ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Coats Holdings and Coats v Commission

(Case T-36/05)

Competition – Cartels – European haberdashery market (needles) – Product market sharing – Geographic market sharing – Assessment of evidence – Participation in meetings – Tripartite agreement – Fine – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Attenuating circumstances

1. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement consisting in the conclusion of an anti‑competitive agreement – Compliance with the principle of the presumption on innocence – Degree of probative force required for the Commission’s evidence (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 68, 70-72, 74)

2. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation of an undertaking in a meeting of the parties to a planned cartel – Circumstance permitting the conclusion that it participated in the subsequent cartel – Condition (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 90-91, 96)

3. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Undertaking which facilitated the entry into force of an anti‑competitive agreement which required action on its part – Circumstance permitting the conclusion that it participated in the agreement – Merely being informed of the existence of the agreement not sufficient (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 105, 110, 117, 119-120, 168)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria defined in guidelines issued by the Commission – Seriousness and duration of the infringement – Attenuating circumstances – Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking (Art. 81(1) EC; Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 199-200, 204-207, 210, 212)

Re:

APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 – PO/Needles) and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F‑1/38.338 – PO/Needles) in so far as the Decision finds that the applicants infringed Article 81(1) EC after 13 March 1997;

2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2 of the Decision at EUR 20 million;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2008 – Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

(Case T-141/05)

Action for annulment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Partial refusal – Non-actionable measure – Merely confirmatory measure – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 7(1) and 8; Commission Decision 2001/937, Annex, Arts 3 and 4) (see paras 56-57, 79, 108-110)

2. European Ombudsman – Alternative to an action before the Community judicature – Not possible to pursue both remedies in parallel (Art. 195(1) EC; Statute of the European Ombudsman, Art. 2(6) and (7)) (see para. 59)

3. Actions for annulment – Action against a decision merely confirming a previous decision (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 69-70, 81-82)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the alleged decision contained in the letter of the Commission of 14 February 2005 refusing the applicant access to certain documents from the file regarding the contract LIEN 97-2011.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 – Componenta v Commission

(Case T-455/05)

State aid – Metallurgy sector – Acquisition of a shareholding held by an undertaking in a property company and repayment of a loan by that undertaking to the property company in consideration for an investment in that undertaking – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Private investor test – Valuation of the shares in a property company – Valuation of the real property assets of a company – Duty to state the reasons for the decision – Finding of the Court of its own motion

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 44-45)

2. State aid – Concept – Competence conferred on the Commission and the national court to classify a national measure as State aid – Limited discretion of the Commission (Art. 87(1) EC) (see para. 97)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 98-100)

4. State aid – Administrative procedure – National measures implemented without having been notified – Faculty open to the Commission to issue a direction to the Member State concerned in order to obtain the information deemed by it to be necessary – Decision adopted by the Commission, without issuing a direction, on the basis of information regarded by it as fragmentary (Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 10) (see paras 105-108)

5. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court – Not permissible (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 121)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/900/EC of 20 October 2005 on the State Aid implemented by Finland for investment aid to Componenta Corporation (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 36).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2006/900/EC of 20 October 2005 on the State Aid implemented by Finland for investment aid to Componenta Corporation;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay Componenta’s costs;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 24 September 2008 – M v Ombudsman

(Case T-412/05)

Non-contractual liability – Decision by the Commission to take no action on a complaint calling into question the conduct of a Member State – Decision by the European Ombudsman concerning the handling of the complaint – Errors made by the Commission in its finding of instances of maladministration – Naming of the applicant – Infringement of the right to respect for private life, and of the principles of proportionality and the right to be heard – Non-material damage – Causal link

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute (Art. 288 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 43-48)

2. European Ombudsman – Duty to comply with the principle of confidentiality – Duty not to name persons not subject to his jurisdiction (see paras 126-133)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a higher rule of law protecting individuals (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 133-145)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Real and certain damage caused by an illegal act (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 146-158)

Re:

ACTION under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for compensation for damage suffered by the applicant as a result of being named in the decision of the European Ombudsman of 18 July 2002 concerning the complaint registered with the reference 1288/99/OV and as a result of the negligent conduct of the Ombudsman concerning the investigation of that complaint and the conclusions he reached in that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders the European Ombudsman to pay Mr M compensation of EUR 10 000;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2009 – Italy v Commission

(Case T-373/05)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Raw tobacco – Obligation to state reasons – Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (see paras 50-51)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (see paras 65-67)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2005/579/EC of 20 July 2005 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 2005 L 199, p. 84), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sector of raw tobacco.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 – Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case T-174/05)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Monochloroacetic acid market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Market sharing and price fixing – Rights of the defence – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Imputability of the infringement – Principle that penalties must fit the offence – Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis – Presumption of innocence – Principle of sound administration – Principle of legal certainty – Misuse of powers – Fines

1. Competition – Administrative procedure – Statement of objections – Necessary content – Observance of the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 23 and 27(1)) (see paras 55-56, 70-71, 196-198)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to apply competition rules – Decision relating to several addressees (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC and 253 EC) (see paras 79-80)

3. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – No discretion of the Commission (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 106-108, 225-227)

4. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Undertaking – Concept – Economic unit – Attribution of infringements – Parent company and subsidiaries – Joint and several liability of the companies concerned (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 121-124, 184-187, 192-194)

5. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries – Obligation of the parent company to rebut the presumption that management power was actually exercised over its subsidiary – Applicability of the presumption where the parent company holds nearly all the capital of the subsidiary (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 125, 151-156, 160, 172-173)

Re:

APPLICATION for, principally, annulment of Articles 1(d), 2(c), 3 and 4(9) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 – MCAA) or, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 2(c) of that decision, or, in the further alternative, application for variation of the said Article 2(c).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 26-27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), of 24 February 2006, (Case R 0075/2005-4) concerning registration of the shape of a packet of cigarettes as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Philip Morris Products 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 71-73

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2006 (Case R 227/2005‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi-Aventis SA and GD Searle LLC.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sanofi-Aventis SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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))

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

1. For the average French consumer, there is a likelihood of confusion between the word sign PAGESJAUNES.COM registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘Printed matter, newspapers, periodicals, directories’ within Class 16 of the Nice Agreement and the word mark LES PAGES JAUNES previously registered in France for the same goods, given that the goods in question are identical and given the similarity between the opposing signs at both the visual and aural levels and the conceptual level. French consumers could think that the trade mark applied for, PAGESJAUNES.COM, is the internet version of the paper-based directory bearing the LES PAGES JAUNES trade mark and that, therefore, the two products are offered by the same undertaking.

(see paras 64, 72)

2. Although, when examining an opposition under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark by the proprietor of the earlier trade mark, the distinctive character of that mark must be taken into account when assessing the likelihood of confusion, it is only one factor among others involved in that assessment. Thus, even in a case involving an earlier mark of weak distinctive character, there may be a likelihood of confusion on account, in particular, of a similarity between the signs and between the goods or services covered.

(see para. 70)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Decision to reduce financial assistance (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24) (see paras 42-59)

2. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Decision to reduce financial assistance (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Arts 25 and 26) (see paras 78-82, 89-92)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see points 97-102)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Commission decision reducing financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Regulation No 4253/88) (see paras 116-118)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision C(2006) 1706 of 20 April 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund in favour of an overall allocation for the purpose of implementing measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises operating in the Basilicata Region of Italy, granted under the Community support framework for Community structural assistance in the regions of Italy covered by Objective 1, and application for damages for the harm caused by that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Italia Basilicata SpA to pay the costs.
II ‑ 2217Case T-363/06
Honda Motor Europe Ltd
v
Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market 
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for 
Community word mark MAGIC SEAT — Earlier national figurative 
trade mark SEAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of 
confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 9 September 2008       II ‑ 2219
Summary of the Judgment
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Rela -
tive 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))
II ‑ 2218SUMMARY — CASE T‑363/06
There is a likelihood of confusion within 
the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 
No 40/94 on the Community trade mark 
for the relevant public  — composed, on 
the one hand, of second‑hand car dealers, 
garage owners and mechanics and, on the 
other hand, of average consumers, who 
will probably be assisted by a mechanic or 
other skilled professional when changing or 
repairing anything related to a vehicle seat — 
between the word sign MAGIC SEAT, for 
which registration as a Community trade 
mark is sought in respect of ‘vehicle seats 
and vehicle seat mechanisms and parts and 
fittings and accessories for these goods’ in 
Class 12 under the Nice Agreement, and the 
figurative mark SEAT, registered earlier in 
Spain in respect of ‘land vehicles, coupling 
and transmission components as well as 
other components and spare parts for land vehicles not belonging to other classes; ap ‑
paratus for locomotion by land, air or water’ 
in the same class of the Nice Agreement 
The goods covered by the two marks are iden ‑
tical and the two marks are similar overall  
Moreover, the earlier trade mark has a high 
distinctive character in Spain on account of 
its reputation, with the result that it enjoys a 
greater protection than those marks with a 
less distinctive character  It follows that there 
is a likelihood that the relevant public might 
believe that the goods in question come from 
the same undertaking or, as the case may be, 
from economically‑linked undertakings 
(see paras 21, 55‑57)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing legal effects – Decision to open a formal procedure to investigate a State measure in the course of implementation accompanied by provisional classification as new aid (Arts 87(1) EC, 88(2) and (3) EC and 230 EC) (see paras 34-36)

2. State aid – Commission decision to open a formal procedure to investigate a State measure – Provisional nature of the Commission’s assessments (Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 6) (see paras 59-60)

3. State aid – Commission decision to open a formal procedure to investigate a State measure provisionally classified as new aid – Duty to state reasons (Arts 88(2) EC and 253 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 6) (see paras 78-80)

4. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Legal certainty (see paras 102-108)

5. State aid – Existing aid and new aid – Modification affecting the substance of a measure not initially classified as aid – Measure having to be investigated in the context of the procedure applicable to new aid (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 128-129)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/C 214/03, notified to the Italian Republic by letter of 19 July 2006, initiating the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC, concerning State aid C 36/06 (ex NN 38/06) – Preferential electricity tariff to energy intensive industries in Italy, in so far as that decision relates to the electricity tariffs applicable to the two primary aluminium plants owned by Alcoa Trasformazioni.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 — Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery v Council

(Case T-296/06)

‛Dumping — Imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in China — Determination of the dumping margin — Market economy treatment — Comparison between the normal value and the export price — Application of a different method to that used during the initial investigation — Article 2(7)(a) and (10) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96’

1. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Comparison between the normal value and the export price — Adjustments (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(10)) (see paras 42-45, 51)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Determination of the normal value — Imports from countries not having a market economy as referred to in Article 2(7)(b) of Regulation No 384/96 — Application of the rules for countries with a market economy — Application reserved for producers satisfying the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(b) of Regulation No 384/96 (Council Regulations Nos 384/96, Arts 2(1) to (6), and 7(b) and (c), and 1136/06) (see paras 47-50)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Determination of the normal value — Recourse to the constructed value — Discretion of the institutions — Limits (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 2(3), 6(8) and 16) (see paras 58-63)

4. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Normal value of products — Calculation — Difference between the provisional and final conclusions as to the choice of the calculation method — Lawfulness — Limits (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 2(7)(a) and 9(4)) (see paras 71-75)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 of 24 July 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 1), in so far as it applies to the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl, Interkov spol. s r.o., MI.ME.CA. Srl and NIKO — kovinarsko podjetje, d.d. Železniki;