ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230, first para., EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(2), 5 and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Art. 1, second para., and Annexes 1, 2 and 3) (see paras 22-26)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(5) and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Annex 1) (see paras 32-37)

Subject of the case

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Ramblas de Gergal, Tabernas y Sur de Sierra Alhamilla’, which includes land belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Fresyga SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure

–

Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause

–

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

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2007 – Brinkmann v OHIM – Terra Networks (Terranus)

(Case T‑322/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community work mark Terranus – Earlier Community and national figurative mark terra – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similar goods and services – Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36-39, 41)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 June 2005 (Case R 1145/2004-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Terra Networks, SA and Carsten Brinkmann.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Carsten Brinkmann Community trade mark sought: Word mark Terranus for goods and services in class 36 – Application No 2061968 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Terra Networks, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative brand terra for goods and services in class 36 (Community mark No 1332691, as well as Spanish mark No 2261483) Decision by the Opposition Division: Application dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 – Camper v OHIM – JC (BROTHERS by CAMPER)

(Case T-43/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative trade mark BROTHERS by CAMPER – Earlier national figurative trade marks BROTHERS – Inadmissibility – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 86-88, 91)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2004 (Case R 170/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between JC AB and Camper SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Camper, SL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark BROTHERS by CAMPER, for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 39 – Application No 1954601 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: JC AB Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish, Finnish and Danish figurative mark BROTHERS for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in so far as based on the earlier Swedish mark; opposition allowed for some of the products in dispute in so far as based on the Danish and Finnish marks Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 – Annemans v Commission

(Case T-411/05)

Application for annulment – Competition – Handling of complaints – Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 – Commission letter sent to the complainant – Plea of inadmissibility – Preparatory measure – Measure not capable of being appealed – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measure producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 7(1) and (2)) (see paras 31-35)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision supposedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 5 September 2005 in Case COMP/39.225 relating to the complaint lodged by Gerolf Annemans with the Commission under Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council

(Case T-348/05)

Dumping − Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Ukraine − Amendment of the definition of the product concerned − Application of existing measures to new product types

Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Review procedure – Modification of the definition of the product concerned by existing measures – Incorporation of the product concerned into new products – Applicability of existing measures to the new products – None – Need to open a new investigation (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 1, 5, 11(3) and 13) (see paras 61-64, 66, 68-70)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2005 L 160, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96;

2. Orders the Council to bear its own costs and those incurred by JSC Kirovo‑Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2008 – Commission v Environmental Management Consultants

(Case T-46/05)

Arbitration clause – Reimbursement of amounts paid – Default interest – Default procedure

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 29-34, 41-50)

Re:

ACTION brought by the Commission pursuant to Article 238 EC seeking to obtain reimbursement in the sum of EUR 31 965.28 which it paid in the context of the performance of contract IC18-CT98-0273, plus statutory interest.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Environmental Management Consultants Ltd to repay to the Commission of the European Communities the amount of EUR 31 965.28, plus interest:

– at the rate of 9.26% per annum from 1 to 31 August 2001;

– at the rate of 8.62% per annum from 1 September to 31 December 2001;

– at the rate of 10.57% per annum from 1 January to 30 June 2002;

– at the rate of 10.47% per annum from 1 July to 31 December 2002;

– at the rate of 9.97% per annum from 1 January to 30 June 2003;

– at the rate of 9.22% per annum from 1 July to 31 December 2003;

– at the rate of 9.14% per annum from 1 January to 30 June 2004;

– at the rate of 9.13% per annum from 1 July to 31 December 2004;

– at the rate of 9.21% per annum from 1 January to 31 January 2005;

– at the statutory rate, calculated in accordance with Article 288 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code) without that rate exceeding 9.21% from 1 February 2005 until the discharge of the debt;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 2009 – Italy v Commission

(Case T-424/05)

State aid – Aid scheme established by the Italian authorities for certain undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities specialised in shares of small- and medium-capitalisation companies – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market – Obligation to state reasons – Selective nature of the measure – Effect on trade between the Member States and distortion of competition – Article 87(3)(c) EC

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Contradiction – Effects (Art. 253 EC) (see para 67)

2. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Decision to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC (Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 6(1) and (7)) (see paras 69-70)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 78, 85)

4. State aid – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Aid of little importance in a sector with lively competition (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 153-156)

5. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Pleas that may be raised against a Commission decision on State aid (Arts 88(2) EC and 230 EC) (see paras 169-171)

6. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 174-175, 179)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/638/EC of 6 September 2005 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for certain undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities specialised in shares of small- and medium-capitalisation companies listed on regulated markets (OJ 2006 L 268, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – Transnáutica v Commission

(Case T-385/05)

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

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

Re:

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 April 2012 — Movimondo Onlus v Commission

(Case T‑329/05)

Arbitration clause — Framework agreement between ECHO and humanitarian organisations — Grant agreements — Suspension of payments

1. Procedure — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Framework partnership agreement between the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and humanitarian organisations — Prior conciliation procedure before action — Said procedure not used by the parties — Difference not capable of amicable resolution — Admissibility (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 17-18)

2. Commission — Powers — Implementation of the Community budget — Decision to recover by set-off — Balances owed by the Union under subsidy agreements concluded in the context of a framework agreement between the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and humanitarian organisations — Retroactive effect of compensation as from the meeting of the conditions allowing it to operate — Consequences (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 73; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 83) (see para. 40)

3. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 288 TFEU) (see paras 44-45)

Re:

Principal claim, under Article 238 EC, for the payment of amounts under grant agreements and, in the alternative, annulment of two letters from the Commission dated 17 June and 27 July 2005.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the Community judicature (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 63(2) and 74(1)) (see paras 15-18)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 88, 90)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 December 2005 (Case R 1147/2004‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Erdal GmbH and NV Marly SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders NV Marly SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 80-81, 85

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2006 (Case R 80/2005-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Inter Ikea Systems BV and Walter Waibel.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Inter-Ikea Systems BV to pay the costs, including those incurred by Walter Waibel in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-36, 46

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2006 (Case R 793/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Otto GmbH & Co. KG and l’Altra Moda SpA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Otto GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of l’Altra Moda SpA.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49-50, 52, 57

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2006 (Case R 760/2005-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Instituto Nacional de Meteorología and Casa Editoria El Tiempo, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Casa Editorial El Tiempo to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 70-72

)

Subject of the case

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

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Astex Therapeutics Ltd 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 23-26

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2006 (Case R 1387/2005‑2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three‑dimensional sign consisting of a paint filter coloured yellow near the tip.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Louis M. Gerson Co., Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 20, 29

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1172/2005-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Jean-Noël Castanet and Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA 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 composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 39, 45, 54, 65-66, 70-72

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 June 2006 (Case R 25/2006-1) concerning an application to register the word mark PORT LOUIS as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 June 2006 (Case R 25/2006-1);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rautaruukki Oyj to pay the costs.