ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 22 April 2009 – CESD‑Communautaire v Commission

(Case T-286/05)

Public procurement – Declaration of a serious breach of contract – Article 93(1)(f) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 – Action for annulment – Error of law – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Misuse of powers – Manifest error of assessment – Statement of reasons – Rights of the defence

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 66-73)

2. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Definition (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 84)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope –Plea alleging lack of or insufficient statement of reasons –Plea alleging inaccurate statement of reasons– Distinction (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 110-111)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 18 May 2005 by which it informed the applicant that it had taken the decision to declare, as regards various contracts referred to, that there had been a serious breach of contract under Article 93(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Centre européen pour la statistique et le développement ASBL (CESD-Communautaire) to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 – Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission

(Case T-175/05)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for monochloroacetic acid – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Market sharing and price fixing – Attributability of the infringement – Fines – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Deterrent effect

1. Actions for annulment – Community law – Action brought by several companies in a group against a Commission decision fining them jointly and severally – Action admissible in relation to some of those entities – No need to adjudicate on a plea of inadmissibility raised against certain others not capable of benefiting from a possible annulment(Art. 230 EC) (see paras 46-47)

2. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries – Obligation of the parent company to rebut the presumption that management power was actually exercised over its subsidiary (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 91-93, 96)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Maximum amount – Calculation – Turnover to be taken into consideration – Cumulative turnover of all the companies constituting the economic unit acting as an undertaking (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 15, and 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 114, 132-133)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Turnover taken into consideration – Reference year – Last full year of the infringement(Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 15, and 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 142-143)

5. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Deterrent effect – Account taken of the size and global resources of the fined undertaking (Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 15, and 1/2003, Art. 23; Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, Section 1A) (see paras 154-155)

Re:

APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 – MCAA) and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 – Greece v Commission

(Case T-352/05)

EAGGF – Guarantee section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Specific measures for certain agricultural products in favour of the minor islands of the Aegean Sea – Fruit and vegetables – Raw tobacco – Goat and sheepmeat – Non-compliance with payment deadlines – Proportionality – Increase in flat-rate correction for recurrent weaknesses

1. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks (Council Regulations No 1258/1999 and No 3508/92) (see paras 91-93)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 94-97, 110-111, 168)

3. European Union law – Principles – Force majeure – Concept (see paras 122-124, 199)

4. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules (Council Regulation No 1258/99, Art. 7(4); Commission Regulation No 296/96, Art. 4(2)) (see paras 129-131, 167)

5. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of Community rules (Council Regulation No 1258/99; Commission Regulation No 296/96, Art. 4(2)) (see paras 144-148, 203)

6. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and spot checks (Council Regulation No 3508/92, Arts 9a(1) and 13(1)(d); Commission Regulation No 2848/98, Art. 45, first para.,(a)) (see paras 231, 234-238)

7. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures – No Member State discretion (see para. 241)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2005/579/EC of 20 July 2005 disallowing from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section (OJ 2005 L 199, p. 84) in so far as it excludes certain expenditure carried out by the Hellenic Republic in the context of specific measures for certain agricultural products in favour of the minor islands of the Aegean Sea and in the fruit and vegetables, raw tobacco and goat and sheepmeat sectors.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2010 – Commission v Alexiadou

(Case T-312/05)

Arbitration clause – Contract concerning a project for the development of a technology for the production of waterproof leathers – Failure to perform the contract – Reimbursement of sums advanced – Default interest – Referral back to the General Court after annulment – Default proceedings

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)

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

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;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24-25) (see paras 24-25)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 45-47, 53)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 April 2006 (Case R 788/2005-4), refusing to register the word mark BASICS as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ColArt/Americas, 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 30, 32-33, 37-38

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2006 (Case R 287/2005-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign suchen.de as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders DeTeMedien Deutsche Telekom Medien GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Signs capable of constituting a mark – Letters and numbers (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 4 and 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29-31)

2. 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) and (3)) (see paras 32-35)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006 (Case R 805/2006-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark ‘E’ as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2006 (Case R 805/2006-4);

2. Orders OHIM to pay its own costs as well as those of Paul Hartmann AG.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 46-47, 54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2006 (Case R 270/2006‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BLUE SOFT as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause

–

Challenge to the validity of a compensation decision (Arts 230 EC, 238 EC and 249 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002) (see paras 43-53

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION under Article 238 EC for an order that the Commission pay to the applicant a sum allegedly owed under a contract relating to Community support for the project ‘DARK BLUE WORLD’ (Project No 2002-4212-0103DI010006DE).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Helkon Media AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities’ public procurement

–

Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders

–

Duty to comply with the principles of transparency, proportionality and equal treatment (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2)) (see paras 41-44

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of 20 July 2006 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in response to the call for tenders of 5 July 2005 for services to maintain, develop and support computer applications, and to award the contract to the successful tenderer.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Court of Justice to reject the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dinamiki – Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, as communicated to the latter by letter of 20 July 2006;

2. Orders the Court of Justice to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision in an award procedure for a public service contract, to reject a tender (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2) and (3), third para.) (see paras 47-50, 99-100, 106-107, 110-111)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 64)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Tendering procedure – Duty to comply with the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency in order to ensure an undistorted system of competition (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 89(1)) (see paras 82-86)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 October 2006 to reject the applicant’s offer in a call for tenders for support services for the system of registries established under Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), the Community independent transaction log (CITL), with technical maintenance and user support (OJ 2006 S 102), and an application for annulment of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.
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, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 35, 43-45, 49)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 65-66)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 1126/2004-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Artoz Papier AG and Deepak Rajani.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deepak Rajani to pay the costs.
Case T-291/06

Operator ARP sp. z o.o.

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛State aid — Scheme for restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Poland to a steel producer — Decision declaring the aid to be in part incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Concept of beneficiary — Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber), 1 July 2009 II ‐ 2278

Summary of the Judgment

In order for an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person to be admissible, that person must have a vested and present interest in the annulment of the contested act. Concerning a Commission decision finding State aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery, an undertaking’s interest in bringing proceedings cannot be denied merely by virtue of the fact that the aid in question was repaid by one of the other entities designated in the Decision as being jointly and severally liable for the repayment, while, according to national law, entities which have actually repaid unlawful aid may assert a right of action in that regard during a set period. (see paras 25, 27)

The review stage under Article 88(2) EC is designed to enable the Commission to be fully informed of all the facts of the case. According to Article 6(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 concerning the application of Article 88 EC, the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure must summarise the relevant issues of fact and law, must include a ‘preliminary assessment’ by the Commission of the proposed measure, and must set out the doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. In addition, that decision must call upon the Member State concerned and upon other interested parties to submit their comments. The Commission’s analysis is necessarily preliminary in nature. It follows that the Commission cannot be required to present a complete analysis of the aid in question in its notice of intention to initiate that procedure. The Commission must, however, define sufficiently the framework of its investigation so as not to render meaningless the right of interested parties to put forward their comments. (see paras 36-38)

It is necessary to make a distinction between the ground for complaint alleging the absence or inadequacy of a statement of reasons for the decision. The latter aspect falls under the examination of the substantive legality of the decision and not the infringement of procedural requirements and thus cannot give rise to an infringement of Article 253 EC. Consequently, the Court cannot, when considering whether the obligation to state reasons has been fulfilled, examine the substantive legality of the reasons relied on by the Commission to justify its decision. In a plea based on a failure to state reasons or a lack of adequate reasons, objections and arguments which seek to challenge the merits of the contested decision are therefore misplaced and irrelevant. (see para. 48)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 47-49, 54-55)

2. Budget of the European Communities – Community financial aid – Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for granting the aid (Arts 238 EC and 274 EC) (see paras 85-89, 91, 94-96, 107-108, 113, 116)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION under Article 238 EC by which the Commission seeks an order that the defendants reimburse an advance paid under a contract entitled ‘Seed Fund 601’, concluded between the Commission and the defendant company.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Hellenic Ventures – Elliniki Etairia Epikheirimatikis Protovoulias AE to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 70 000, together with late-payment interest calculated at the Belgian statutory rate from 25 April 1999 until payment in full of the debt;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders Hellenic Ventures to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis Chronopoulos, and Nikolaos Poulakos;

4. Orders the Commission to pay the costs of Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis Chronopoulos, and Nikolaos Poulakos.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 45-48, 115-116, 205)

2. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries – Subsidiary held by a holding company – Fact not sufficient to reverse the presumption (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 78-79, 85)

3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Statement of objections – Necessary content – Observance of the rights of the defence – Undertakings afforded the opportunity to state their views on the facts, objections and circumstances alleged by the Commission (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 130-133)

4. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to apply competition rules – Decision relating to several addressees – Need for sufficient reasoning, particularly with regard to the entity having to bear the burden of an infringement (Arts 81 EC and 253 EC) (see paras 177-178)

5. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries – Allocation of payment of the fine between the various legal entities comprising the economic unit – No infringement of the unitary character of the concept of an undertaking (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 205-209)

6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Deterrent effect – No obligation to take account of fines already imposed for other anti-competitive activities (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 297-298)

7. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Deterrent effect – Account taken of the size and global resources of the fined undertaking (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see para. 303)

8. Procedure – Request that the oral procedure be reopened – Conditions for admissibility – New evidence capable of having a decisive impact on the decision (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 62) (see para. 306)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Articles 1(c) and (d), 2(b), 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 – Methacrylates) and, in the alternative, amendment of Article 2(b) of that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs.