do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-131/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Mohr & Sohn v Commission (Inland waterway transport — Community-fleet capacity — Conditions for putting new vessels into service ( ‘old for new’ rule) — Commission decision not to grant the specialised vessels exemption — Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 718/1999)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: carriage of goods, inland waterway fleet, inland waterway transport, transport regulations








C_2010301EN.01002302.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/23





Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Mohr & Sohn v Commission
(Case T-131/07) (1)

(Inland waterway transport - Community-fleet capacity - Conditions for putting new vessels into service (‘old for new’ rule) - Commission decision not to grant the specialised vessels exemption - Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 718/1999)
2010/C 301/36
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Paul Mohr & Sohn, Baggerei und Schiffahrt (Niederwalluf, Germany) (represented by: F. von Waldstein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG (2007) D/200972 of 28 February 2007 not to grant to the vessel ‘Niclas’ the specialised vessels exemption, pursuant to Article 4(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The application is dismissed;










2.


Paul Mohr & Sohn, Baggerei und Schiffahrt is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.
Case C-439/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — SC DRA SPEED Srl v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle, pollution, tax system








C_2010328EN.01001302.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — SC DRA SPEED Srl v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
(Case C-439/10)
()
2010/C 328/24
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SC DRA SPEED SRL

Respondents: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

Questions referred







1.


Does the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State, which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008 and which may constitute an internal tax on goods coming from other Member States, account being taken of the fact that the tax is not levied upon the re-registering in Romania of a motor vehicle which has the same characteristics as an imported second-hand motor vehicle?










2.


Does the second paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State and which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, account being taken of the fact that exemption from payment of the pollution tax was granted under Government Emergency Order No 218/2008 for the category of motor vehicle which possesses the technical characteristics of the motor vehicles manufactured in Romania?
Case T-391/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Nedri Spanstaal v Commission
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, fine, infringement of EU law








C_2010301EN.01004801.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/48





Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Nedri Spanstaal v Commission
(Case T-391/10)
()
2010/C 301/76
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Nedri Spanstaal BV (Venlo, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Slotboom and B. Haan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare the action admissible;










—


annul Article 1(9) of the Commission’s decision with regard to the period of time in respect of which Hit Groep was found liable, and Article 2(9) of the decision with regard to the fine imposed on Nedri;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment in part of the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel.
In support of its action, the applicant has submitted three pleas in law.
First, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicant, the Commission committed errors of law and of fact by finding Hit Groep jointly and severally liable only for the period from 1 January 1998 to 17 January 2002. In the applicant’s view, the Commission should have found Hit Groep liable for the period from 1 May 1987 to 17 January 2002 since Hit Groep had control of the applicant throughout the whole of that period.
Second, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, of the Guidelines on setting fines, (2) of the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicant, the Commission committed errors of law and of fact by applying the legal maximum of the amount of the fine, that is 10 % of turnover in the preceding business year, to the applicant’s turnover in 2009. The legal maximum should have been applied to the applicant’s turnover in 2002.
Third, the applicant alleges infringement of point 23 of the Leniency Notice (3) and of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicant, the Commission committed errors of law and of fact by granting the applicant only a 25 % reduction of the fine, instead of 30 %.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).

(3)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).
Case T-135/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Schniga v CPVO — Elaris and Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the Gala Schnitzer apple variety — Technical examination — Discretion of the CPVO — Objections — Article 55(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Community Plant Variety Office, action for annulment (EU), crop production, designation of origin, infringement of EU law








C_2010301EN.01002602.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/26





Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Schniga v CPVO — Elaris and Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)
(Case T-135/08) (1)

(Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the Gala Schnitzer apple variety - Technical examination - Discretion of the CPVO - Objections - Article 55(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94)
2010/C 301/42
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: B. Kiewiet and M. Ekvad, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, interveners before the General Court: Elaris SNC (Angers, France), and Brookfield New Zealand Ltd (Havelock North, New Zealand) (represented by: M. Eller, lawyer)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 21 November 2007 (Cases A 003/2007 and A 004/2007), concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right for the Gala Schnitzer plant variety.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court






1.


Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 21 November 2007 (Cases A 003/2007 and A 004/2007);










2.


Orders the CPVO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Schniga GmbH;










3.


Orders Elaris SNC and Brookfield New Zealand Ltd to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.
Case T-97/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — KUKA Roboter v OHIM (Shade of orange) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a shade of orange — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, industrial robot, service, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01002601.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/26





Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — KUKA Roboter v OHIM (Shade of orange)
(Case T-97/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a shade of orange - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 301/41
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: KUKA Roboter GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Kohn and B. Hannemann, lawyers)

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

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 December 2007 (Case R 1572/2007-4), concerning an application for registration of a shade of orange as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders KUKA Roboter GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.
Case T-279/04: Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 — Éditions Jacob v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — French-language publishing — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets — Action for annulment brought by an unsuccessful prospective purchaser — Obligation to state reasons — Fraud — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: communications industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, publishing








C_2010301EN.01002001.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/20





Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 — Éditions Jacob v Commission
(Case T-279/04) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - French-language publishing - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets - Action for annulment brought by an unsuccessful prospective purchaser - Obligation to state reasons - Fraud - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89)
2010/C 301/29
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: O. Fréget, W. van Weert, I. de Seze, M. Struys, M. Potel and L. Eskenazi, lawyers

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Whelan, O. Beynet, A. Bouquet and F. Arbault, then A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)
Intervener in support of the defendant: Lagardère SCA (Paris) (represented by: initially A. Winckler and I. Girgenson, then A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J.-B. Pinçon, lawyers

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP) (OJ 2004 L 125, p. 54).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission and Lagardère SCA.






(1)  OJ C 262, of 23.10.2004.
Case T-417/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Cortés del Valle López v OHIM (HIJOPUTA)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Spain, action for annulment, beverage, franchising, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01005901.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/59





Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Cortés del Valle López v OHIM (HIJOPUTA)
(Case T-417/10)
()
2010/C 301/94
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Federico Cortés del Valle López (Maliaño, Spain) (represented by J. Calderón Chavero, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 June 2010 in case R 175/2010-2;










—


consequently, annul the OHIM examiner’s decision of 24 November 2009;










—


uphold the applicant’s claims;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings should they be contested and reject its contentions.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA’ for goods and services in Classes 33, 35 and 39.

Decision of the Examiner: Application for a Community trade mark refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: No infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) as the mark applied for is not contrary to accepted principles of morality.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-397/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — ara v OHIM — Allrounder (Representation of a sports shoe bearing the letter A on the side)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, footwear industry, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01005102.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/51





Action brought on 13 September 2010 — ara v OHIM — Allrounder (Representation of a sports shoe bearing the letter A on the side)
(Case T-397/10)
()
2010/C 301/82
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: ara AG (Langenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Allrounder SARL (Saarburg, France)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 June 2010 in Case R 1543/2009-1;










—


order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Allrounder SARL.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a sports shoe with the letter ‘A’ on the side, for goods and services in classes 16, 18 and 25.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘A’ for goods in classes 9, 18 and 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed as inadmissible.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) in so far as the Board of Appeal incorrectly proceeded on the basis that the office arrangements as described by the appellant’s representatives were not such as to prove that all due care required by the circumstances was taken, and accordingly rejected the application for re-establishment of the appellant’s rights with respect to the time-limit for production of the statement of grounds of appeal.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-389/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — SLM v Commission
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, fine, infringement of EU law








C_2010301EN.01004602.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/46





Action brought on 13 September 2010 — SLM v Commission
(Case T-389/10)
()
2010/C 301/74
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) (Ceprano, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer, and F. Covone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final, adopted on 30 June 2010 in Case COMP.38.344 — Pre-stressing steel;










—


in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-385/10 Arcelormittal Wire France and Others v Commission.
The applicant company submits:






 


In support of its claim that the decision should be annulled: the unusual and unjustifiable length of the administrative procedure, which seriously compromised the applicant’s exercise of the rights of defence, especially in relation to the facts of the two-year period from 1997 to 1999, that is to say, facts pre-dating by 10 years the statement of objections of September 2008.










 


In support of its claim that the fine should be reduced:






 


Failure to state adequate reasons for the quantification of the penalty, in so far as it remains unclear on the basis of which calculation and which turnover the Commission penalised the applicant.










 


Breach of the upper limit of 10 % of turnover.










 


Failure to state adequate reasons for the increases applied.










 


Misapplication of the 2006 Guidelines on the setting of fines, and also the 1998 Guidelines, in force not only at the material time, but also during the first four years of the procedure.










 


Erroneous assessment of the duration of the applicant’s participation in the cartel, not based on objective findings.










 


Failure on a number of occasions to take account of mitigating circumstances: the demonstrably secondary role played by the applicant in the events at issue; the applicant’s limited market share; and the ineffectiveness of the cartel.










 


The Commission is now time-barred, since no measure was adopted to stop time from running during the five-year period following the surprise inspection.