ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/39

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2010 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission

(Case T-236/07) (1)

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Clearance of accounts - 2006 Financial year - Date of application of the first subparagraph of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Binding force of a unilateral declaration by the Commission annexed to the minutes of a Coreper meeting)

2010/C 346/77

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by M. Lumma and J. Möller, and subsequently by J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, Agent)

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/327/EC of 27 April 2007 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year (OJ 2007 L 122, p. 51)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/35

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Agrofert Holding v Commission

(Case T-111/07) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure concerning a merger between undertakings - Refusal to grant access)

2010/C 221/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Agrofert Holding a.s. (Pyšelská, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Pokorný and D. Šalek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and P. Costa de Oliveira, and subsequently by P. Costa de Oliveira and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by A. Kruse and S. Johannesson, and subsequently by S. Johannesson, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by J. Himmanen, A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, J. Heliskoski and M. Pere, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by B. Weis Fogh, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA, (Płock, Poland), (represented by S. Sołtysiński, K. Michałowska and M. Olechowski, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of, first, the Commission’s decision of 2 August 2006 refusing the applicant access to documents concerning the notification and pre notification procedure in relation to the acquisition of Unipetrol by Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (COMP/M.3543) and, second, Commission Decision D(2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 confirming that refusal

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that the head of claim seeking annulment of the reply of the European Commission of 2 August 2006 and that requesting the Court to order the Commission to provide the applicant with the documents requested are inadmissible;

2. Annuls Commission Decision D(2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 refusing access to documents in Case COMP/M.3543 concerning the merger between Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA and Unipetrol, exchanged between the Commission and the notifying parties and between the Commission and third parties, and refusing access to the internal documents and legal advice drawn up in that case;

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Denmark and Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/12

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-423/07) (1)

(State aid - Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Aviation sector - Exclusive use of Terminal 2 at Munich Airport - Action for failure to act - Adoption of a position by the Commission - No need to adjudicate - Obligation to act - None)

2011/C 194/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and E. Righini, Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission has failed to act in unlawfully failing to adopt a position on the applicant’s complaint concerning, first, aid allegedly granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Lufthansa and its Star Alliance partners in the form of the exclusive use of Terminal 2 at Munich Airport (Germany) and, second, alleged abuse of a dominant position by Munich Airport

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to give a ruling on the claim submitted by Ryanair Ltd that the Commission failed to act in relation to the alleged State aid to Lufthansa;

2. Rejects the claim submitted by Ryanair that the Commission failed to act in relation to the alleged State aid to Lufthansa’s Star Alliance partners;

3. Rejects the claim submitted by Ryanair that the Commission failed to act in relation to the alleged abuse of a dominant position;

4. Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and half of those incurred by Ryanair;

5. Orders Ryanair to pay half its own costs.

(1) OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/35

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission

(Case T-475/07) (1)

(Plant-protection products - Active substance trifluralin - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Action for annulment - Evaluation procedure - New study and additional study - Time-limits - Concepts of ‘risk’ and ‘hazard’ - Manifest error of assessment - Draft review report - Draft directive or decision - Time-limits - Consequences of possible non-compliance - Legitimate expectations - Principle of proportionality - Decision 1999/468/EC (‘the comitology decision’) - Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 - Article 3(3) - Plea of illegality)

2011/C 311/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom) and the 20 other applicants, the names of which are listed in the Annex (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dow AgroSciences Ltd and the 20 other applicants, the names of which are listed in the Annex, to bear their own costs and also to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/42

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Unipetrol v Commission

(Case T-45/07) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Participation in the cartel - Imputability of the offending conduct - Fines)

2011/C 269/93

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unipetrol a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Matějček and I. Janda, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: M. Kellerbauer, V. Bottka and O. Weber, and subsequently by M. Kellerbauer, V. Bottka and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, so far as Unipetrol a.s. is concerned, of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) or, in the alternative, for the exercise of the General Court’s unlimited jurisdiction.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) in so far as it concerns Unipetrol a.s.;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/12

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — Coats Holdings v Commission

(Case T-439/07) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Markets for zip fasteners and ‘other fasteners’ - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Coordinated price increases, fixing of minimum prices, customer-sharing, market-sharing and exchange of other commercial information - Evidence - Single and continuous infringement - Limitation period - Rights of the defence - Fines - Guidelines)

2012/C 243/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Coats Holdings Ltd (Uxbridge, Middlesex (United Kingdom)) (represented by: W. Sibree, C. Jeffs, K. O’Connell, and J. Boyce, Solicitors, and D. Anderson QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Coats Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/17

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-377/07) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of IT services relating to content interoperability technologies for European eGovernment services - Rejection of a tender - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - Non-contractual liability)

2012/C 32/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, Agent, and by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Re:

Application for (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2007 not to accept the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki in the context of the call for tenders relating to ‘Content interoperability for European eGovernment Services’ (OJ 2006 S 128) and also of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and (ii) damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/14

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others v Commission

(Case T-496/07) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Annual market-sharing and price-fixing agreements - Rights of defence - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Principle that penalties must be specific to the offender - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Res judicata)

2013/C 336/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, SA, formerly Repsol Lubricantes YPF y Especialidades, SA (Madrid, Spain); Repsol Petróleo, SA (Madrid); and Repsol, SA, formerly Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, J. Buendía Sierra, M. Muñoz de Juan and Á. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP-38.710 Bitumen (Spain)), and for reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the claim of the European Commission seeking an increase of the amount of the fine;

3. Orders Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, SA, Repsol Petróleo, SA and Repsol, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/28

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics v Council

(Case T-459/07) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines - Expiry of anti-dumping measures - Review - Like product - Data used to determine the injury - Analogue country - Community interest - Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)

2013/C 252/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd (Hangzhou, China) (represented by: M. Gambardella and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by J.-P. Hix, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, and subsequently G. Berrisch, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents); and by Osram GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Osram GmbH;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/40

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2009 — M v EMEA

(Case T-12/08) (1)

(Appeal - Staff case - Temporary staff - Invalidity - Application for reconsideration of the decision rejecting a first request that the Invalidity Committee be convened - Action for annulment - Non-actionable measure - Confirmatory act - New and substantial facts - Admissibility - Non-contractual liability - Non-material harm)

2009/C 141/82

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: M (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMEA) (represented by: V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-23/07 M v EMEA [2007] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-0000 seeking that that order be set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 19 October 2007 in Case F-23/07 M v EMEA [2007] ECR I-A-0000 and II-0000;

2. Annuls the decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) of 25 October 2006, in so far as it rejected M’s request of 8 August 2006 for his case to be referred to the Invalidity Committee;

3. Orders EMEA to pay the appellant compensation of EUR 3 000;

4. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

5. Orders EMEA to pay the costs of the procedure before the Civil Service Tribunal and those of this case.

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/62

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Evets v OHIM (DANELECTRO and QWIK TUNE)

(Joined Cases T-20/08 and T-21/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Community word mark DANELECTRO and Community figurative mark QWIK TUNE - Failure to observe the time-limit for submitting a request for renewal of the trade marks - Application for restitutio in integrum - Reformatio in pejus - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Article 61(2), second sentence of Article 73, and Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 63(2), second sentence of Article 75, and Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2009/C 267/110

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evets Corp. (Irvine, California, United States) (represented by: S. Ryan, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against two decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2007 (Cases R 603/2007-4 and R 604/2007-4), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum made by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Evets Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/36

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Laboratorios Alcala Farma (oli)

(Case T-240/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community mark oli - Earlier Community word marks OLAY - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009])

2009/C 205/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, Ohio, United States) (represented by: T. Scourfield, N. Beckett, Solicitors and A. Speck, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laboratorios Alcala Farma SL (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2008 (Case R 1481/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Procter & Gamble Company and Laboratorios Alcala Farma, SL

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders The Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/49

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2009 — Iranian Tobacco v OHIM — AD Bulgartabac (TIR 20 FILTER CIGARETTES)

(Case T-245/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark TIR 20 FILTER CIGARETTES - Interest in bringing proceedings not required - Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 24/85

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Tobacco Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: A. Beckensträter, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: AD Bulgartabac Holding Sofia (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Maček, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 April 2008 in Case R 708/2007-1 concerning revocation proceedings between AD Bulgartabac Holding Sofia and Iranian Tobacco Co

Operative part of the order

1. Dismisses the action;

2. orders Iranian Tobacco to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 223 of 30.8.2008
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/21

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2009 — BCS v OHIM — Deere (Combination of the colours green and yellow)

(Case T-137/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours green and yellow - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Relative ground for refusal - Earlier unregistered national mark consisting of a combination of the colours green and yellow - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2009/C 297/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BCS SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, V. Jandoli and F. Santonocito, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Deere & Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: J. Gray, Solicitor, and A. Tornato, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2008 (Case R 222/2007-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between BCS SpA and Deere & Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BCS SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/32

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — 2nine v OHIM — Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie)

(Case T-364/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark nollie - Earlier national and international word marks NOLI - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2010/C 134/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 2nine Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Palmer, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. (Anaheim, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2008 (Case R 1591/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between 2nine Ltd and Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders 2nine Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.