ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The general principle of proportionality is not breached by Article 143(3) of Regulation No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, concerning the rules for submitting tenders in an award procedure. The obligation set out in Article 143(3) to submit the tender in a double envelope enables the confidentiality of tenders to be deemed to be guaranteed where such tenders are found by the tender opening committee to be under double cover in envelopes that are sealed and intact. That rule thus contributes to legal certainty by ruling out any risk of arbitrary assessment during the opening of the tenders, at an insignificant marginal cost in terms of financial and technical resources, given the overall costs involved in the preparation of a tender.

Moreover, the principle of proportionality can apply only in cases where the author of the contested act has a discretion. That does not apply where a tender is submitted that does not comply with the requirements of Article 143(3) of Regulation No 2342/2002. Article 145 of Regulation No 2342/2002 prohibits the opening of tenders which do not comply with the requirements of Article 143. It follows from this that the awarding authority cannot open such a tender without infringing Article 145.

In addition, there is no provision in Regulations Nos 1605/2002 and 2342/2002 that requires the contracting authority to seek the views of a tenderer before rejecting his tender for failure to adhere to the formal requirements laid down by the contract documentation, compliance with which is essential. Likewise, in so far as a decision rejecting a tender that does not comply with the formal requirements with which tenderers have to comply precisely set out in the call for tenders is not founded on any consideration of fact or of law of which the tenderer could reasonably have been unaware, it cannot validly be maintained that the awarding authority is obliged to hear it before adopting such a decision. Moreover, where the awarding authority is compelled to reject a tender that does not comply with the formal requirements set out in the call for tenders, the possibility for the tenderer to submit observations cannot have the slightest influence on the outcome of its tender.

(see paras 84, 85, 99, 101, 117, 119, 120)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact which have not been raised previously before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 18)

2. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary statement of pleas (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 28)

3. 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33, 36, 82, 89)

4. 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 38)

5. 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 — Word marks Gigabyte and GIGABITER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 71, 81, 88, 92)

6. 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 45)

7. 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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 94)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2011 (Case R 2047/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Robert A. Haskins and Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston v OHIM (shape of a bottle)

(Case T-323/11)

‛Community trade marks — Absolute grounds for refusal — Application for a three-dimensional trade mark — Shape of a bottle — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 12)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 13)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark consisting in the shape of a bottle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 32, 33)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional marks consisting in the shape of the product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15-17)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States — Effect (see para. 35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2011 (Case R 2238/2010-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting in the shape of a bottle as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid — Concept — Non-repayment of sums due to the State in accordance with the timetable agreed with the national authorities — No measures undertaken by the national authorities to recover the debt — Non-adoption of enforcement measures having the consequence of granting an economic advantage to the beneficiaries — Abstention constituting State aid — Assessment of the measure in accordance with the private investor test (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 29, 30, 36-40)

2. State aid — Commission decision — Assessment of the legality by reference to the information available at the time of adoption of the decision — Duty of diligence of the Member State granting the aid and of its beneficiary as to the communication of all relevant information during the administrative procedure (Art. 108(2) TFEU) (see para. 33)

3. State aid — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Criteria for assessment (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 49, 50)

4. State aid — Existing aid and new aid — Measure amending an existing aid scheme — Modification affecting the substance of the scheme — Classification of the scheme as new aid (Art. 108(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1(c)) (see paras 53-55)

5. State aid — Provisions of the Treaty — Scope ratione temporis — Accession of Bulgaria to the European Union — Act of Accession — Application of provisions on State aid as from the date of accession and solely in regard to situations arising as from that date (Arts 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU; 2005 Act of Accession; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1(b), (i) and (c)) (see paras 66, 67)

6. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Calculation of the amount of aid to be recovered — Difficulties encountered by the State — Duty of cooperation between the Commission and the Member State — Scope (Art. 4(3) TEU; Art. 108 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 77-79)

Subject of the case

Operative part

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2012/706/EU of 13 July 2011 on the State aid SA.28903 (C 12/2010) (ex N 389/2009) implemented by Bulgaria in favour of Rousse Industry (OJ 2012 L 320, p. 27).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rousse Industry AD to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the application for interim relief.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — Regulation No 366/2011 amending the REACH regulation — Introduction of restrictions on the substance acylamide — Discretion of the EU institutions — Scope — Judicial review — Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Annex XVII; Commission Regulation No 366/2011, Art. 1) (see paras 29, 31)

2. Approximation of laws — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — Regulation No 366/2011 amending the REACH regulation — Introduction of restrictions on the substance acylamide — Assessment with regard to the principle of proportionality — Discretion of the legislature — Area involving political, economic and social choices — Judicial review — Limits — Legality in the absence of manifest error of assessment having regard to the objective pursued (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Annex XVII; Commission Regulation No 366/2011, Art. 1) (see paras 75, 76)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Account taken of the context and all the legal rules (Art. 296, second para., TFEU) (see para. 101)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 of 14 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Acrylamide) (OJ 2011 L 101, p. 12).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS and Travetanche Injection SPRL to bear the costs they have incurred in the main proceedings and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Travetanche Injection to pay the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

4. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Reclassification of the action — Conditions (Arts 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 288 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 29-32)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Application modifying the subject matter of the dispute formulated for the first time in the reply — Applicant applying to reclassify the legal basis of the action — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 48(2)) (see paras 34, 37)

3. Actions for annulment — Community law — Interest in bringing proceedings — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 113) (see para. 43)

4. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — Contested decision lapsing after the bringing of the action — No effect — Basis of a possible action for compensation — Interest in bringing proceedings maintained (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 44-47)

5. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Award of contracts — Exclusion of contractors seriously in default of their obligations — Discretion of the awarding authority concerning the failure in question and the penalty imposed (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 96(1)(b); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 133(1), and 134b) (see paras 61, 78-80)

6. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Action for compensation for damage caused by an EU institution — General formula reserving to the applicant the possibility of bringing further actions — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 88, 89)

Subject of the case

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 14 January 2011 to unilaterally terminate the framework service contract ‘Various security services’ (LOG/2026/10/02) and to apply for payment of damages and interest and, secondly, application for annulment of the decision of 14 January 2011 to impose a penalty of exclusion.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders GRP Security to pay the costs, including those relating to the applications for interim measures.
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 40)

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 — Figurative mark Giuseppe BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI and word mark ZANOTTI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 25, 41, 42)

3. 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

4. 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27, 50)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 918/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Societá Italiana Calzature SpA and Vicini SpA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Societá Italiana Calzature SpA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Application for annulment of a debit note issued by the Commission — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 288 TFEU) (see paras 21-24)

2. Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the General Court to hear a counterclaim for payment — Basis (Arts 272 TFEU and 299 TFEU) (see paras 35-40)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of a debit note issued by the Commission on 9 September 2011 in order to recover the sum of EUR 83 001.09 paid to the applicant in the context of financial assistance for a project and, on the other hand, a counterclaim seeking an order requiring the applicant to pay that sum together with interest.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action for annulment as inadmissible;

2. Orders Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE to pay the European Commission EUR 83 001.09 by way of principal sum and EUR 11.37 per day in respect of default interest falling due from 25 October 2011 until discharge of the principal debt;

3. Orders Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 May 2013 — Bulgaria v Commission

(Case T-335/11)

‛EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Single area payment — ‘Disadvantaged areas’ — Complementary national direct payments — Operation of the geographic information system and of the identification system for agricultural parcels — Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Proportionality — Legal certainty — obligation to state reasons’

1. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by EAGF and EAFRD — Principles — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulation No 1290/2005, Art. 31) (see paras 19-22, 85, 109)

2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by EAGF and EAFRD — Grant of aids and premiums — Obligation of Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks — Scope — Unreliable controls — Disallowance (Council Regulation No 1290/2005, Art. 9) (see paras 29, 132-135)

3. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by EAGF and EAFRD — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Assessment of losses suffered by the funds — Irregular expenses not capable of sufficiently precise determination — Assessment based on flat-rate corrections — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 1290/2005, Art. 31) (see paras 86-89, 112, 119)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision on the clearance of EAGF and EAFRD accounts (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1290/2005, Art. 31) (see paras 143, 144)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2011/244/EU of 15 April 2001, on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2011 L 102, p. 33), as regards the Republic of Bulgaria.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Lepiarz v OHIM — Henkel (SUPER GLUE)

(Case T‑591/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SUPER GLUE — Earlier Benelux word mark SUPERGLUE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the defendant (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-27)

3. 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 — Figurative Community trade mark SUPER GLUE and Benelux word mark SUPERGLUE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 33, 48, 53, 57, 60-62)

4. 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 — Coexistence of earlier marks — Recognition of a certain degree of distinctiveness of a national mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(b), and 8(1)(b), and (2)(a)(ii); European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95, Art. 3(1)(b); Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(b)) (see paras 36-44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2011 (Case R 1147/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Henkel Corp. and Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp.j.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;