision entailing dismissal of the application for annulment of the allocation decision (see para. 53)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340(2) TFEU) (see paras 57, 58)

Re:

APPLICATION for (i) annulment of the decision of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 7 August 2013 taken in the context of the tendering procedure F4E-ADM-0464 concerning IT services, consulting, software development, Internet and support services (OJ 2012/S 213-352451) rejecting the tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and awarding the contracts to other tenderers, and (ii) an award of damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 2015 —

VTZ and Others v Council

(Case T‑108/13)

‛Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in Russia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Product concerned’

1. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits — Examination of assessments by reference to the information available at the time they were made (Council Regulations No 1225/2009, No 585/2012 and No 1269/2012) (see paras 34-36, 39, 91)

2. Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Criteria — Characteristics and objective properties (see para. 45)

3. Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Interpretation — Explanatory notes to the combined nomenclature — No binding force — Explanatory notes having to conform to the provisions of the combined nomenclature (Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I, as amended by Commission Regulation No 1006/2011) (see paras 46, 60-62, 78, 80)

4. EU law — Interpretation — Taking account of the context and usual meaning of the terms — Texts in several languages — Differences between the various language versions — Account to be taken of the overall scheme and purpose of the legislation in question (see paras 63, 64)

5. Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Subheadings 7304 39 10 and 7304 59 10 — Concept of raw product — Interpretation — Explanatory notes to the combined nomenclature — Not exhaustive (Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I, as amended by Commission Regulation No 1006/2011) (see paras 67-86, 116)

6. Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Subheadings 7304 39 10 and 7304 59 10 — Concept of raw product — Interpretation — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I, as amended by Commission Regulation No 1006/2011) (see paras 105, 106, 109, 111-115, 118, 128-148)

7. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 156, 157)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1269/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless steel pipes, of iron or steel, originating, inter alia, in Russia, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2012 L 357, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application in its entirety;

2. Orders Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO), Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO), Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and those of ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Productos Tubulares, SA, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Silcotub SA, Tubos Reunidos Industrial, SL, V & M Deutschland GmbH, V & M France, Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France, and voestalpine Tubular GmbH & Co. KG;
Given that the Member State enjoys wide discretion in defining a mission of service of general economic interest (SGEI mission) and the conditions for its implementation and also that the scope of the review that the Commission may carry out in that regard is limited to manifest error, the Court’s review of the Commission’s assessment in the matter may not go beyond those same parameters; accordingly, its review must be restricted to ascertaining whether the Commission properly found or rejected the existence of a manifest error by the Member State.

However, the Member State’s power to define SGEIs is not unlimited and may not be exercised arbitrarily for the sole purpose of allowing a particular sector to circumvent the application of the competition rules. In particular, where there are specific rules of EU law governing the definition of the content and scope of the SGEI, they are binding on the Member States’ discretion, as provided for in paragraph 46 of the Communication from the Commission on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest.

In the present case, there were such rules, namely the provisions of Regulation No 3577/92, applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), Article 1 of which enshrines the principle of freedom to provide maritime cabotage services in the European Union, and the third recital of which states that it seeks to abolish the restrictions on the freedom to provide services. Article 4 provides for possible exceptions to that guiding principle, in the form of the possibility for Member States to conclude public service contracts with shipping companies involved in regular services to, from and between islands or to impose public service obligations on them as a condition for the provision of cabotage services.

(see paras 93, 112-115)
The Commission is obliged, in order not to disregard an essential element of Directive 2010/30, on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products, to adopt in Delegated Regulation No 665/2013, supplementing Directive 2010/30 with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners, a method of calculation which makes it possible to measure the energy performance of vacuum cleaners in conditions as close as possible to actual conditions of use, requiring the vacuum cleaner’s receptacle to be filled to a certain level, having regard nevertheless to the requirements concerning the scientific validity of the results obtained and the accuracy of the information supplied to consumers, as mentioned in particular in recital 5 and Article 5(b) of that directive.

Consequently, in order for the method adopted by the Commission to accord with the essential elements of Directive 2010/30, two cumulative conditions must be met. First, in order to measure the energy performance of vacuum cleaners in conditions as close as possible to actual conditions of use, a vacuum cleaner’s receptacle must be filled to a certain level. Secondly, the method adopted must satisfy certain requirements concerning the scientific validity of the results obtained and the accuracy of the information supplied to consumers.

(see paras 68-71)
15

As regards the weighing up of the necessity of transferring the personal data at issue against the legitimate interests of the data subjects, the European Parliament considered, in the light of Regulation No 45/2001, that those legitimate interests prevailed, on the ground that it would not be proportionate to allow such a transfer. First, the Parliament accepted that MEPs’ legitimate interests were less far-reaching than those of a private person without any public commitment and that, therefore, the degree of protection of their data was lower. Secondly, the Parliament nevertheless pointed out that the public funding of the additional pension scheme did not mean that the MEPs’ personal data should not be afforded any protection or that those MEPs would have no legitimate interests in arguing against disclosure of such data. In that context, the Parliament explained that it was necessary to draw a distinction between data falling into the public sphere, subject to a lower degree of protection, and data falling into the private sphere, protected by the concept of legitimate interests. In the Parliament’s view, the personal data at issue fell into the MEPs’ private sphere, the information those data contained constituting a legitimate interest that was required to be protected. The data related to the personal financial situation of the MEPs concerned, namely contributions into a pension scheme and pension rights under that scheme, which were private concerns. The Parliament noted that while the existence of a parliamentary mandate was the sine qua non for gaining access to the scheme, the pension was paid only after the end of the mandate and that the personal contributions were significant. Thirdly, the Parliament argued that, if public funding were sufficient to deny the personal character of the data, then the same would also have to apply to any member of staff of a public authority. Fourthly, the Parliament concluded in the weighing up of the interests that, given, in particular, the general nature of the interest of the media and the general public in the personal situation of MEPs, it was not proportionate to disclose the data requested, unless it were to be accepted that it should be possible to gain access to all personal data of MEPs or of any public officials involving public expenditure. In the Parliament’s view, such an approach would render Article 16 TFEU entirely meaningless, when, in order to achieve his goals, the applicant could have merely requested the aggregated figures concerning the financial situation of the scheme. Fifthly, the Parliament noted that there were more appropriate measures for achieving the goals pursued by the applicant, which ensured sufficient control of public expenditure and informed the public.