ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2011 – Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council

(Case T-199/04)

Dumping – Imports of cotton bed linen originating in Pakistan – Injury – Causal link

1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Injury – Establishing of the causal link – Obligations of the institutions – Whether factors extraneous to dumping to be taken into account – Abolition of previous anti-dumping duties and ordinary customs duties under the system of generalised tariff preferences – Included (Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘1994 Anti-dumping Code’, Art. 3.5; Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 3(6) and (7), and No 1225/2009, Art. 3(6) and (7)) (see paras 53, 55-61, 68-69, 83)

2. European Union law – Interpretation – Methods – Interpretation having regard to international agreements concluded by the Community – Interpretation of Regulation No 384/96 having regard to the 1994 GATT anti-dumping Code (Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘1994 Anti-dumping Code’; Council Regulation No 384/96) (see para. 54)

3. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Injury – Establishing of the causal link – Obligations of the institutions – Whether factors extraneous to dumping to be taken into account – Need for overall analysis (Council Regulations No 384/96, Arts 3(6) and (7), and 17(3), and No 1225/2009) (see paras 75-81)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (OJ 2004 L 66, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan in so far as it concerns Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Protection of the ozone layer – Directive 2003/87 – National allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances (NAP) – NAP Notification procedure – Right of the relevant Member State to propose amendments to the NAP after its notification – Lawfulness – Conditions

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87, Arts 9(3) and 11(1))

Summary

The purpose of Directive 2003/87 – establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61 – is to establish an efficient European market in greenhouse gas emission allowances, with the least possible diminution of economic development and employment. Therefore, even though Directive 2003/87 aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the commitments of the Community and its Member States under the Kyoto Protocol, that aim must be achieved, in so far as possible, while respecting the needs of the European economy. It follows that the national allocation plans for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances (NAP) developed under that directive must take due account of accurate data and information relating to emission forecasts for the installations and sectors which the directive covers.

In the context of the NAP notification procedure to the Commission, if a NAP is based in part on incorrect information or erroneous evaluations relating to the level of emissions in certain sectors or certain installations, the Member State in question must be entitled to propose amendments to the NAP. It follows both from the wording of Directive 2003/87, and from the general structure and objectives of the system which it establishes, that a Member State is entitled to propose amendments to its NAP after it has been notified to the Commission, and until its adoption of its decision under Article 11(1), and that the Commission cannot, when adopting a rejection decision in accordance with Article 9(3) of the Directive, constrain the Member State in the exercise of its right. That institution must therefore only establish whether the amendments in question were compatible with the criteria listed in Annex III to, or with Article 10 of, that directive.

Moreover, in the context of that same notification procedure, it is immaterial that the NAP was characterised as ‘provisional’ when originally notified. However, if the NAP is incomplete or ‘provisional’, the Commission is entitled to reject it either because it fails to comply with the criteria laid down by Directive 2003/87 or because the Commission is unable to assess its conformity with those criteria. In that situation, the Commission is entitled, by rejecting the NAP, to oblige the Member State to notify a new and complete NAP before it takes its definitive decision under Article 11(1) of that directive.

(see paras 60, 63, 73)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Observations of third parties and opposition

–

Examination of the opposition

–

Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 15(1) and 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 26-27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 November 2004 (Case R 269/2004-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Monte di Massima SAS di Pruneddu Leonardo & C. and J.M. Höfferle Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by the intervener.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 39-42)

2. Social policy – European Social Fund – Financial assistance for vocational training (Council Regulation No 2950/83, Arts 5(4) and 6(1); Council Decision 83/516, Art. 2(2); Commission Decision 83/673, Art. 7) (see paras 57-59, 61, 67)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of, first, Commission Decision C(2005) 1236 of 14 April 2005 reducing the assistance granted by Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 and, secondly, Commission Decision C(2005) 3557 of 13 September 2005 reducing the assistance granted by Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-251/05 and T-425/05 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Selection and award criteria (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 89 and 97(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 135 to 138) (see paras 48-51)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Award of contracts – Award criteria (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 97(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 138) (see paras 56-59)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see paras 70-71, 82)

4. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Award of contracts (see paras 101, 104-105)

5. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 120-122)

6. Community law – Principles – Principle of sound administration – Duty of diligence (see paras 152-153)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of the decision of the Commission of 23 November 2004 rejecting the bid filed by the applicant in the tendering procedure for the provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and of the decision of the Commission to award the contract to another bidder.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as unfounded;

2. Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and one fifth of those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE;

3. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki to bear four fifths of its costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 69, 71-72

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2005 (Case R 411/2004‑1) in respect of opposition proceedings between Usinor SA and Corus UK Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

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 10 February 2005 (Case R 411/2004‑1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Usinor SA;

3. Orders Corus UK Ltd to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-27, 51-53

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2005 (Case R 646/2004-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Limiñana y Botella, SL and Nalocebar – Consultores e Serviços Ld a .

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nalocebar – Consultores e Serviços Ld a to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 — Transnáutica v Commission

(Case T-385/05)

‛Customs union — External Community transit operations — Consignments of tobacco and ethyl alcohol for third countries — Fraud — Claim for remission of import duties — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Fairness clause — Existence of a special situation — Comprehensive guarantee’

Own resources of the European Communities — Repayment or remission of import or export duties — Fairness clause instituted by Article 905 of Regulation No 2454/93 — Existence of ‘special situation’ — Scope (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 905) (see paras 48-61)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005 refusing the reimbursement and remission of certain customs duties.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2009 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-369/05)

‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Aids for restructuring and conversion in the wine sector — Aids for the improvement of the production and marketing of honey — Concept of loss of revenue due to implementation of the plan — Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 — Concept of intervention intended to stabilise the agricultural markets — Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999’

1. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Management principles — Equal treatment of economic operators (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see para. 46)

2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Expenses arising from a misapplication of Community law — EAGGF financing — Condition (Council Regulations Nos 1258/1999 and 1493/1999, Art. 13(1)(a)) (see paras 67-69)

3. Community law — Interpretation — Acts of the institutions (see paras 74, 101)

4. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts (see para. 79)

5. Acts of the institutions — Regulations — Application by analogy — Conditions (see paras 92, 93)

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2005/555/EC of 15 July 2005 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 2005 L 188, p. 36), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the wine and honey sectors.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause

–

Contract granting Community financial assistance for a research, technological development and demonstration project (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 41-44, 55-57, 60

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC seeking an order for reimbursement of EUR 23 036.31 advanced by the Commission to the defendant under a contract concerning a project for developing a technology for the production of waterproof leathers (Contract G1ST-CT-2002-50227), together with default interest.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Efrosyni Alexiadou to repay the sum of EUR 23 036.31 to the European Commission, together with default interest:

– at the rate of 5.25% per annum from 1 March 2003 to 31 August 2005;

– at the statutory annual rate applicable under Belgian law, with a ceiling of 5.25% per annum, from 1 September 2005 to payment in full of the debt;

2. Orders Efrosyni Alexiadou to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2006 – Rossi v OHIM – Marcorossi (MARCOROSSI)

(Case T-97/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark MARCOROSSI – Earlier national and international word marks MISS ROSSI – Earlier Community word mark SERGIO ROSSI – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 46-47, 51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2004 (Case R 226/2003‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Sergio Rossi SpA and Marcorossi Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Marcorossi Srl Community trade mark sought: Word mark MARCOROSSI (Application No 1.405.869 for goods in Classes 18 and 25) Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sergio Rossi SpA Mark or sign cited in opposition: MISS ROSSI (Italian and international mark), for goods in Class 25, SERGIO ROSSI (Italian mark), for goods in Class 25, and SERGIO ROSSI (Community trade mark), for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and opposition rejected





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the intervener and to bear its own costs;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2007 – Grether v OHIM – Crisgo (FENNEL)

(Case T-167/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative Community trade mark FENNEL – Earlier Community word mark FENJAL – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b), Article 73, second sentence, and Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 72, 74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2004 (Case R 250/2002-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Grether AG and Crisgo (Thailand) Co. Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Crisgo (Thailand) Co., Ltd Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark FENNEL for goods in Class 3 – Application No 903922 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Grether AG Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark FENJAL for goods in Class 3 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – Williams v Commission

(Case T-42/05)

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Preparatory documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC on GMOs – Partial refusal of access – Implied refusal of access – Exceptions relating to the protection of commercial interests, protection of international relations and protection of the decision-making process – Obligation to state reasons

1. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 67-69)

2. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (Art. 253 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 71-83, 85-97)

3. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 114-116)

4. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(a) and (3), second para.) (see paras 124-126)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 November 2004 partially refusing the applicant access to certain preparatory documents in respect of the legislation on genetically-modified organisms.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no further need to rule on the lawfulness of the Commission’s decision of 19 November 2004 partially refusing Ms Rhiannon Williams access to certain preparatory documents in respect of the legislation on genetically-modified organisms in so far as it may include an implied refusal of access to preparatory documents from the Commission’s Directorate-General (DG) for Trade relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC;

2. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 19 November 2004 in so far as it impliedly refused access to preparatory documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18 other than those produced by the Trade DG;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2009 – Borax Europe v Commission

(Case T-121/05)

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents and sound recordings – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process

European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 3 and 4(3)) (see paras 33-35, 43, 63, 66-70, 73)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of 17 January 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967(I), p. 234).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 17 January 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances;
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

There is a breach of the principle of equal treatment where two classes of persons whose factual and legal situations are not essentially different are treated differently or where different situations are treated in an identical manner.

The fact that, because of the rule establishing a weighting of points awarded under the various headings of the career development report, two officials with exactly the same number of points under one heading of that report receive different total numbers of points when the points awarded under other headings are added, is not to be treated as an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, since that difference reflects the fact that those officials are not in the same situation in relation to those other headings. The same finding is true in a case where two officials who have obtained different numbers of points under one of those headings receive an identical total number of points when the points awarded under the other headings are added.

(see paras 36-37)

See: T‑18/89 and T‑24/89 Tagaras v Court of Justice [1991] ECR II‑53, para. 68; T‑219/02 and T‑337/02 Lutz Herrera v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑319 and II‑1407, para. 93; T‑43/04 Fardoom and Reinard v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑329 and II‑1465, para. 42; T‑47/04 Milbert and Others v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-281 and II-A-2-1455 para. 53
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 38-39, 44

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 616/2004-2) relating to an application for registration of the word mark SAFETY 1 ST as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2005 (Case R 179/2005-2) refusing registration of a three-dimensional mark (a section of a wind turbine in the form of an American football) as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.