ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 November 2022 — Campofrio Food Group v EUIPO — Cerioti Holding (SNACK MI)

(Case T-736/22)

(2023/C 24/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Campofrio Food Group, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López and M. Del Río Aragó, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cerioti Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark SNACK MI — Application for registration No 18 201 028

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 August 2022 in Case R 59/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Cerioti Holding SA, if it intervenes in this case, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 November 2022 — White Pearl v Commission

(Case T-708/22)

(2023/C 35/85)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: White Pearl, Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Action brought on 31 October 2022 — SBM Développement v Commission

(Case T-667/22)

(2023/C 45/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SBM Développement SAS (Ecully, France) (represented by: B. Arash and H. Lindström, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the Commission’s Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1388 of 23 June 2022 on the unresolved objections regarding the terms and conditions of the authorisation of the biocidal product Pat’Appât Souricide Canadien Foudroyant referred by France and Sweden in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2022, L 208, p. 7);

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of rule of law relating to the application of Article 48 and infringement of Articles 1(1) and 32 of Regulation (EU) 528/2012, (the ‘BPR’). (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 33, 35 and 36 of the BPR.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties — principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 19 of the BPR and manifest error in assessment.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging exceedance of power and infringement of rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties — principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality and Article 16 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, OJ 2012, L 167, p. 1.
Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, unlawful positive discrimination between accredited parliamentary assistants and unlawful negative discrimination in relation to other informants, breach of the protection conferred on informants, infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to provide assistance and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, and breach of the right to benefit from a procedure that has at least an appearance of objectivity.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/23

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2008 — Hotel Cipriani and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00) (1)

(State aid - Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of the aid paid out - Admissibility - Individual concern - Conditions concerning effect on trade between Member States and competition - Derogations under Article 87(3)(b) to (e) EC and Article 87(2)(b) EC - Categorisation as new aid or as existing aid - Principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and proportionality - Duty to state reasons)

(2009/C 19/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant in Case T-254/00: Hotel Cipriani SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: initially M. Marinoni, G.M. Roberti and F. Sciaudone, and later G.M. Roberti, F. Sciaudone and A. Bianchini, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-270/00: Società italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) (Turin, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, C. Tesauro, M. Pappalardo and T. Ubaldi, lawyers)

Applicants in Case T-277/00: Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl (Cavriago, Italy); and Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ (Venice) (represented by: A. Bianchini and A. Vianello, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant in Case T-270/00: Italian Republic (represented by: initially U. Leanza, and later I. Braguglia, Agents, and by P. Gentili and S. Fiorentino, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the applications;

2. Orders Hotel Cipriani SpA, Società italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas), Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl and the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission, and orders Coopservice and the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ also to bear the costs of the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/39

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Alitalia v Commission

(Case T-301/01) (1)

(State aid - Recapitalisation of Alitalia by the Italian authorities - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market - Decision taken following a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an earlier decision - Admissibility - Infringement of Article 233 EC - Infringement of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC - Conditions for authorising the aid - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

(2008/C 209/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alitalia — Linee Aeree Italiane Spa (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. M. Roberti, G. Scassellati Sforzolini, F. Moretti and F. Sciaudone, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, acting as Agent, and A. Abate and G. Conte, lawyers)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001 concerning the recapitalisation of the company Alitalia (OJ 2001 L 271, p. 28).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Alitalia — Linee aeree italiane Spa to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 16.2.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/24

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Kronoply and Kronotex v Commission

(Case T-388/02) (1)

(State aid - Commission decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Publication of a summary notice - No significant effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility - Status as party concerned - Admissibility - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - No serious difficulties)

(2009/C 32/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligengrabe, Germany); and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligengrabe) (represented initially by: R. Nierer, subsequently by R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, subsequently by V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Zellstoff Stendal GmbH (Arneburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and K.U. Karl, subsequently by T. Müller-Ibold, lawyers); Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents); and Land Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) (represented by: C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 19 June 2002 to raise no objections to aid granted by the German authorities to Zellstoff Stendal for the construction of a production plant for pulp.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities and by Zellstoff Stendal GmbH and Land Sachsen-Anhalt.

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 22.2.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/15

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2011 — Altstoff Recycling Austria v Commission

(Case T-419/03) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - System for collection and recycling of used packaging in Austria - Agreements for collection and sorting containing exclusivity clauses - Individual exemption decision - Charges imposed - Principle of proportionality)

2011/C 139/28

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Altstoff Recycling Austria AG, formerly Altstoff Recycling Austria AG and ARGEV Verpackungsverwertungs-Gesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Wollman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, W. Mölls, then W. Mölls and H. Gading, and finally R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: EVA Erfassen und Verwerten von Altstoffen GmbH (Vienna) (represented by: A. Reidlinger and I. Hartung, lawyers); and Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte (Vienna) (represented by K. Wessely, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2004/208/EC of 16 October 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Cases COMP D3/35470 — ARA and COMP D3/35473 — ARGEV, ARO) (OJ 2004 L 75, p. 59).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Altstoff Recycling Austria AG to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, EVA Erfassen und Verwerten von Altstoffen GmbH and the Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte, including costs related to the interim proceedings.

(1) OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/15

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — MyTravel v Commission

(Case T-212/03) (1)

(Non-contractual liability of the Community - Competition - Decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market - Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2008/C 272/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MyTravel Group plc (Rochdale, Lancashire, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC, M. Nicholson and S. Cardell, Solicitors, A. Lewis, Barrister, and R. Gillis, QC)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially by R. Lyal, A. Whelan and P. Hellström, and subsequently by R. Lyal and F. Arbault, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the unlawfulness of the proceedings for determining whether the concentration between the applicant and First Choice plc was compatible with the common market.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MyTravel Group plc to bear its own costs;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs;

4. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/26

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2008 — Orsay v OHIM — Jiménez Arellano (Orsay)

(Case T-378/04) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the word and figurative trade mark Orsay - Earlier national word and figurative trade mark D'ORSAY - Ground for refusal - Risk of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 79/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Orsay GmbH (Willstät, Germany) (represented by: D. von Schultz and S. Elbe, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially, by: T. Eichenberg, later by: G. Schneider, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: José Jiménez Arellano S.A. (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially, by: J. Astiz Suárez, later by: S. Hernán-Carrillo Portolés and finally by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyers,

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 909/2002-4) concerning an opposition procedure between José Jiménez Arellano S.A. and Orsay GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The application is dismissed;

2. Orsay GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 314 of 18.12.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/33

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2008 — Nortrail Transport v Commission

(Case T-496/04) (1)

(Customs Union - External Community transit operation - Fishery products originating in Norway - Application for remission and repayment of import duties - Fairness clause - Regulations (EEC) No 2913/92 and No 2454/93 - Special situation - Retroactive opening of tariff quotas)

(2008/C 285/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nortrail Transport GmbH (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: J. Krause, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, then by B. Schima and M. Patakia, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 15/02 of 1 October 2004, finding that the repayment of import duties to the applicant, which are the subject of the application made by the Federal Republic of Germany, is not justified.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nortrail Transport GmbH to bear its own expenses and to pay the expenses incurred by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/32

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 April 2008 — Michail v Commission

(Case T-486/04) (1)

(Staff Case - Officials - Acton for annulment - Duty to provide assistance - Mental harassment)

(2008/C 128/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H Tserepa-Lacombe, agents, assisted initially by V. Kasparian, lawyer, then by I. Antypas, lawyer))

Re:

Action for annulment of the implied decision of 20 March 2004 by the Commission rejecting an application for assistance made by the applicant under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders Mr Christos Michail to bear one half of his costs;

3. orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of Mr Michail.

(1) OJ C 57, 5.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/33

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2009 — KME Germany and Others v Commission

(Case T-127/04) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper industrial tubes - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the market concerned - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation)

2009/C 153/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG (Osnabruck, Germany); KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA (Courbevoie, France); and KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, A. Winckler, G.C. Rizza, T. Graf and M. Piergiovanni, Lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, Agent, assisted by C. Thomas, Solicitor)

Re:

(1) Application for annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants by Article 2(c)(d) and (e) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4820 final of 16 December 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.240 Industrial tubes); and (2) Counterclaim by the Commission that the amount of those fines be increased

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy SpA to pay the costs

(1) OJ C 146, 29.5.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/23

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Gogos v Commission

(Case T-66/04) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Internal competition for change of category - Appointment - Classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

(2008/C 313/40)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Christos Gogos (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: C. Tagaras initially, then N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, and P. Anestis, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision classifying the applicant in Grade A7, step 3, and the decision of 24 November 2003, rejecting the administrative complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.

(1) OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/17

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International v Commission

(Case T-291/04) (1)

(Environment and consumer protection - Classification, packaging and labelling of n-propyl bromide as a dangerous substance - Directive 2004/73/EC - Directive 67/548/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Action for annulment - Late request to adapt claims - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility - Non-contractual liability - Judgment of the Court of Justice concerning the validity of Directive 2004/73 - Same subject-matter)

2012/C 32/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd (Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom); and Enviro Tech International, Inc. (Melrose Park, Illinois, United States) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by X. Lewis, and subsequently by P. Oliver and G. Wilms, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2004 L 152, p. 1, amended by OJ L 216, p. 3), in so far as Directive 2004/73 classified n-propyl bromide as a substance having certain dangerous properties and, second, for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International, Inc. to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/30

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2010 — Co-Frutta v Commission

(Joined Cases T-355/04 and T-446/04) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the Community market for imports of bananas - Implied refusal of access followed by express refusal - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Exception relating to protection of the commercial interests of third parties - Compliance with time-limits - Prior consent of the Member State - Obligation to state reasons)

2010/C 51/57

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Co-Frutta Soc. coop. (Padua, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Visaggio and P. Aalto, initially, and P. Aalto and L. Prete, subsequently, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action in Case T-355/04 for annulment of (i) the decision of the Commission of 28 April 2004 rejecting an initial application for access to information concerning operators registered in the Community as importers of bananas and (ii) the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the confirmatory access application and action in Case T-446/04 for annulment of the express decision of the Commission of 10 August 2004 refusing access to the information

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in Case T-355/04;

2. Dismisses the action in Case T-446/04;

3. Orders Co-Frutta Soc. coop. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.