ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
18

The Board of Appeal held in that regard: ‘20. The applicant acknowledges that it was informed by the Office, on 27 March 2006, that the Office had not received the notice of appeal purportedly faxed on , the last day for filing the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was re-filed on , after due verifications. Thus, the applicant must have been aware of the omitted act no later than that date. 21. The application for restitutio in integrum was filed on 30 May 2006, which was within two months of the removal of the cause of non-compliance (i.e. not being aware of the failure in the fax transmission of the notice of appeal, on ). It is therefore admissible. … 24. Indeed, it results from the combined provisions of Article 78(5) of Regulation No 40/94, as amended, and Article 78a of Regulation No 40/94, inserted by Council Regulation (EC) No 422/2004, in particular its paragraph 2, that restitutio in integrum is not available when the missed time-limit is the time-limit to file an appeal, laid down in Article 59 [of Regulation No 40/94]. By these new provisions, the legislator seems to have wished to fill a gap in the provisions of Article 78(5) before its modification, which excluded restitutio in integrum only when the missed time-limit was the one to file an opposition, laid down in Article 42 [of Regulation No 40/94] (see, in this sense, Decisions of 22 May 2003, in connexity Cases R-388/2002-2 and R-393/2002-2, CosmoOne Hellas MarketSite v Cosmopolitan Television, et al.). Whereas both the time-limit to file an opposition (as per Article 42 [of Regulation No 40/94]) and the time-limit to file an appeal (as per Article 59 [of Regulation No 40/94]) are peremptory time-limits, set by [Regulation No 40/94] itself, the previous system, excluding restitutio in integrum in the first case, but not in the second, seemed to lack internal coherence and had thus given ground to scepticism within the Boards (see Decision of , in Case R-194/2003-2 Met-L-Chek v Met-L-Check and Decision of , in Case R-937/2002-2 Paragon v Paragon). This incoherence was cured by the legislator with Regulation No 422/2004, which specifies either directly in paragraph (5) of Article 78, as amended, or indirectly by reference to the provisions of the new Article 78a of Regulation No 40/94, the peremptory time-limits set by [Regulation No 40/94] where restitutio in integrum is not available, putting in par the peremptory time-limit to file an opposition and the time-limit to file an appeal. 25. It results from the above provisions as amended or introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No 422/2004, which came into force on 25 July 2005, that restitutio in integrum is excluded when the unobserved time-limit is the time-limit to file an appeal, provided in Article 59 of Regulation No 40/94. 26. Therefore, the application for restitutio in integrum must be dismissed as regards the belated filing of the notice of appeal.’
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 19 November 2008 – Rautaruukki v OHIM (RAUTARUUKKI)

(Case T-269/06)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark RAUTARUUKKI – Absolute grounds for refusal of registration – Descriptive character – Absence of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Evidence offered in support

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 20-21)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 33-35)

3. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character or which are descriptive or customary in character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 50-51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2006 (Case R 48/2006-4) concerning registration of the word mark RAUTARUUKKI as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Rautaruukki Oyj Community trade mark sought: Word mark RAUTARUUKKI for goods in particular in Class 6 – Application No 3608081 Decision of the examiner: 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 (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2009 – FAB v Commission

(Case T-8/06)

State aid – Digital terrestrial television – Aid granted by the German authorities to broadcasters which use the digital terrestrial television network (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Action for annulment – Meaning of State aid – State resources – Compensation for discharging public service obligations – Aid intended to promote culture – Legitimate expectations

1. State aid – Concept – Aid granted to private broadcasters to facilitate the changeover to digital terrestrial television without a public tendering procedure or call for tenders– Included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 48-58)

2. Competition – Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest – Definition of services of general economic interest (Art. 86(2) EC) (see paras 63-64)

3. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial review (Art. 87(3) EC) (see paras 77-78)

4. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Possible legitimate expectation on the part of the recipient(Art. 88 EC) (see paras 92-93)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – FRA.BO v Commission

(Case T-381/06)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fines – Leniency Notice – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Attenuating circumstances – Immunity from fines – Legitimate expectations – Equal treatment

1. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Limits – Prevention of infringements of the competition rules – Determination of the amount of fines – Method of calculating fines – Discretion of the institutions – Leniency notice not relevant (Commission Communication 96/C 207/04) (see paras 93-94)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Reduction of the fine for cooperation of the fined undertaking – Conditions – Discretion of the Commission – Quality and usefulness of the information supplied taken into account (Commission Communication 96/C 207/04, Title D, Section 2) (see para. 96)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Reduction of the fine in return for the cooperation of the undertaking concerned – Discretion of the Commission – Comparisons between the facts of different cases – Indicative character – Factors to be taken into consideration – Breach of the principle of equal treatment – None (Commission Communication 96/C 207/04, Title D, Section 2) (see paras 101, 103-104)

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), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
103

In the present case, it is apparent that the Commission did not infringe the principle of equal treatment by granting Kuwait Petroleum a 30% reduction of its fine on the basis of the 2002 Leniency Notice and by refusing to grant such a reduction to the applicants, since those undertakings were in different situations. It should be noted that Kuwait Petroleum submitted an application under the 2002 Leniency Notice as early as 12 September 2003, to which a corporate statement was attached, and that it requested that part of the information supplied on 16 September 2003 be taken into account under its leniency application. On 18 September 2003, a meeting was held between the Commission and Kuwait Petroleum and, on 1 and 9 October 2003, three former employees of Kuwait Petroleum were heard by the Commission. The latter found in the contested decision that the information supplied on 12 and 16 September 2003 and on 1 and 9 October 2003 had strengthened by its level of detail the Commission’s ability to prove the infringement, but that it had to take account of the fact that the leniency application had only been submitted 11 months after the surprise inspections and after it had sent its request for information, that it already had in its possession certain items of evidence submitted by other companies, and that Kuwait Petroleum had revised some of its statements made against ExxonMobil. Thus, contrary to the applicants’ assertion, Kuwait Petroleum did not wait until 9 October 2003 to provide decisive information, but, already on 12 September 2003, it enabled the Commission to corroborate the existing information and therefore to prove the infringement, in particular by being the first to provide direct evidence of the bitumen consultation meetings, since BP, the first undertaking to have informed the Commission of the existence of the cartel, was not a regular attendant of those meetings (recital 383 of the contested decision).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision in a procedure for the award of a public service contract not to accept a tender (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 34-45)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Criteria for selecting candidates (see paras 57-62)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of EFILWC of 17 April 2007 rejecting the applicant’s tender in a community public procurement procedure for the provision of services of information and analysis on quality of work and employment, industrial relations and restructuring covering the European level.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders AWWW GmbH ArbeitsWelt-Working World to pay the costs, including those incurred in the application for interim measures.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Pensions – Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the Communities – Transfer to the Community scheme

(Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Art. 11(2); Council Regulations No 1103/97, Art. 3, and No 974/98, Art. 14)

As it applies, by virtue of Article 1, both to legislative and statutory provisions and to acts of administration, Regulation No 1103/97 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro cannot, therefore, be interpreted as merely imposing a principle of the continuity of contracts. Rather, it provides for a requirement that the transition to the euro should be neutral – reflected, in the field of contracts, by a principle of the continuity of contracts – which applies to all legal instruments within its scope. In particular, it follows from Article 3 of Regulation No 1103/97 that the legislative and statutory provisions, which are the particular subject of this regulation, are not modified in any way as a result of the introduction of the euro and that they continue to apply without amendment both to the situations they governed before the introduction of the euro and to those they govern after its introduction. It follows that Regulation No 1103/97 does not require the existence of any relationship, contractual or non-contractual, prior to the entry into force of the euro, for the principle of continuity to apply to the situations governed by the legal instruments referred to by that article.

Consequently, where the legislature or the authorities concerned intend to amend the terms of a legal instrument falling within the scope of Article 3 of Regulation No 1103/97 or to waive or dispense with its enforcement, an express amendment to that legal instrument must be made. It follows that, in accordance with Regulation No 1103/97, following the introduction of the euro, the Commission had to apply to requests for the transfer of pension rights acquired in Member States having adopted that currency, without any change, the mechanism of the average updated conversion rate for the calculation of the number of years of pensionable service to be credited, introduced by the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations which it adopted. On the other hand, if it wished to give a different scope to those provisions, it was for it to amend those rules.

(see paras 34, 41-43)

See: 92/87 and 93/87 Commission v France and United Kingdom [1989] ECR 405, paras 22 to 24
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 23-29, 33-34, 36-40

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 March 2007 (Case R 1631/2006-1) concerning registration of the sign LIGHT & SPACE as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>11

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Imperial Chemical Industries plc to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Relative grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 25, 33, 41-42, 44

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2007 (Case R 893/2005-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between CISQ Federazione Certificazione Italiana Sistemi di Qualità Aziendali, then IQNet Association – The International Certification Network, and Mr D. Weiler.

Information relating to the case

>lt>12

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Dieter Weiler to pay the costs.
Under Article 78(1) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the re-establishment of rights in respect of proceedings before the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) presupposes, firstly, that the applicant is a party to the proceedings in question; secondly, that in spite of the fact that, demonstrably, the applicant exercised all due care required by the circumstances, it has been unable to observe a time-limit vis-à-vis the Office; and thirdly, that that non-observance has the direct consequence, by virtue of the provisions of Regulation No 40/94, of causing the loss of a right.

With regard to the first condition, under Article 47(1) of Regulation No 40/94, renewal may be requested by the proprietor of the trade mark or by any person expressly authorised by him. It follows that only the proprietor of the trade mark or a person expressly authorised by him can be regarded as a party to the renewal proceedings.

In particular, it does not follow from the obligation upon the Office under the first sentence of Article 47(2) of Regulation No 40/94, to inform persons having a registered right in respect of the trade mark of the expiry of the registration that those persons are parties to the renewal proceedings. That article imposes on the Office only an obligation to give information — an obligation purely ancillary to the procedure — but does not seek to confer rights either on the proprietor of the trade mark or on other persons.

(see paras 15-17)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 18 June 2009 — LIBRO v OHIM — Causley (LiBRO)

(Case T-418/07)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LiBRO — Earlier Community figurative mark LIBERO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Partial refusal of registration — Application for annulment brought by the intervener — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance — Signature of the pleading setting out grounds of appeal before the Board of Appeal — Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal’

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 50, 59, 70-73)

2. Community trade mark — Procedure before OHIM bodies — Transmission of communications to OHIM — Transmission by fax — Illegible signature (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 80(3) (see para. 30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Case R 1454/2005-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Dagmar Causley and LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH Community trade mark sought: Word and figurative mark LiBRO for goods and services in classes 2, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Application No 2616753 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dagmar Causley Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark LIBERO for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark No 401141 Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial dismissal of the application Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the application of Dagmar Causley;

3. Orders LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs, save for those of Dagmar Causley;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-55/07)

‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Rural development support — Transitional measures — Concept of ‘multi-annual expenditure’ — Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2603/1999’

1. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing (Art. 10 EC; Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 62, 113)

2. Community law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions (Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c)) (see para. 99)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 124, 125)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 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 2006 L 355, p. 96) in so far as it relates to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and more particularly with regard to the financial correction applied to the reimbursement of ineligible expenditure in the framework of the EAGGF, Guarantee Section, for the year 2002 in the amount of EUR 5.67 million.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 — Alber v OHIM (hand grip)

(Case T-391/07)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Hand grip — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Duty to give reasons — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Principle of examination of the facts of its own motion — Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009’

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 50-62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 August 2007 (Case R 361/2007-4) and against the decision of the examiner of OHIM of 16 January 2007 in that case, in so far as it rejects Community trade mark application No 4396727 for certain goods covered by that mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Alfons Alber Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional trade mark representing a hand grip in respect of goods in Classes 6 and 8 — Application No 4396727 Decision of the Examiner: Registration partially refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid categories, set out in legislation, which can be regarded as compatible with the common market – Regulation No 70/2001 on aid to small and medium-sized enterprises

(Commission Regulation No 70/2001, Art. 9(2), fourth sentence)

Summary

The case-law according to which an implementing regulation must be given, if possible, an interpretation consistent with the provisions of the basic regulation does not apply in the case of a provision of an implementing regulation whose meaning is clear and unambiguous and therefore requires no interpretation.

It is clear from the wording of the fourth sentence of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises that the Commission is entitled to request Member States to provide it with all the information which it considers necessary to assess whether the conditions of the exemption regulation have been complied with. It follows necessarily from the clear and unambiguous wording of that provision that the Commission is entitled to request a Member State to provide it with information in all circumstances.

Furthermore, with regard to the clear terms of that provision there can be no doubt as to the precise extent of the Commission’s powers. The Member State concerned cannot therefore plead infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations in order to limit the extent of the powers afforded to the Commission under that provision.

In that regard, even if, between the entry into force of that regulation and the requests for information at the origin of the contested decision, the Commission carried out checks only where there was doubt about compliance with the conditions of that regulation, there can be no legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the Commission in the exercise of its discretionary power will be maintained.

(see paras 22-24, 40, 42)