ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
As regards the extension of an anti-dumping or compensatory duty to imports of slightly modified like products originating in a country subject to the initial anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures, as provided by Articles 23(1) of basic anti-dumping Regulation No 597/2009 and 13(1) of basic anti-dumping Regulation No 1225/2009, where those measures are circumvented, the EU institutions enjoy a wide discretion in the determination of what may be regarded as a slightly modified like product and review by the EU judicature is confined to ascertaining whether the procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the contested decision is based have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error of assessment of the facts or any misuse of powers.

In particular, products which have the same essential characteristics as those products covered by the basic regulation are regarded as slightly modified like products.

In that respect, the commercial classifications that the industry confers on the products at issue and those which arise from the Combined Nomenclature are of a formal nature and do not necessarily mean that the products which are subject to those various classifications do not have the same essential characteristics for the purposes of those provisions.

Moreover, the provisions of the basic anti-dumping and anti-subsidies regulation concerning circumvention proceedings do not require it to be demonstrated that the slightly modified like products, within the meaning of those provisions, have been specifically created so as to avoid paying duties.

(see paras 92, 100, 110, 126)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Facts and evidence not submitted in time — Taking into account, for the purposes of interpreting EU law, the case-law of the EU or national or international case-law — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76) (see para. 32)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks to be refused under the Paris Convention — Protection of emblems of States and international organisations — Imitation from the heraldic point of view (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(h)) (see paras 36-38)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Figurative mark composed of a circle of stars containing a crosspiece and the verbal element EUROPEAN DRIVESHAFT SERVICES (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(h)) (see paras 44, 56-62, 64, 67)

4. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Competence of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1)) (see para. 76)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2011 (Case R 1590/2010-1) concerning proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between the European Commission and Welte-Wenu GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraph 3 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 May 2011 (Case R 1590/2010-1) concerning proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between the European Commission and Welte-Wenu GmbH, in so far as it states that Welte-Wenu shall pay the costs of the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and includes them in the global sum of EUR 2 500 which Welte-Wenu must reimburse to the European Commission;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders Welte-Wenu to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.
In the absence of express provisions laying down a deadline by which an implied decision will be deemed to have been taken by an institution which has been requested to adopt a position and prescribing the content of that decision, mere silence on the part of an institution cannot be deemed to be equivalent to a decision without calling into question the system of remedies instituted by the Treaty. According to that same line of case-law, in certain particular circumstances that principle may not be applicable, so that an institution’s silence or inaction may exceptionally be considered to constitute an implied refusal.

Irrespective of the rights provided for in Regulation No 1049/2001, OLAF is under no obligation to grant to a person who claims to be concerned by an ongoing investigation access to the documents in the file relating to that investigation.

In that regard access to documents in OLAF’s files relating to an OLAF investigation — leaving aside the right of the person concerned to receive the written record of his or her interview with OLAF — actually takes place in the course of a monitoring procedure. Indeed, OLAF’s final recommendation will be submitted to the competent authorities of the European Union or to the national authorities. If those authorities intend to impose penalties on a person concerned by the investigation, namely, in the present case, the applicant, they must give that person the opportunity to exercise his or her rights of defence in accordance with the administrative or criminal-law procedure applicable. The applicant will therefore then be able to have recourse to the remedies made available by those authorities, subject to the procedural rules applicable.

(see paras 63, 64)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action was brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 29, 30)

2. Judicial proceedings — Intervention — Application designed to support the arguments of one of the parties but developing another line of argument — Admissibility — Arguments altering the framework of the dispute — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, fourth para., and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 116(3)) (see paras 31, 41)

3. Acts of the institutions — Temporal application — Procedural rules — Substantive rules — Distinction — Retrospective effect of a substantive rule — Conditions (see paras 34-36, 45, 56)

4. State aid — Planned aid — Examination by the Commission — Aid notified without being paid — Application of the substantive rules of law in force at the time when the Commission adopted the decision (Art. 88 EC) (see paras 39, 54)

5. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Obligation on the Commission to assess the compatibility of aid by reference to the substantive rules in force at the time it was paid — Application of Regulation No 1370/2007 to public transport service contracts concluded before the regulation entered into force — Exclusion (Art. 87 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1370/2007) (see paras 40-57)

6. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Limits (Art. 87 EC) (see para. 58)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08)) (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08));

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Jørgen Andersen, with the exception of those arising from the interventions;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andersen arising from its intervention;

4. Orders Danske Statsbaner (DSB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andersen arising from its intervention.
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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21)

2. 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art.8(1)(b) (see paras 22, 23)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark Fitcoin and figurative marks coin (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 30-39)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2011 (Case R 1836/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Coin SpA and Dynamiki Zoi AE.

Operative part

Operative part

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 21 February 2011 (Case R 1836/2010-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition as regards the ‘Clothing, including footwear and slippers’ in Class 25;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay a third of the costs incurred by Coin SpA;

4. Orders Coin to bear two-thirds of its own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — Masottina v OHIM — Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante (CA’ MARINA)

(Case T-393/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CA’ MARINA — Earlier Community word mark MARINA ALTA — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact which have not been raised previously before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 12)

2. 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 49)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks CA’ MARINA and MARINA ALTA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 25, 47, 48, 50, 59)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2011 (Case R 518/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante, Coop. V. and Masottina SpA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Minimum requirements — Infringement — Partial annulment of the contested measure (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Decision 2010/413, Arts 20(1), and 24(3), and Annex II; Council Decision 2011/299) (see paras 19-26, o.p. 1)

2. European Union — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Action for annulment brought by an entity to which a fund-freezing decision applies — Burden of proof — Judicial review (Council Decisions 2010/413 and 2011/299) (see paras 30, 33-38)

3. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Partial annulment of a decision concerning the adoption of restrictive measures against Iran — No annulment action brought against the implementing regulation implementing the regulation concerning the adoption of restrictive measures against Iran — Maintenance of the effects of the said decision for a period of not more than two months and ten days from the date of delivery of the judgment — Justification on grounds of legal certainty (Art. 264, second para., TFEU; Council Implementing Regulation No 503/2011; Council Decisions 2010/413 and 2011/299) (see paras 42-44, o.p. 2)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), to the extent that it affects the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, to the extent that it affects Turbo Compressor Manufacturer (TCMFG);

2. Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/299/CFSP, to the extent that it affects TCMFG, for a period which may not exceed two months and ten days as from the date of delivery of this judgment;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by TCMFG;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Hostel drap v OHIM — Aznar textil (MY drap)

(Case T-636/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MY drap — Earlier Community figurative mark BON DRAP — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 24, 43)

2. 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 — Figurative marks MY drap and BON DRAP (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26, 42, 47, 48)

3. 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28)

4. 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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 46)

5. 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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2011 (Case R 2127/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Aznar Textil, SL and Hostel drap, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Omnis Group v Commission

(Case T-74/11)

‛Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for the provision of Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP) and Enterprise Application Software (EAS) — Decision rejecting a complaint — No European Union interest’

1. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 266 TFEU) (see para. 26)

2. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Power to vary — Exclusion (Arts 261 TFEU and 264 TFEU) (see para. 27)

3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 31, 32, 36-39)

4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Commission under no duty to adopt a decision as to the existence of an infringement — Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case — Criteria for assessment — Duty to state reasons for a decision to take no further action — Judicial review (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 105(1) TFEU; Council Regulations No 17, Art. 3, and No 1/2003, Art. 7) (see paras 42-50, 80, 93-95)

5. Competition — Dominant position — Conduct on a market neighbouring the dominated market — Application of Article 102 TFEU even in the absence of a dominant position on the neighbouring market — Conditions (Art. 102 TFEU) (see paras 61-66, 71-76, 82, 102)

6. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Amplification of a plea made earlier — Admissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see paras 68, 69)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 8529 of 1 December 2010 rejecting the complaint (Case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft) concerning alleged infringements of Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU by Microsoft Corp. on the market for Enterprise Application Software, referred to as ‘Enterprise Application Software/Enterprise Resource Planning’ systems.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2013 — JAS v Commission

(Case T‑573/11)

‛Customs union — Imports of denim jeans — Fraud — Recovery a posteriori of the import duties — Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Article 239 of the Customs Code — Application for remission of import duties — Particular case — Equity clause — Commission decision’

1. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import duties — Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 — Scope — Commission’s power of decision — Procedures for exercising — Judicial review — Limits (Council Regulations No 1430/79, Art. 13, and No 2913/92, Art. 239) (see paras 51, 52)

2. Acts of the institutions — Temporal application — Immediate application of a new procedural rule — Retrospective effect of a substantive rule — Conditions — Legislation on remission of import duties (Council Regulations No 1430/79, Art. 13, and No 2913/92, Art. 239) (see para. 53)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision rejecting an application for repayment or remission of import duties (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulations No 1430/79, Art. 13, and No 2913/92, Art. 239) (see paras 73, 85)

4. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import or export duties — Submission of application for reimbursement to the Commission — Information supplied by the national authorities not sufficient — Possibility of the Commission, at the request of the taxpayer, requesting the transmission of other elements in order to establish the existence of a particular case (Council Regulations No 1430/79, Art. 13, and No 2913/92, Art. 239) (see para. 93)

5. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import or export duties — Existence of a special situation — Concept — Customs authorities invoking an infringement of national VAT rules — No evidence produced establishing the possibility that the customs debt might not arise in other circumstances — Not included (Council Regulation No 1430/79, Art. 13, and No 2913/92, Art. 239) (see paras 110, 116, 117, 119)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision of 5 August 2011 finding that the remission of import duties is not justified in a particular case (Case REM 01/2008).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;