ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing (Art. 10 EC; Council Regulations No 729/70, Arts 8(1) and 9, and No 2392/86, Arts (1) and 9(4)) (see paras 41-49)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 61-63)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/302/EC of 30 March 2004 on a financial contribution from the Community to expenditure incurred by Greece in establishing the Community vineyard register (OJ 2004 L 98, p. 57).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2)) (see paras 20-21

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal (OHIM) of 27 September 2004 (Case R 328/2003-2) concerning opposition proceedings between J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 September 2004 (Case R 328/2003-2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.
Case T-233/04

Kingdom of the Netherlands

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛State aid — Directive 2001/81/EC — National measure establishing an emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides — Decision finding the aid compatible with the common market — Admissibility — Advantage — Measure lacking selective character’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), 10 April 2008 II - 594

Summary of the Judgment

Article 230 EC draws a clear distinction between the right of Community institutions and Member States to bring an action for annulment and that of legal persons and individuals, in that the second paragraph of Article 230 EC gives all Member States the right to contest the legality of decisions of the Commission by means of an action for annulment, without having to establish any legal interest in bringing proceedings. However, in order for an act of the Commission to be the subject of such an action, it must be intended to have legal effects. A decision of the Commission finding that a measure constitutes State aid, thus enabling it to examine the compatibility of the measure in question with the common market, has such legal effects and therefore constitutes, for a Member State, an actionable measure. (see paras 37, 41, 42)

In the context of a scheme which lays down for certain undertakings a binding emission standard for nitrogen oxides and which authorises those undertakings to trade the emission allowances deriving indirectly from that standard with each other, the authorisation given by a Member State to trade those allowances, which thus confers on them the character of intangible assets which may be freely sold, whereas that Member State could have sold them or put them up for auction, constitutes an advantage granted to those undertakings through State resources. (see paras 70, 74, 75, 78)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Procedure (see paras 38-39)

2. Procedure – 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 (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 41)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Grant of aid and premiums (Art. 10 EC; Council Regulations Nos 729/70, Art. 8(1), and No 1258/1999, Art 1; Commission Regulation No 504/97, Art. 15(1)) (see paras 51-55)

4. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules (see paras 56-58, 65, 98)

5. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures (see para. 93)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/536/EC of 22 July 2003 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 2003 L 184, p. 42) to the extent that it excludes certain expenditure by the Italian Republic in the financial years 1999 to 2002.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Pleas seeking that directions be issued to an institution – Inadmissibility (Arts 230 EC and 233 EC) (see para. 35)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 45)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, in the context of the tendering procedure for a public service contract, not to accept an offer (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149) (see paras 47-50, 54-55, 59, 76-80)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 September 2004 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure relating to the provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate-General for Fisheries, and to award the contract to the successful tenderer.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision to reject the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and to award the contract to the successful tenderer in the tendering procedure ‘FISH/2004/02’;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 – Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods v Commission

(Case T-382/04)

Customs union – Rice paper from Vietnam – Remission of import duties – Equitable relief – Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Error of the customs authority – Definition of manifest negligence – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – Principle of proportionality

Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import or export duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) (see paras 44-46, 70, 73-74, 92-94)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision REM 19/2002 of 17 June 2004 finding the remission of import duties in a particular case to be unjustified.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 27 September 2006 – Telefónica v OHIM – Branch (emergia)

(Case T-172/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative Community trade mark emergia – Earlier word Community trade mark EMERGEA – Likelihood of confusion – Refusal to register – 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 74-75, 82)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2004 (Case R 676/2002-1) relating to opposition proceedings between David Branch and Telefónica, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Telefónica, SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark emergia for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 – Application No 1694157 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: David Branch Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark EMERGEA for goods and services in Class 38 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part in so far as concerning ‘telecommunications and communications by computer networks’ in Class 38 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 15 February 2007 – Bodegas Franco-Españolas v OHIM – Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro (ROYAL)

(Case T-501/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark ROYAL – Earlier Community word mark ROYAL FEITORIA – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – 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 52-53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2004 (Case R 513/2002-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro, SA (Real Companhia Velha) and Bodegas Franco-Españolas, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bodegas Franco-Españolas, SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark ROYAL for goods in Class 33 – Application No 1056902 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro, SA (Real Companhia Velha) Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese figurative mark ROYAL BRANDE No 122170, Community word mark ROYAL FEITORIA No 418301 and international word mark ROYAL OPORTO WINE COMPANY (Portugal) No 174788, for goods in Class 33 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld on the basis of Community trade mark No 418301 and registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 October 2004 (Case R 513/2002-1);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 – Merant v OHIM – Focus Magazin Verlag (FOCUS)

(Case T-491/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark FOCUS – Earlier national figurative mark MICRO FOCUS – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/04

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 47-65)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2004 (Case R 542/2002-2) in opposition proceedings between Merant GmbH and Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark FOCUS for goods and services in Classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42 – Application No 53720 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Merant GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: International figurative mark MICRO FOCUS for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 41 et 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH upheld; opposition by Merant GmbH dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2004 (Case R 542/2002-2);

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, Merant GmbH;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 28 March 2007 – Spain v Commission

(Case T‑220/04)

EAGGF – ‘Guarantee’ Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Tomatoes and citrus fruits – Sample checks – Force majeure

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Granting of aid and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks (Commission Regulation No 504/97, Art. 15(1)) (see paras 81-83)

2. Acts of the Community institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures (see para. 89)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (see para. 102)

4. Community law – Principles – Force majeure (see para. 165)

5. Community law – Principles – Force majeure – Meaning (see para. 174-176, 178)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 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 2004 L 40, p. 31).

Operative part

The Court:

Annuls Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in so far as it excludes from Community financing a sum of EUR 979 554.48 corresponding to an adjustment of the aid to Andalusian growers of certain citrus fruits in respect of the financial years 1998 to 2001;

Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 3 July 2007 – Au Lys de France v Commission

(Case T-458/04)

Competition – Dominant position – Market in the supply of sites for the operation of retail businesses at Roissy-Charles-de-Gaulle airport held by the operator Aéroports de Paris – Rejection of a complaint – Action for annulment – No Community interest

1. Procedure – Intervention – Objection of inadmissibility not raised by the defendant – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, fourth para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 113 and 116(3)) (see paras 31-33)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Legal person (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(5)) (see para. 34)

3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Obligation on the Commission to rule by way of a decision on the existence of an infringement – None (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see para. 70)

4. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 72, 103)

5. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Decision to take no further action motivated by the possibility of the claimant bringing the matter before the national courts – Lawfulness (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 83, 90)

6. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 96-97)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 September 2004 to take no further action on the complaint brought by the applicant against the public undertaking Aéroports de Paris for breach of Article 82 EC (Case COMP/D3/38.666 Au Lys de France/Aéroports de Paris).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)

12 December 2007

Case T-307/04

Carlo Pagliacci

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Open competition – Failure to include candidate’s name on the reserve list – Breach of the notice of competition – Qualifications and professional experience required)

Application: for annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition COM/A/1/02, which gave the applicant insufficient points in the tests for his name to be included in the list of successful candidates.

Held: The decision of the selection board in competition COM/A/1/02, which gave Mr Carlo Pagliacci insufficient points in the tests for his name to be included in the list of successful candidates, is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Conditions for admission

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 1)

It is for the selection board in a competition based on qualifications and tests to assess in each case whether the diplomas produced or the professional experience demonstrated by each candidate correspond to the level required by the Staff Regulations and by the notice of competition. It has a broad discretion in that regard and the Court of First Instance must confine itself to examining whether the exercise of that discretion was vitiated by a manifest error.

However, notwithstanding its discretion, the selection board is bound by the wording of the notice of competition as published. Consequently, it commits a manifest error of assessment in allowing a candidate whose degree does not fulfil the conditions of the competition notice to take part in a competition.

(see paras 36-38, 43)

See: T‑158/89 Van Hecken v ESC [1991] ECR II‑1341, para. 22; T‑244/97 Mertens v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑23 and II‑91, para. 44; T‑214/99 Carrasco Benítez v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑257 and II‑1169, para. 69; T‑139/00 Bal v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑33 and II‑139, para. 35; T‑357/00, T‑361/00, T‑363/00 and T‑364/00 Martínez Alarcón and Others v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑37 and II‑161, para. 61 and the case-law cited therein; T‑332/01 Pujals Gomis v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑233 and II‑1155, paras 39 to 41; T‑25/03 deStefano v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑125 and II‑573, para. 34 and the case-law cited therein
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 9 April 2008 – Greece v Commission

(Case T-364/04)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Products processed from fruit and vegetables – Animal premiums – Period of 24 months

1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Products processed from fruit and vegetables – Production aid (Council Regulation No 2201/96, Art. 2; Commission Regulation No 504/97, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 32-33, 57-62, 74, 76)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Principles (Council Regulations Nos 729/70, Art. 3(1), and 1258/1999, Art. 2(2)) (see paras 35-39, 54-56)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulations Nos 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c), and 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), subpara. 5; Commission Regulation No 1663/95, as amended by Regulation No 2245/1999, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 44-45, 87, 98-107, 122, 127, 135, 145)

4. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures (see paras 128-129)

5. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1760/2000; Commission Regulations Nos 3887/92, Art. 6(6a), and 2629/97, Art. 8) (see paras 157, 159)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/561/EC of 16 July 2004 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 2004 L 250, p. 21) inasmuch as it excludes certain expenditure by the Hellenic Republic in the sectors of products processed from fruit and vegetables and animal premiums.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
The Commission has a broad discretion with regard to the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of deciding to award a contract following an invitation to tender, and review by the Court of First Instance must be limited to checking that the rules governing the procedure and statement of reasons are complied with, the facts are correct and there is no manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers.

Where the procurement notice issued in a tendering procedure contains a provision prohibiting entities within the same legal group from participating in the same calls for tenders, in the absence of a definition of the concept of legal group in legislation or in case-law, laying down the criteria applying to such a group, the Commission is required to conduct an examination of each individual case, taking into account all the relevant factors, in order to decide whether the conditions governing the application of that provision have been met. Consequently, in order to recognise the existence of a legal group, the Commission has to determine whether the entities in question are structurally linked, since this factor is liable to give rise to a risk of a conflict of interest or of distorted competition between the tenderers, although other factors can support the examination of structural links, such as those relating to the degree of independence of the entities in question.

The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Community, extends to any individual in a situation where the Community authorities, by giving him precise assurances, have caused him to entertain legitimate expectations. Such assurances, in whatever form they are given, are precise, unconditional and consistent information from authorised and reliable sources. However, a person may not plead breach of the principle unless he has been given precise assurances by the administration.

Decisions of the Commission on successful tenders, taken in connection with the tendering procedure and expressly stating that the signing of the framework contract is subject to the persons concerned producing evidence that they are not in any of the situations corresponding to the grounds for exclusion from the tendering procedure, cannot be regarded as thereby containing precise assurances as to the fact that the framework contract will be signed under any circumstances, and cannot therefore cause the entities in question to entertain legitimate expectations to that effect.

(see paras 88, 90)