ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures producing legal effects — Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure into a State measure in the course of implementation and to classify it provisionally as new aid — Admissibility (Arts 87(1) EC, 88(2) and (3) EC and 230 EC) (see paras 37‑39, 41)

2. State aid — Existing aid and new aid — Accession of a new Member State to the European Union — Distinction by reference to the specific rules established in Annex IV of the Act of Accession — Possibility of classifying as new aid a measure not initially constituting State aid — Advantageous conditions granted to certain Hungarian electricity producers — Classification as new aid (Arts 87(1) EC and 88(1) and (3) EC; Act of Accession of 2003, Annex IV; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1) (see paras 50, 51, 54‑56, 59)

3. State aid — Concept — Assessment according to the private investor test — Purchasing agreements for electricity guaranteeing to electricity producers a minimum purchase quantity and the remuneration of fixed costs and capital — Included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 65, 66, 69, 71, 77‑79, 82)

4. State aid — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Criteria for assessment — Liberalised sector (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 95‑97)

5. State aid — Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Possible for the Commission to leave to national authorities the task of calculating the exact amount to be recovered — Indication of a repayment methodology in the final decision — State aid in the electricity market (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 106‑110, 113‑115)

6. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Purchasing agreements for electricity guaranteeing to electricity producers a minimum purchase quantity and the remuneration of fixed costs and capital — Adoption of a single decision for all the purchasing agreements after examining the similarities of all the agreements and their specific elements — Lawfulness (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 129‑131)

7. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Misuse of powers — Meaning (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 140)

8. State aid — Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of aid — Duty to state reasons — Scope (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 253 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 6) (see para. 143)
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Entity absorbed by another legal person — Disappearance of that entity — Substitution of the legal successor in the legal actions of its predecessor (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 27-28)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Different duties imposed on different undertakings — Admissibility limited for each undertaking to the provisions concerning it in particular (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 384/96) (see paras 34-37)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Injury — Assessment of the impact of the imports on Community production — Error in the definition of similar products — Sample of Community producers not representative — Infringement of Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 384/96 (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 3(1) and (2), 4 and 21) (see paras 46-48, 52-53, 58-63, 71-74)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2007 – InterVideo v OHIM (WinDVD Creator)

(Case T-105/06)

Community trade mark – Application for Community figurative mark WinDVD Creator – Absolute grounds for refusal – Articles 4 and 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1. 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, 52)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(1)) (see paras 41-42)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2006 (Case R 987/2005-2), relating to registration of the figurative sign WinDVD Creator as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: InterVideo Inc. Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark WindDVD Creator for goods in Class 9 – Application No 4106936 Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 – Antartica v OHIM – Nasdaq Stock Market (nasdaq)

(Case T-47/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark nasdaq – Earlier Community word mark NASDAQ – Relative ground for refusal – Reputation – Article 8(5) 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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 61)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2005 (Case R 752/2004-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. and Antartica Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Antartica Srl Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark nasdaq for goods in Classes 9, 12, 14, 25 and 28 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark NASDAQ for goods in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 et 42, and the earlier trade mark NASDAQ, generally recognised in all the Member States of the European Union Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division set aside and application for registration dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2008 – Hartmann v OHIM (E)

(Case T-302/06)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark ‘E’ – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Error of law – Lack of real assessment – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1. 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)

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

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Paul Hartmann AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark E for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 25 – Application No 4316949 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





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);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 – NewSoft Technology v OHIM – Soft (Presto! BizCard Reader)

(Case T-205/06)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark Presto! BizCard Reader – Earlier national figurative marks Presto – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier trade 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 65-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2006 (Case R 601/2005‑2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Soft, SA and NewSoft Technology Corp.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark Presto! BizCard Reader for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42 – Application No 2625457 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: NewSoft Technology Corp. Party bringing the action for cancellation: Soft, SA Trade marks of the applicant for cancellation: Spanish figurative mark Presto for goods and services in Classes 9 and 42 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community trade mark cancelled Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2008 – Helkon Media v Commission

(Case T-122/06)

Arbitration clause – Programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audio-visual works (MEDIA Plus) – Demand for payment of financial aid – Existence of an arbitration clause – Compensation – Admissibility

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)

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

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – Astex Therapeutics v OHIM – Protec Health International (astex TECHNOLOGY)

(Case T-48/06)

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

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 70-72)

Re:

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

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Astex Therapeutics Ltd Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark astex TECHNOLOGY for goods in Class 5 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Protec Health International Ltd Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ASTEX for goods and services in Classes 5 and 24 Decision of the Opposition Division: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 – General Química and Others v Commission

(Case T-85/06)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Sector of chemical products for the treatment of rubber – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Exchange of confidential information and price-fixing – Attribution to the parent company – Joint and several liability – Fines – Cooperation notice

1. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Single economic entity – Criteria for assessment (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 58-59, 61-62, 82)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Horizontal cartel concerning prices (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice No 98/C 9/03, point 1 A) (see paras 102-107)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Need to differentiate between the undertakings involved in the same infringement by reference to their overall turnover – None (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice No 98/C 9/03, point 1 A, sixth para.) (see paras 110-112)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Turnover to be taken into account in calculating the fine (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice No 98/C 9/03, point 1 A, sixth para.) (see para. 113)

5. Competition – Fines – Assessment by reference to the individual conduct of the undertaking – Irrelevant that another operator not penalised – (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 7 and 23) (see paras 117-118)

6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Assessment of the degree of cooperation provided by each of the undertakings during the administrative procedure (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice No 2002/C 45/03, title B) (see paras 146-147, 150, 154‑155)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/902/EC of 21 December 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Flexsys NV, Bayer AG, Crompton Manufacturing Company Inc. (former Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc.), Crompton Europe Ltd, Chemtura Corporation (former Crompton Corporation), General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA (Case No COMP/F/C.38.443 — Rubber chemicals) (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 50), and, alternatively, the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
3

Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry, annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 948; ‘Protocol No 8’), authorised the Republic of Poland, in derogation from the general rules on State aid, to grant aid for the restructuring of its steel sector in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in the restructuring plan and the conditions stipulated in that protocol. It provides inter alia as follows: ‘1. Notwithstanding Articles 87 [EC] and 88 [EC], State aid granted by [the Republic of] Poland for restructuring purposes to specified parts of the Polish steel industry shall be deemed to be compatible with the common market provided that: — the period provided for in Article 8(4) of Protocol [No] 2 ... has been extended until the date of accession, — the terms set out in the restructuring plan on the basis of which the abovementioned Protocol was extended are adhered to throughout the period 2002-06, — the conditions set out in this Protocol are met, and — no State aid for restructuring is to be paid to the Polish steel industry after the date of accession. 2. … 3. Only companies listed in Annex 1 (hereinafter referred to as “benefiting companies”) shall be eligible for State aid in the framework of the Polish steel restructuring programme. 4. A benefiting company may not: (a) in the case of a merger with a company not included in Annex 1, pass on the benefit of the aid granted to the benefiting company; (b) take over the assets of any company not included in Annex 1 which is declared bankrupt in the period up to 31 December 2006. 5. … 6. The restructuring aid granted to the benefiting companies shall be determined by the justifications set out in the approved Polish steel restructuring plan and individual business plans as approved by the Council. But in any case the aid paid out in the period of 1997-2003 and in its total amount shall not exceed PLN 3387070000. … No further State aid shall be granted by [the Republic of] Poland for restructuring purposes to the Polish steel industry. … 10. Any subsequent changes in the overall restructuring plan and the individual plans must be agreed by the Commission and, where appropriate, by the Council. … 18. Should the monitoring show that: … (c) [the Republic of] Poland in the course of the restructuring period has granted additional incompatible State aid to the steel industry and to the benefiting companies in particular, the transitional arrangements contained in this Protocol shall not have effect. The Commission shall take appropriate steps requiring any company concerned to reimburse any aid granted in breach of the conditions laid down in this Protocol.’
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2010 – Commission v Hellenic Ventures and Others

(Case T-44/06)

Arbitration clause – Action for the creation and development of seed-capital funds – Termination of the contract – Action against the members of a company – Inadmissibility – Reimbursement of advances – Interest

1. 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)

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

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;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – Legris Industries v Commission

(Case T-376/06)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Imputability of the infringement

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – General reference to documents annexed to the application – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 30-32)

2. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Unilateral conduct – 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 rebut the presumption (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 47-54, 58)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 – Fittings).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v EMCDDA

(Case T-63/06)

Public service contracts – EMCDDA tender procedure – Supply of software programming and consultancy services – Rejection of a submitted tender – Award criteria – Manifest error of assessment – Equal treatment – Transparency – Principle of sound administration – Duty to state reasons

1. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 89 and 97(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 135 to 138) (see paras 37-38, 56)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)) (see para. 80)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders (see paras 73, 89, 91)

4. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 148(1) and (3)) (see paras 96-98, 101-102, 104)

5. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2)) (see paras 109-114, 120)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction of 5 December 2005 to reject the bid submitted by the applicant in response to a call for tenders for the supply of software programming and consultancy services (OJ 2005 S 187) and to award the contract to another tenderer or, in the alternative, a claim for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2012 — Marine Harvest Norway and Alsaker Fjordbruk v Council

(Case T-113/06)

Dumping — Imports of salmon originating in Norway — Definition of the Community industry — Like product — Composition of the sample of Community producers

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Entity absorbed by another legal person — Disappearance of that entity — Substitution of the legal successor in the legal actions of its predecessor (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 27-28)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Different duties imposed on different undertakings — Admissibility limited for each undertaking to the provisions concerning it in particular (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 384/96) (see paras 34-37)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Injury — Assessment of the impact of the imports on Community production — Error in the definition of similar products — Sample of Community producers not representative — Infringement of Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 384/96 (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 3(1) and (2), 4 and 21) (see paras 46-48, 52-53, 58-63, 71-74)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway (OJ 2006 L 15, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway in so far as it concerns Marine Harvest Norway AS, legal successor to Fjord Seafood Norway AS, for the anti-dumping duties applied to imports originating from the latter until 18 September 2007, and Alsaker Fjordbruk AS;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of Marine Harvest Norway, legal successor to Fjord Seafood Norway, and Alsaker Fjordbruk;