natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Καταρχάς, τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο π ρ έ π ε ι ν α π ε ρ ι ο ρ ίζ ε τ α ι β ι ο μ η χ α ν ία θ α μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ό ρ ο υ ς α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ , ε ά ν ν τ ά μ π ι ν γ κ ε ισ α γ ω γ έ ς .
'Toscano' of the name as a protected geographical indication was dismissed as inadmissible because the producers did not have a legal interest in bringing theproceedings (Unione provinciale degli agricoltori di Firenze and Others v Commission).
Δεύτερον, ε φ ό σ ο ν ο ι ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ι ς τ η ς κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ή ς β ι ο μ η χ α ν ία ς έ χ ο υ ν δ ι α φ ο ρ ε τ ικ ό κ ό σ τ ο ς π α ρ α γ ω γ ή ς κ α ι , επομένως, διαφορετικάκέρδη, τ α κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ά ό ρ γ α ν α δ ε ν έ χ ο υ ν ά λ λ η δ υ ν α τ ό τ η τ α , π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ο υ ν α κ α θ ο ρ ί σ ο υ ν τ η ν ε ν δ ε ικ τ ικ ή τ ι μ ή , π α ρ ά ν α υ π ο λ ο γ ί σ ο υ ν τ ο σ τ α θ μ ισ μ έ ν ο μ έ σ ο κ ό σ τ ο ς π α ρ α γ ω γ ή ς τ ο υ σ υ ν ό λ ο υ τ ω ν κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ώ ν π α ρ α γ ω γ ώ ν κ α ι ν α π ρ ο σ θ έ σ ο υ ν σ ' α υ τ ό τ ο μ έ σ ο π ε ρ ι θ ώ ρ ι ο κ έ ρ δ ο υ ς π ο υ τ ο υ ς φ α ί ν ε τ α ι λ ο γ ικ ό , κ α ι τ ο ύ τ ο ε ν ό ψ ε ι τ ο υ σ υ ν ό λ ο υ τ ω ν α σ κ ο υ σ ώ ν ε π ι ρ ρ ο ή π ε ρ ισ τ ά σ ε ω ν . Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο α ν έ φ ε ρ ε ε π ί σ η ς ό τ ι δ ε ν ε π ι τ ρ έ π ε τ α ισ τ ο
The Court found, first, that they used, for the marketing of theirproducts, names other than the name which had been registered for the purposesof Regulation (EEC) No 2081192 27 and, second, that their right to submit anapplication for registration of the names in question as designations of origin orgeographical indications remained unimpaired so that the maintenance in force of Regulation No 644198could in no way affect their interests.
Σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ι ο ν α υ π ο λ ο γ ί σ ε ι τ η ν ε ν δ ε ικ τ ικ ή τ ι μ ή μ ό ν ο β ά σ ε ι υ ψ η λ ό τ ε ρ ο υ κ ό σ τ ο υ ς π α ρ α γ ω γ ή ς , ά λ λ ω ς υ π ά ρ χ ε ικ ί ν δ υ ν ο ς κ α θ ο ρ ί σ ε ι ε ν δ ε ικ τ ικ ή τ ι μ ή η ο π ο ία ν α μ η ν ε ί ν α ι α ν τ ι π ρ ο σ ω π ε υ τ ικ ή τ ο σ ύ ν ο λ ο τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς .
As regards standing to bring proceedings where the measure is of a legislativenature, in Biscuiterie-confiserie LOR and Confiserie du Tech v Commission the Court declared inadmissible an action brought by French confectionery producerswho manufactured"tourons", some with the name "Jijona" and "Alicante".
Τέλος, η α π ό φ α σ η Ρ β Κ ο ί ιώ κ α ιΚ β ρ ι ι Μ ί ο α κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ , η ο π ο ία ε π ικ ύ ρ ω σ ε τ η ν π ρ ο σ β λ η θ ε ί σ α κ α ν ο ν ισ τ ικ ή π ρ ά ξ η ε π ί τ η ς ο υ σ ία ς , δ ι ε υ κ ρ ί ν ισ ε τ η ν έ κ τ α σ η τ ω ν δ ι α δ ικ α σ τ ικ ώ ν δ ικ α ι ω μ ά τ ω ν τ ω ν ε ξ α γ ω γ έ ω ν , τ α ο π ο ία τ ο υ ς α ν α γ ν ω ρ ίζ ε ι ο κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ό ς 384/96.
The action was for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1IO7196 af L2June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations oforigin under the procedure laid down in Article L7 of Regulation No 2081192,, inso far as it registered the names "Turrön de Jijona" and "Turrön de Alicante" as a 1
Σ τ ο ν τ ο μ έ α τ η ς ε ν ε υ ρ ε ία ε ν ν ο ία σ η μ α ν τ ικ ό τ ε ρ ε ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς , α π ό π λ ε υ ρ ά ς α φ ο ρ ο ύ ν τ ο ν τ ο μ έ α τ η ς μ π α ν ά ν α ς .
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July L992 on the protection of geographical indicationsanddesignations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L992L 208, p. 1).
π α ρ α β ά σ ε ω ς τ ω ν ο υ σ ι ω δ ώ ν υ π ο χ ρ ε ώ σ ε ω ν .
protected geographicalindications.
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο , π ο υ θ ε ώ ρ η σ ε ό τ ι η ν ο μ ο λ ο γ ία τ ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ π ε ρ ί σ υ ν ά ψ ε ω ς δ η μ ο σ ί ω ν σ υ μ β ά σ ε ω ν έ ρ γ ω ν μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α τ ύ χ ε ι ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή ς ε ν π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ω , έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ό φ ε ι λ ε ν α π ρ ο σ δ ι ο ρ ί σ ε ισ α φ ώ ς σ τ η ν π ρ ο κ ή ρ υ ξ η τ ο υ δ ι α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ τ ο α ν τ ικ ε ί μ ε ν ο κ α ι τ ο υ ς ό ρ ο υ ς τ ο υ δ ι α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ κ α ι ν α σ υ μ μ ο ρ φ ω θ ε ία υ σ τ η ρ ώ ς σ τ ο υ ς δ ι α τ υ π ω θ έ ν τ ε ς ό ρ ο υ ς , π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ο υ ν α έ χ ο υ ν ό λ ο ι ο ι υ π ο ψ ή φ ι ο ι τ ι ς ί δ ι ε ς ε υ κ α ι ρ ί ε ς κ α τ ά τ η ν υ π ο β ο λ ή τ ω ν π ρ ο σ φ ο ρ ώ ν τ ο υ ς .
The Court found, first, that the contestedregulation was, by nature and by virtue of its sphere of application, of alegislative nature and did not constitute a decision within the meaning of thefourth paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty - it applied to objectivelydetermined situations and produced its legal effects with respect to categories ofpersons envisagedin the abstract,namely any undertaking which manufactured a product having objectively defined characteristics.
Ειδικότερα, η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α τ ρ ο π ο π ο ι ή σ ε ι ε κ τ ω ν υ σ τ έ ρ ω ν τ ο υ ς ό ρ ο υ ς τ ο υ δ ι α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ , ι δ ί ω ς δ ε ε κ ε ί ν ο υ ς π ο υ α φ ο ρ ο ύ σ α ν τ η ν υ π ο β α λ λ ο μ έ ν η π ρ ο σ φ ο ρ ά , κ α τ ά τ ρ ό π ο μ η π ρ ο β λ ε π ό μ ε ν ο σ τ η ν π ρ ο κ ή ρ υ ξ η τ ο υ δ ι α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ , χ ω ρ ί ς ν α π α ρ α β ι ά σ ε ι τ η ν α ρ χ ή τ η ς δ ι α φ ά ν ε ι α ς .
Second, the Court recalledthat it was conceivable that a provision of a legislative nature could be of individual concern to natural or legal persons where it affected them by reasonof certain attributes which were peculiar to them or by reason of factualcircumstances which differentiated them from all other persons and by virtue ofthese factors distinguishedthem individually just as in the case of the addressee of a decision (Case C-309/89 Codorniu v Council U9941 ECR I-1853).
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο , σ τ η ρ ι ζ ό μ ε ν ο σ τ η ν ο μ ο λ ο γ ία τ ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ , έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι η α π ό φ α σ η α υ τ ή τ ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ ε ίχ ε ω ς έ ν ν ο μ η σ υ ν έ π ε ι α ό τ ι ε π ι β ά λ λ ε τ α ισ τ α α ρ μ ό δ ι α ό ρ γ α ν α τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς ν α λ ά β ο υ ν τ α α ν α γ κ α ία μ έ τ ρ α γ ι α τ η θ ε ρ α π ε ία τ η ς δ ι α π ισ τ ω θ ε ί σ α ς ε λ λ ε ίψ ε ω ς ν ο μ ι μ ό τ η τ α ς .
The Court held that the applicants' use for manyyears of the names "Jijona" and "Alicante" when marketing the "tourons" they manufactured did not distinguishthem individually as the applicant had beenin Codorniu v Council, since that undertaking, unlike the applicants, had beenprevented by the legislative provision regulating the use of a designation from using a trade mark which it had registered and used for a long period.
Ε π ε ι δ ή δ ε ν ε ίχ α ν λ η φ θ ε ί τ α α ν α γ κ α ία μ έ τ ρ α , τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο α κ ύ ρ ω σ ε τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η μ ε τ η ν ο π ο ία η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ε ίχ ε α ρ ν η θ ε ί ν α ε ν ε ρ γ ή σ ε ι γ ι α τ η ν ε κ τ έ λ ε σ η τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς τ ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ .
Theapplicants had not shown that the use of the geographical names in respect of which they claimed rights sternmedfrom a similar specific right which they hadacquired at national or Community level before the adoption of the contestedregulation and which had been adversely affected by that regulation.
Κανονισμός(ΕΟΚ) 857/84 τ ο υ Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ , της 31η ς γ ε ν ικ ώ ν κ α ν ό ν ω ν γ ι α τ η ν ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή τ η ς ε ισ φ ο ρ ά ς ά ρ θ ρ ο 5γ τ ο υ κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ 804/68 σ τ ο ν τ ο μ έ α τ ο υ γ α λ α κ τ ο κ ο μ ικ ώ ν π ρ ο ϊό ν τ ω ν (Ε Ε ί 90, σ. 13).
The Court made a similar assessment in CSR P a m p ry I v Commission, where acider producer which, for a number of years, had marketed cider under variousnames including the indication "Pays d'Auge" contested a regulation registeringas a protected designation of origin the names "Pays d'Auge/Paysd'Auge-Cambremer".
Τ ο Ε υ ρ ω π α ϊκ ό Κ ο ι ν ω ν ικ ό Τ α μ ε ί ο (Ε Κ Τ ) σ υ μ μ ε τ έ χ ε ισ τ η χ ρ η μ α τ ο δ ό τ η σ η δ ρ ά σ ε ω ν ε π α γ γ ε λ μ α τ ικ ή ς κ α τ α ρ τ ί σ ε ω ς κ α ι π ρ ο σ α ν α τ ο λ ισ μ ο ύ τ ω ν ο π ο ί ω ν τ η ν π ρ α γ μ α τ ο π ο ί η σ η ε γ γ υ ώ ν τ α ι τ α ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ό μ ε ν α κ ρ ά τ η μ έ λ η .
The Court also found that Regulation No 208ll92 did notlay down specific procedural guarantees,at Community level, for the benefit ofindividuals, so that the admissibility of the action could not be assessed in the light of such guarantees.
Ε π ισ η μ α ί ν ε τ α ι ό τ ι τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο ε ξ έ τ α σ ε , σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο λ ό γ ο υ α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς , τ ο ν ε ύ λ ο γ ο χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α τ ο υ χ ρ ο ν ικ ο ύ δ ι α σ τ ή μ α τ ο ς μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ η ς ε κ μ έ ρ ο υ ς τ η ς π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο υ σ α ς υ π ο β ο λ ή ς τ η ς α ι τ ή σ ε ω ς γ ι α τ η ν π λ η ρ ω μ ή τ ο υ υ π ο λ ο ί π ο υ α π ό τ ι ς ε θ ν ικ έ ς α ρ χ έ ς (Ο κ τ ώ β ρ ι ο ς 1989) κ α ι τ η ς ε κ δ ό σ ε ω ς τ η ς π ρ ο σ β α λ λ ο μ έ ν η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς (Α ύ γ ο υ σ τ ο ς 1996).
While the Court declared the actions brought by Area Cova and others to beinadmissible in its orders in those two cases, it recalled some of the instances inwhich measures of a legislative nature could be of individual concern, within themeaningof the judgment in Codorniu v Council, to applicants other than tradeassociations.
Θεώρησεότι, ε ν ό ψ ε ι μ ι α ς δ ι α δ ο χ ή ς γ ε γ ο ν ό τ ω ν , π ρ ο έ κ υ π τ ε ε ν π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ω ό τ ικ ά θ ε δ ι α δ ικ α σ τ ικ ό σ τ ά δ ι ο π ο υ π ρ ο η γ ή θ η κ ε τ η ς
First, that may be so where an overriding provision of law requiresthe body responsible for the contested measure to take into account the applicant'sparticular circumstances.
α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς ο λ ο κ λ η ρ ώ θ η κ ε ε ν τ ό ς ε κ δ ό σ ε ω ς ε ύ λ ο γ η ς τ η ς π ρ ο σ β α λ λ ο μ έ ν η ς π ρ ο θ ε σ μ ία ς .
capable of distinguishing that person individually with regard to the measure inquestion unless the applicable Community legislation grants him certainprocedural guarantees.
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο , π α ρ α π έ μ π ο ν τ α ς σ τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 12η ς Ι α ν ο υ α ρ ί ο υ 1995, Τ-85/94, Β τ α η ο ο κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς (Συλλογή 1995, σ.
Third, the economic impact of a contested regulation onan applicant's interests is not such as to distinguishit individually where it is notplaced in a situation similar to the very special situation of the applicant in Case
Ό μ ω ς σ τ η ν π ε ρ ί π τ ω σ η α υ τ ή , τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ ε ό τ ι ο ι π ρ ο ϋ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς α υ τ έ ς δ ε ν π λ η ρ ο ύ ν τ α ν ω ς π ρ ο ς δ ι ά φ ο ρ ε ς μ ε ιώ σ ε ι ς τ ω ν π ο σ ώ ν π ο υ ζ η τ ο ύ σ ε η π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο υ σ α μ ε τ η ν α ί τ η σ η π ε ρ ί π λ η ρ ω μ ή ς τ ο υ υ π ο λ ο ί π ο υ .
Finally, while the Court dismissed the actions asinadmissible, it nevertheless stated that the applicants could challenge themeasures adopted on the basis of the Community legislation before the nationalcourts and call into question there the validity of that legislation.
Τ ο τ ι ς μ ε ο ι ο π ο ί ε ς ζ η τ ή θ η κ ε τ ω ν ο π ο ί ω ν η α κ ύ ρ ω σ η ε ί τ ε ή τ α ν α π ο δ έ κ τ ε ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ν ε ί τ ε π ρ ά ξ ε ω ν κ α ν ο ν ισ τ ικ ο ύ π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο ν τ ε ς δ ε ν χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α .
2e In order to reach thisconclusion, the Court, after stating that the contested measure did not amount toa decision within the meaning of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, found that theapplicant had established the existence of a series of factors resulting in aparticular situation which, as regards the measure in question, differentiated itfrom all other traders.
Σετρεις υποθέσεις, ο ι π ρ ο σ φ υ γ έ ς α π ο ρ ρ ί φ θ η κ α ν μ ε τ η ν [σ τ ο ν τ ο μ έ α τ ω ν κ ρ α τ ικ ώ ν ε ν ισ χ ύ σ ε ω ν , βλ.
The Court noted in this connection that the contestedregulation was adopted after a formal request by the applicant for a maximumresidue limit to be fixed for a chemical compound, on the basis of the file whichit had submitted in accordance with Regulation No 237719A.
Ώ β ΐ ί Κ ο η β Γ Ε ι φ ία Η τ ί-Ό η ί β π ι β η π ί β η α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς τ η ς 8η ς Ι ο υ λ ί ο υ 1999, Συμβουλίου (αναιρεσιβληθείσαστην
The Court alsopointedout that Regulation No 2377190provided for the involvement of theapplicant, as the undertaking responsible for the marketing of the veterinarymedicinal products concerned, in the procedure for establishing maximum residuelimits.
0-352/99 Ρ), κ α ι Τ -158/95, Εήάαηία κ λ π κ α τ ά
Furthermore, relying on the judgment in Case T-120196 Lilly Industries
0-351/99 Ρ), ο ι ο π ο ί ε ς δ ε ν ά λ λ ε ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς μ ε τ η ν σ ε
The applicants were Spanish shipowners contesting: (i) Council Regulation (EC) No 7761/95 of 29 June
Τέλος, μετηναπόφασητης 1η ς Δ ε κ ε μ β ρ ί ο υ 1999, τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι η π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ ή τ α ν π α ρ α δ ε κ τ ή (υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς Τ -125/96 κ α ι Τ -152/96, Β ο ε Η ή π ^ε Γ Ι η ξ ε Ι Η ε ί η τ Υ ε ί π τ ε ά ί ο α κ α ι Ο Η .
1995 amending, for the second time, Regulation (EC) No 3366/94 laying down for 1995 certainconservation and management measures for fishery resources in the Regulatory Area as defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Norttr-WestAtlantic Fisheries (OJ 1995 L 171, p.
Β ο ε Η $ά η %ε γ 5 ο Η η κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ κ α ι Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ).
1)(Case T-194l95); and (ii) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2565/95 of 30 October 1995 concerning thestopping of fishing for Greenland halibut by vessels flying the flag of a Member State (OJ 1995 L 262, p. 27) (CaseT-12196).
Τ έ τ ο ι α π ε ρ ί π τ ω σ η μ π ο ρ ε ί , καταρχάς, ν α σ υ ν τ ρ έ χ ε ι ό τ α ν υ φ ί σ τ α τ α ι ι ε ρ α ρ χ ικ ά α ν ώ τ ε ρ η δ ι ά τ α ξ η δ ικ α ί ο υ ε π ι β ά λ λ ο υ σ α σ τ ο ν ν ο μ ο β έ τ τ ] ν α λ ά β ε ι υ π ό ψ η τ η ν ι δ ι α ί τ ε ρ η κ α τ ά σ τ α σ η
No 2377190laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits ofveterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ 1996 L 170, p. 8).
Εξωσυμβατική ε υ θ ύ ν η τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς
While several applications for the Community to be held liable were dismissed inthe course of the year (udgments in Case T-1196 Böcker-Lensing and
Καίτοι, στηδιάρκειατουέτους, α π ο ρ ρ ί φ θ η κ α ν π ο λ λ έ ς α γ ω γ έ ς μ ε τ ι ς ο π ο ί ε ς ζ η τ ή θ η κ ε ν α α ν α γ ν ω ρ ισ τ ε ί η ε υ θ ύ ν η τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς [α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς τ η ς 13η ς Ι α ν ο υ α ρ ί ο υ 1999, Τ-1/96, Β ό ο Ι ί β Γ - Ε β η Ξ ί η^ κ α ι $ο Η ι ύ ζ β - Β ι β ή η % κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ , Συλλογή 1999, σ.
Schulze-Bieringv Council and Commission_BAR_9991 ECR II-1, in Case T-230195BAI v Commission and of 15 June L999 in Case T-277197 Ismeri Europav Court of Auditors, not yet reported in the ECR (under appeal, Case C-3I5199 P); orderof 4 August 1999 in CaseT-106/98 Fratelli Murriv Commission, not yet reportedin the ECR (under appeal, Case C-399199P)), the Court held in its judgment of
Σ τ η ν τ ε λ ε υ τ α ία α υ τ ή υ π ό θ ε σ η , ηενάγουσα, ε τ α ι ρ ία π α ρ ο χ ή ς σ υ μ β ο υ λ ώ ν η ο π ο ία ε ίχ ε ε π ι λ ε γ ε ί γ ι α ν α θ έ σ ε ισ ε ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή έ ν α ε ι δ ικ ό π ρ ό γ ρ α μ μ α σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο τ ο υ π ρ ο γ ρ ά μ μ α τ ο ς Ρ Η Α Κ Ε , ζ η τ ο ύ σ ε ν α υ π ο χ ρ ε ω θ ε ί η Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ν α α π ο κ α τ α σ τ ή σ ε ι τ ι ς ζ η μ ί ε ς π ο υ τ η ς ε ίχ ε π ρ ο ξ ε ν ή σ ε ι η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή , αφενός, α π ο σ τ έ λ λ ο ν τ α ς σ ε δ ι ά φ ο ρ ο υ ς σ υ ν τ ο ν ισ τ έ ς τ ο υ π ρ ο γ ρ ά μ μ α τ ο ς τ η λ ε ο μ ο ι ο τ υ π ία π ε ρ ι έ χ ο υ σ α δ ι ά φ ο ρ ε ς κ α τ η γ ο ρ ί ε ς ε ν α ν τ ί ο ν τ η ς κ α ισ υ ν ισ τ ώ ν τ α ς ν α μ η λ α μ β ά ν ο υ ν υ π ό ψ η τ ι ς π ρ ο σ φ ο ρ έ ς π ο υ ε ν δ ε χ ο μ έ ν ω ς θ α υ π έ β α λ λ ε σ τ ο μ έ λ λ ο ν , ε ν ώ δ ε ν ε ίχ ε δ ι ε ξ α γ ά γ ε ικ α μ ία έ ρ ε υ ν α κ α ι δ ε ν ε ίχ ε α κ ο ύ σ ε ι τ η ν ε ν ά γ ο υ σ α , και, αφετέρου, κ ο ι ν ο π ο ιώ ν τ α ς κ α θ υ σ τ ε ρ η μ έ ν α δ ι ο ρ θ ω τ ικ ή α ν α κ ο ί ν ω σ η .
In that last case, the first applicant, a consultancy chosen to implement a specificprogralnme within the framework of the PHARE prograrnme, claimed that the Community should make good the harm which the Commission had caused it,first, by sendinga fax to a number of prograrnme coordinators which containedaccusations against it and recommendedthat they should not consider proposalswhich it might submit in the future, even though no investigation had taken placeand it had not been given the opportunity to be heard and, second, by sending arectification after undue delay.
Ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ ο ν π ρ ώ τ ο ισ χ υ ρ ισ μ ό π ε ρ ί π α ρ α ν ό μ ο υ σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά ς , τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο π α ρ α τ ή ρ η σ ε , μεταξύάλλων, ό τ ι η τ ή ρ η σ η τ η ς α ρ χ ή ς τ η ς χ ρ η σ τ ή ς δ ι ο ικ ή σ ε ω ς ε π έ β α λ λ ε σ τ η ν Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ν α δ ι ε ξ α γ ά γ ε ι έ ρ ε υ ν α ε π ί τ ω ν υ π ο τ ι θ ε μ έ ν ω ν α ν τ ικ α ν ο ν ικ ώ ν ε ν ε ρ γ ε ιώ ν τ η ς ε ν ά γ ο υ σ α ς , σ τ η δ ι ά ρ κ ε ι α τ η ς ο π ο ία ς ό φ ε ι λ ε ν α α κ ο ύ σ ε ι τ η ν ε ν ά γ ο υ σ α , κ α θ ώ ς κ α ι ε π ί τ ω ν ε π ι π τ ώ σ ε ω ν π ο υ η σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά τ η ς θ α μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α έ χ ε ισ τ η ν ε ικ ό ν α τ η ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ς .
As regards the first unlawful act alleged, the Court found, in particular, that observance of the principle of soundadministration required the Commission to conduct an inquiry into the allegedirregularities committed by the first applicant, in the course of which it wouldhave been given the opportunity to be heard, and to consider the effects that itsconduct could have had on the image of the undertaking. On the other hand, thesecond allegation of unlawful conduct was not upheld because the rectificationwas made immediately after the Commission realised its error.
Αντιθέτως, ο δ ε ύ τ ε ρ ο ς ισ χ υ ρ ισ μ ό ς π ε ρ ί π α ρ α ν ό μ ο υ σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά ς τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς δ ε ν έ γ ι ν ε δ ε κ τ ό ς , κ α θ ό σ ο ν η δ ι ό ρ θ ω σ η ε ίχ ε γ ί ν ε ι α μ έ σ ω ς μ ό λ ι ς α ν α κ α λ ύ φ θ η κ ε τ ο σ φ ά λ μ α .
The Court thenheld that the harm to the image of the first applicant, which pursued activitieswithin the context of the PHARE programme, and the non-pecuniary harmsuffered by its managerhad been established.
Ε φ ό σ ο ν ο ι ε ν ά γ ο ν τ ε ς α π έ δ ε ι ξ α ν τ η ν ύ π α ρ ξ η α ι τ ιώ δ ο υ ς σ υ ν ά φ ε ι α ς , τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο , κ α τ ό π ι ν ε κ τ ι μ ή σ ε ω ς τ η ς ζ η μ ία ς κ α ι τ η ς η θ ικ ή ς β λ ά β η ς , υ π ο χ ρ έ ω σ ε τ η ν Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ν α κ α τ α β ά λ ε ισ υ ν ο λ ικ ή α π ο ζ η μ ί ω σ η 125 000 ευρώ.
causallink, the Court assessed the damages and ordered the Commission to paythem a total of EUR 125 000.
Η π ρ ώ τ η π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή π ο υ α σ κ ή θ η κ ε κ α τ ά α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς ε ν ό ς τ ω ν τ μ η μ ά τ ω ν π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ώ ν τ ο υ Γ ρ α φ ε ί ο υ Ε ν α ρ μ ο ν ί σ ε ω ς σ τ η ν Ε σ ω τ ε ρ ικ ή Α γ ο ρ ά (σ τ ο ε ξ ή ς : ΓΕΕΑ) πρωτοκολλήθηκεστις 6 Οκτωβρίου 1998.
The first action challenging a decision of one of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market ("the Office") was lodged on 6October 1998.
Αντιθέτως, τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο κ α τ έ κ ρ ι ν ε α υ τ ό ε ίχ ε α π ο ρ ρ ίψ ε ι ω ς α π α ρ ά δ ε κ τ η π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο υ σ α ς .
On 8 July 1999 the Court gave judgment in that case (Case T-163198 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Baby-Dry), not yet reported in the ECR; under appeal, Case C-383/99P).
Συγκεκριμένα, το δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ι ς κ α ι α π ό τ η ν τ ο τ μ ή μ α π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ώ ν ε ν π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ω , στονα ο ικ ο ν ο μ ία τ ο υ κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ 40/94 π ρ ο κ ύ π τ ε ι ό τ ι δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α π ε ρ ι ο ρ ισ τ ε ί , ό π ω ς τ ο έ π ρ α ξ ε α π ο ρ ρ ίψ ε ι τ η ν ε π ιχ ε ι ρ η μ α τ ο λ ο γ ία α υ τ ή γ ι α τ ο ν δ ε ν ε ίχ ε α ν α π τ υ χ θ ε ί ε ν ώ π ι ο ν τ ο υ ε ξ ε τ α σ τ ή .
The action arose from a decision of the Board of Appeal dismissingthe appeal brought by the applicant against the refusal of the examinerto registerthe term "Baby-Dry" for "disposable diapers made out of paper or cellulose" and"diapers made out of textile", on the ground that that term was not capable ofconstituting a Community trade mark.
λ ό γ ο κ α ι ό τ ι μ ό ν ο ν α π ό τ η ν
The Court confirmed that analysis.
Ύ σ τ ε ρ α ε ξ έ τ α σ η τηςπροσφυγής, σ' αυτό ε ν α π έ κ ε ι τ ο ε ί τ ε ν α
Having considered the appeal, it should either have ruledon the substance or have remitted the matter to the examiner.
ε π ί τ η ς ουσίας, είτε ν α α ν α π έ μ ψ ε ι τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η σ τ ο ν αποφανθείεξεταστή.
A large number of judgments were again delivered in staff cases.
Ο ι υ π α λ λ η λ ικ έ ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς έ δ ω σ α ν σ τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο τ η ν ε υ κ α ι ρ ία ν α ε κ δ ώ σ ε ισ η μ α ν τ ικ έ ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς .
The first concerns the extent of the freedom of expression enjoyed by Communityofficials (Joined CasesT-34196 and T-163196 Connolly v Commission U9991
1999, σ.
Page 135
11-463 (α ν α ι ρ ε σ ι β λ η θ ε ί σ α σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η 0-274/99 Ρ)].
ECR-SC II-463; under appeal, Case C-274199P).
Μ ε τ ά τ η ν ε π α ν έ ν τ α ξ η τ ο υ σ τ ι ς υ π η ρ ε σ ί ε ς τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , κ ι ν ή θ η κ ε ε ν α ν τ ί ο ν τ ο υ π ε ι θ α ρ χ ικ ή δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία λ ό γ ω π α ρ α β ά σ ε ω ς τ ω ν υ π ο χ ρ ε ώ σ ε ω ν π ο υ ε π ι β ά λ λ ο ν τ α ι α π ό τ ο ν Κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ό Υ π η ρ ε σ ι α κ ή ς Κ α τ α σ τ ά σ ε ω ς τ ω ν υ π α λ λ ή λ ω ν τ ω ν Ε υ ρ ω π α ϊκ ώ ν Κ ο ι ν ο τ ή τ ω ν (Κ Υ Κ ).
On his return to work, he was subject to disciplinaryproceedings for infringement of the obligations imposed by the StaffRegulationsof Officials of the European Communities.
Η δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία α υ τ ή κ α τ έ λ η ξ ε σ τ η ν α ν ά κ λ η σ η τ ο υ υ π α λ λ ή λ ο υ , ι δ ί ω ς δ ι ό τ ι ε ίχ ε π α ρ α λ ε ίψ ε ι ν α ζ η τ ή σ ε ι ά δ ε ι α γ ι α ν α δ η μ ο σ ι ε ύ σ ε ι τ ο έ ρ γ ο τ ο υ , τ ο π ε ρ ι ε χ ό μ ε ν ο τ ο υ ο π ο ί ο υ έ β λ α π τ ε , κ α τ ά τ η ν ά π ο ψ η τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , τ ο ν σ κ ο π ό τ η ς υ λ ο π ο ι ή σ ε ω ς τ η ς Ο ικ ο ν ο μ ικ ή ς κ α ι Ν ο μ ισ μ α τ ικ ή ς Ε ν ώ σ ε ω ς , μ ε τ η ν π ρ ο ώ θ η σ η τ ο υ ο π ο ί ο ν ή τ α ν ε π ι φ ο ρ τ ισ μ έ ν ο ς ο υ π ά λ λ η λ ο ς , κ α θ ώ ς κ α ι τ η ν ε ικ ό ν α κ α ι τ η φ ή μ η τ ο υ ο ρ γ ά ν ο υ .
Those proceedings resulted in hisbeing removed from his post, in particular because he had failed to ask forpermission to publish his work, whose content, according to the Commission, wasprejudicial to the realisationof economic and monetary union, which he had thetask of bringing about, and to the institution's image and reputation.
Επιπλέον, η ό λ η σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά τ ο υ υ π α λ λ ή λ ο υ κ ρ ί θ η κ ε ω ς θ ί γ ο υ σ α τ η ν α ξ ι ο π ρ έ π ε ι α τ ο υ λ ε ι τ ο υ ρ γ ή μ α τ ο ς τ ο υ .
In addition,his conduct as a whole was considered to have harmedthe dignity of his post.
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο , επιληφθέν, μεταξύάλλων, α ι τ ή μ α τ ο ς α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς τ η ς γ ν ω μ ο δ ο τ ή σ ε ω ς τ ο υ π ε ι θ α ρ χ ικ ο ύ σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ κ α ι τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς π ε ρ ία ν α κ λ ή σ ε ω ς , επικύρωσε, καταρχάς, τ η ν π ρ ο β λ ε π ό μ ε ν η σ τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 11 τ ο υ Κ Υ Κ α π α γ ό ρ ε υ σ η γ ι α τ ο υ ς υ π α λ λ ή λ ο υ ς ν α δ έ χ ο ν τ α ι , χωρίςάδεια, α μ ο ι β έ ς α π ό π η γ ή ξ έ ν η π ρ ο ς τ ο ό ρ γ α ν ο τ ο υ ς (ε ν π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ω , δ ικ α ιώ μ α τ α τ ο υ δ η μ ι ο υ ρ γ ο ύ ).
First, the Court confirmed that, as laid down in Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, officials couldnot accept payment (in this instance royalties) from a source outside the institutionwithout permission.
Στησυνέχεια, τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι η ε λ ε υ θ ε ρ ία ε κ φ ρ ά σ ε ω ς , θ ε μ ε λ ιώ δ ε ς δ ικ α ί ω μ α τ ο υ ο π ο ί ο υ α π ο λ α ύ ο υ ν κ α ι ο ικ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ο ί υ π ά λ λ η λ ο ι , δενεθίγη.
Next, it held that freedom of expression,a fundamental right also enjoyed by Community officials, had not been infringed.