natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Complementarity between goods and services was also the subject of two other judgments, which were delivered in cases involving invalidity proceedings.
V sodbi z dne 30. januarja 2008 v zadevi Terezakis proti Komisiji (T-380/04, neobjavljena) je bila pojasnjena izjema v zvezi z varstvom poslovnih interesov.
In Case T-116/06 Oakley vOHIM— Venticinque (O STORE) (judgment of 24 September 2008), the Court established that the relationship between the services provided in connection with the retail
Komisija je namreč tožeči stranki zavrnila dostop do pogodbe, sklenjene med Athens International Airport in konzorcijem Hochtief v zvezi z gradnjo novega atenskega letališča v Spati, ker bi razkritje resno škodovalo poslovnim interesom pogodbenic.
Proceedings trade of certain items of clothing and the items of clothing themselves is closein the sense that the goods are important or even indispensable to the provision of those services.
Dejavnost skrivnost, katere razkritje tretjim osebam lahko škoduje poslovnim interesom tega podjetja.
Such services are provided at the time of sale of those goods and retail trade includes all activity carried out by the trader for the purpose of encouraging the conclusion of a sales transaction.
Čeprav nekateri deli pogodbe vsebujejo podatke v zvezi s pogodbenicami in njihovimi poslovnimi razmerji, pa se na podlagi preizkusa, ki ga je opravila Komisija, nemore konkretno presoditi, ali se navedena izjema dejansko uporablja za vse podatke v pogodbi.
By contrast, that relationship does not exist where the sales services covered by a mark concern accessories and the other mark covers items of clothing and leather goods.
Ker se ni zdelo nemogoče, da bi Komisija navedla razloge, ki utemeljujejo zaupnost v zvezi s celotno pogodbo, ne da bi pri tem razkrila njeno vsebino, in tako odvzela tej izjemi njen bistveni namen, in ker Sodišče prve stopnje ni pristojno, da nadomesti presojo Komisije s svojo, je Sodišče prve stopnje izpodbijano odločbo razglasilo za nično v delu, v katerem je zavrnjen dostop, vsaj delni, do pogodbe.
In Case T-242/07 Weiler vOHIM— IQNet Association— The International Certification Network (Q2WEB) (judgment of 12 November 2008, not published), when stating the reasons for its finding that the goods and services covered by the mark Q2WEB can all be used and/or provided together or consecutively in order to provide consumers with the services in question covered by the mark QWEB Certified Site, the Court pointed out that providers of telecommunication services, in particular telecommunications services through the Internet, such as those covered by the mark QWEB Certified Site, generally supply software to their clients and a maintenance and update service for that software, which is therefore, by definition, important for the use of the telecommunications service provided, and that such software and services form part of the goods and services covered by the mark Q2WEB.
V sodbi Sodiščaprvestopnje z dne 10. septembra 2008 v zadevi Williams proti Komisiji (T-42/05, neobjavljena) se je postavilo vprašanje, ali se lahko odločba, s katero je bil delno zavrnjen dostop do nekaterih dokumentov, ki so bili navedeni v odločbi, razlaga tako, da je bil z molkom zavrnjen dostop do nekaterih vrst drugih dokumentov, kot so dopisi in elektronska pošta, poslani med pripravami za sprejetje Direktive 2001/18/ES29 o GSO, ki pa v odločbi niso bili navedeni, čeprav so bili predmet prošnje za dostop.
The 2008 case-law has also made a contribution to the conceptual comparison between opposing signs in inter partes proceedings.When the Court had to adjudicate on the similarity between the word signs EL TIEMPO and TELETIEMPO, it held, in Case T-233/06 Casa Editorial el Tiempo vOHIM— Instituto Nacional de Meteorología (EL TIEMPO) (judgment of 22 April 2008, not published), that nothing in the wording of the description of the goods and services in question permits the inference that the word ‘tiempo’will necessarily be interpreted in its chronological sense in respect of the mark applied for and in its meteorological sense in respect of the earlier marks.
Sodišče prve stopnje je to vprašanje obravnavalo v treh fazah. Najprej je ugotovilo, da je imela Komisija veliko drugih pripravljalnih dokumentov poleg tistih, ki so bili navedeni v izpodbijani odločbi, in da če se Komisija v zvezi z njimi ni izrekla, se nemore sklepati, da zadevni dokumenti ne obstajajo.
Further, it is apparent from Case T-212/07 Harman International Industries vOHIM— Becker (Barbara Becker) (judgment of 2 December 2008), in which the Court held that, where a word mark consists of two components, one of which is the single component comprising another word mark, it is not necessary that the common component of the conflicting marks is the dominant component in the overall impression created by the composite mark to find a likelihood of confusion.
Nato je Sodišče prve stopnje preverilo, ali je bila prošnja za dostop dovolj natančna, da bi lahko Komisija razumela, da se nanaša na take dokumente.
If such a condition were imposed, even though the common component has an independent distinctive role in the composite mark, the owner of the earlier mark would be deprived of the exclusive right conferred by that mark.
Po preučitvi okoliščin obravnavanega primera je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da je bila, in na podlagi tega sklepalo, da se – zaradi dejstva, da Komisija v izpodbijani odločbi ni navedla vseh internih dokumentov, povezanih s sprejetjem Direktive 2001/18 – v skladu s členom 8 Uredbe št. 1049/2001 šteje, da je bil dostop zavrnjen z molkom organa in zoper tako odločitev je mogoče vložiti tožbo na Sodišču prve stopnje.
Lastly, the Court clarified what is the average consumer’s level of attention when he or she purchases an inexpensive item of furniture.
Nazadnje je Sodišče prve stopnje preučilo, ali se lahko dejstvo, da z izpodbijano odločbo ni bilo omogočeno razkritje navedenih dokumentov, utemelji na podlagi posebnih okoliščin obravnavanega primera, in sicer na podlagi tega, da je prošnja za dostop morebiti obsežna in nenatančna.
Since that consumer acts on the basis of a number of functional and aesthetic considerations, in order to ensure that that furniture is in keeping with other furniture already in his or her possession, the Court held, in Case T-112/06 Inter-IKEA/OHIM—Waibel (idea) (judgment of 16 January 2008, not published), that while the actual act of purchase may be completed quickly in the case of certain items of furniture, the process of comparison and reflection before the choice is made requires, by definition, a high level of attention.
Sodišče prve stopnje je spomnilo, da se možnost, ki jo ima institucija, da tehta interes dostopa javnosti do dokumentov in nastalo delovno obremenitev, uporablja samo izjemoma in da je omejena na primere, v katerih bi ji konkreten in posamičen preizkus dokumentov povzročil nesorazmerno količino upravnega dela, ter ugotovilo, da Komisija ni formalno navedla take izjeme, in na podlagi tega menilo, da Komisija ni utemeljila z molkom zavrnjenega dostopa do dokumentov, ki jih ni navedla v izpodbijani odločbi.
Court ofFirstInstance
Sodišče prve stopnje v zadevi People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran proti Svetu (T-284/08, še neobjavljena), pri čemer je bilo isti tožeči stranki delno ugodeno že leta 200630.
In Case T-325/06 Boston Scientific vOHIM— Terumo (CAPIO) (judgment of 10 September 2008, not published), the Court held that the evidential value of the figures contained in the list of sales of the goods covered by the earlier mark, provided to OHIM by the proprietor of that mark, could be determined by means other than an affidavit or statement as referred to in Article 76(1) of Regulation No 40/94 and in Rule 22 of Regulation No 2868/95 (24).
V prvi sodbi je Sodišče prve stopnje pojasnilo, da mora Svet, ko presoja vprašanje, ali je zamrznitev sredstev osebe, skupine ali organizacije utemeljena oziroma še vedno utemeljena, predvsem oceniti tveganje, da bi se lahko brez takega ukrepa ta sredstva uporabila za ê na nc iran je ali pripravo terorističnih dejanj.
The fact that certain elements of the invoices corresponding to those sales appear in the list is testimony to its consistency and veracity.
Glede vloge Sodiščaprvestopnje široka diskrecijska pravica, ki jo je treba priznati Svetu, ne pomeni, da se mora Sodišče prve stopnje vzdržati nadzora razlage, ki jo je na podlagi upoštevnih podatkov opravila ta institucija.
Further, the fact that an invoice was drawn up shows that the earlier mark was used publicly and externally and not solely within the undertaking which owns the earlier trademark or within a distribution network owned or controlled by that undertaking.
Sodišče Skupnosti mora namreč preveriti ne le vsebinsko pravilnost navedenih dokazov, njihovo zanesljivost in doslednost, ampak tudi, ali vsebujejo vse podatke, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri presoji položaja, in ali lahko utemeljijo iz njih izvedene sklepe.
In Case T-100/06 Rajani vOHIM—Artoz-Papier (ATOZ) (judgment of 26 November 2008, not published), the Court examined the question of the date to be taken into consideration for calculating the beginning of the five-year period during which an earlier mark cannot be made subject to the requirement of evidence of genuine use, where that mark has been the subject of an application for international registration with theWorld Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) which was filed on a certain date, but the mark was granted protection in a Member State at a later date.
Vendar v okviru tega nadzora s svojo presojo o tem, kaj je primerno, nemore nadomestiti presoje Sveta. Poleg tega je Sodišče prve stopnje poudarilo, da kadar ima institucija Skupnosti široko diskrecijsko pravico, je nadzor nad spoštovanjem določenih procesnih jamstev temeljnega pomena.
Having established that the question is a matter for the national law concerned, the Court held that, if, pursuant to that law, protection for an internationally registered trademark is provisionally refused but subsequently granted, the registration is regarded as having taken place on the date of receipt byWIPO of the final notification that protection has been granted.
Sodišče prve stopnje je presodilo, da nadzor nad vprašanjem, ali je imel Svet razumne razloge za ohranitev ukrepa zamrznitve sredstev tožeče stranke v veljavi, neizpodbitno ostaja v mejah sodnega nadzora, ki ga lahko izvaja sodišče Skupnosti, če v bistvenem ustreza preučitvi očitne napake pri presoji.
The Court applied the principles laid down in the judgment of the Court of Justice of
Potem ko je opravilo tak nadzor, je Sodišče prve stopnje razveljavilo enega od izpodbijanih sklepov, ker Svet ni dovolj obrazložil razlogov, zaradi katerih ni upošteval sklepa sodnega organa v Združenem kraljestvu, in sicer Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission (v nadaljevanju: POAC), s katerim je bilo odrejeno, da je treba tožečo stranko izbrisati s seznama terorističnih organizacij v tej državi.
13 March 2007 in OHIM v Kaul (25), when stating, in Case T-420/03 El Corte Inglés vOHIM— Abril Sánchez et Ricote Saugar (BOOMERANGTV) (judgment of 17 June 2008), that, although the
S svojim sklepom je POAC namreč kot nespametno opredelil presojo Home Secretary (ministrstva za notranje zadeve), v skladu s katero je bila tožeča stranka še vedno organizacija, vpletena v terorizem.
Board of Appeal is not required to take into consideration the facts and evidence produced for the first time before it, it is, however, necessary to determine whether, by its refusal, it did not infringe Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94 by considering itself to have no discretion. The Court held that the nature of the facts and evidence in question is only one of the factors which OHIM may take into account when exercising the discretion which it must exercise.
V drugi od navedenih sodb, ki je bila izdana po hitrem postopku naslednji dan po obravnavi, je Sodišče prve stopnje poudarilo nujnost zagotavljanja ustreznega ravnotežja med zahtevami boja proti terorizmu in varstvom temeljnih pravic ter presodilo, da ker je treba omejitve pravic obrambe zadevne organizacije, do katerih je prišlo zaradi ravnanja Sveta, izravnati s strogim neodvisnim in nepristranskim sodnim nadzorom, mora imeti sodišče Skupnosti možnost nadzirati zakonitost in utemeljenost ukrepa zamrznitve sredstev, ne da bi bilo proti njemu mogoče uveljavljati tajnost in zaupnost dokazov in informacij, ki jih je uporabil Svet.
Since the Board of Appeal relied on the fact that the applicant had the opportunity to produce the documents at issue before the Opposition Division, it implicitly took the view that the circumstances of the case precluded their being taken into account.
Sodišče prve stopnje je izpodbijani sklep razglasilo za ničen, ker med drugim Svet odločbe o zamrznitvi sredstev nemore opreti na informacije ali gradivo iz spisa, ki jih je posredovala država članica, če ta država članica nemore odobriti njihovega posredovanja sodišču Skupnosti.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
Sodba Sodiščaprvestopnje z dne 12. decembra 2006 v zadevi Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran proti Svetu (T-228/02, ZOdl., str.
Case C-29/05 P [2007] ECR I-2213.
II-4665) (glej Letno poročilo 2006).
In Case T-160/07 Lancôme vOHIM— CMSHasche Sigle (COLOR EDITION) (judgment of 8 July 2008, under appeal), the Court held that it is apparent from the scheme of Article 55(1) of Regulation No 40/94 that the legislature intended to permit any natural or legal person and any group or body having the capacity to sue or be sued to bring applications for a declaration of invalidity based on absolute grounds for invalidity, and that it is not necessary to demonstrate the existence of an interest in bringing proceedings, whereas, with regard to applications for a declaration of invalidity based on relative grounds for invalidity, it expressly restricted the group of potential applicants for a declaration of invalidity to proprietors of marks or of earlier rights and to licensees.
V sodbi z dne 15. oktobra 2008 v zadevi Mote proti Parlamentu (T-345/05, še neobjavljena) se je Sodišče prve stopnje izreklo o sklepu Parlamenta o odvzemu parlamentarne imunitete enemu od svojih poslancev. V obravnavani zadevi je zoper A. N.
In COYOTE UGLY, the Court held that, although the Board of Appeal is entitled, when it identifies a similarity, even if only partial, between the goods and services at issue in opposition proceedings, to separate of its own motion the services covered by the mark applied for by stating precisely the sub-categories compatible with the earlier mark, it is not required to do so.
Mota, državljana Združenega kraljestva, potekal kazenski postopek, ker naj bi prejel ugodnosti od države na podlagi neresničnih izjav. Po izvolitvi v Evropski parlament se je A. N.
Regulation No 2100/94 (27) on Community plant variety rights allows for the grant of industrial property rights which are valid throughout the Community in respect of plant varieties.
Mote skliceval na privilegije in imunitete, ki jih uživa kot evropski poslanec, in zahteval prekinitev kazenskega postopka.
The implementation and application of this Community regime are carried out by the Community Plant Variety Office (‘the CPVO’), a decentralised Community agency which has its headquarters in Angers (France), and which has been operational since 27 April 1995.
Pristojno nacionalno sodišče ga je prekinilo, ker je menilo, da je varščina, ki je bila izrečena A. N.
Within the CPVO, a Board of Appeal responsible for deciding on appeals against certain types of decisions taken by the CPVO has been established.
Motu, ovira za prosto gibanje poslancev Parlamenta in se zato krši člen 8 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti31.
In accordance with Article 73 of that regulation, an appeal to the Community judicature lies from decisions of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO.
Na zahtevo Združenega kraljestva je Parlament na plenarnem zasedanju odločil, da se A. N.
( EC I ); v 2
Na podlagi ugotovitve, da A. N.
Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P AalborgPortlandand Others v Commission [2004] ECR I-123, and Case C-3/06 P Groupe Danone v Commission [2007] ECR I-1331.
V sodbi z dne 8. julija 2008 v zadevi Franchet in Byk proti Komisiji (T-48/05, še neobjavljena) je Sodišče prve stopnje razlagalo Uredbo (ES) št. 1073/199932, ki ureja inšpekcije, preglede in druge ukrepe, ki jih izvajajo uslužbenci Evropskega urada za boj proti go l ju ê ja m (OLAF)
Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).
Uredba (ES) št. 1073/1999 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. maja 1999 o preiskavah, ki jih izvaja OLAF (UL L 136, str. 1).
During 2008, the Court delivered two initial judgments relating to decisions adopted by the Board of Appeal of the CPVO.
– organa, pristojnega zlasti za izvajanje upravnih preiskav znotraj institucij, namenjenih preiskovanju resnih dejstev, ki lahko pomenijo kršitev obveznosti uradnikov in uslužbencev Skupnosti, pri katerih obstaja možnost uvedbe disciplinskega in v nekaterih primerih kazenskega postopka.
Having had the opportunity to rule principally on admissibility in Case T-95/06 Federación de Cooperativas Agrarias del a Comunidad Valenciana v CPVO — Nador Cott Protection (Nadorcott) (judgment of 31 January 2008) the Court defined the scope of the review which it exercises in this area in Case T-187/06 Schräder v CPVO (SUMCOL 01) (judgment of 19 November 2008).
V tej uredbi je določeno, da je treba te preiskave izvajati v skladu s Pogodbo in zlasti vceloti spoštovati človekove pravice in temeljne svoboščine ter pravico vpletenih oseb, da izrazijo svoje mnenje o dejstvih, ki jih zadevajo.
In that connection, it observed that, when the Community judicature rules on decisions taken by a Community administrative authority on the basis of complex technical assessments, it exercises in principle limited review and does not substitute its assessment of the facts for the assessment made by that authority.
Ker so bile v obravnavanem primeru z več notranjimi revizijami Statističnega urada Evropskih skupnosti (Eurostat) ugotovljene morebitne nepravilnosti v ê na nč nem poslovodenju, je OLAF uvedel več preiskav, med drugim glede pogodb, ki jih je Eurostat sklenil z različnimi družbami.
However, that does not mean it must decline to review the administration’s interpretation of technical data.
OLAF je leta 2002 in 2003 luksemburškim in francoskim pravosodnim organom posredoval spise o preiskavah v zvezi s temi nepravilnostmi, v katerih sta bila omenjena Y. Franchet in D.
That approach may be transposed to cases in which the administrative decision is the result of complex appraisals in scientific domains, such as botany or genetics.
Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo trditev Komisije, da je odškodninska tožba delno prezgodnja, ker nacionalni postopki še vedno potekajo.
In this instance, the appraisal of the distinctive character of a plant variety in the light of the criteria laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2100/94 was of a scientific and technical complexity such as to justify a limit to the scope of review by the courts.
V okviru postopka pred Sodiščem prve stopnje namreč ne gre za vprašanje, ali so očitana dejstva dokazana ali ne, ampak za presojo načina, kako je OLAF vodil in končal preiskavo – v kateri sta Y. Franchet in D.
Those criteria require that it be ascertained whether the candidate variety is clearly distinguishable by reference to the expression of the characteristics that results from a particular genotype or combination of genotypes, from any other variety.
Byk poimensko navedena in na podlagi katere se jima pripisuje odgovornost za nepravilnosti, ki so bile javno ugotovljene precej pred končno odločbo – pa tudi za presojo tega, kako je Komisija ravnala v okviru te preiskave.
On the other hand, appraisal of whether there exists another variety which is a matter of common knowledge in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 7(2) of that regulation does not require expertise or special technical knowledge and is not of a complexity such as to justify a limit to the scope of review by the courts.
Če bi državni pravosodni organi tožeči stranki oprostili obtožb, to namreč ne bi nujno popravilo morebitne škode, ki naj bi jima nastala.
Those criteria merely require it to be ascertained, for example, whether, on the date of application for a plant variety right in respect of the candidate variety, another variety had been the object of a right or was entered in an official register of plant varieties.
Ker se domnevna škoda, navedena pred Sodiščem prve stopnje, razlikuje od tiste, ki bi se lahko dokazala na podlagi oprostitve tožečih strank s strani državnih pravosodnih organov, predlogov o odškodnini ni mogoče zavreči kot prezgodnjih.
Access to documents
Dovolj resna kršitev pravnega pravila, ki posameznikom podeljuje pravice
In Case T-403/05 MyTravel v Commission (judgment of 9 September 2008, under appeal), theCourtofFirstInstance clarified the extent of the right of access provided for by Regulation No 1048/2001 (28) to certain documents appearing in the Commission’s file, in connection with the assessment of the compatibility of a concentration with the common market, and to documents drafted by the Commission’s staff following the annulment of one of its decisions by the Court.
V zvezi z meritorno presojo je Sodišče prve stopnje v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Franchet in Byk proti Komisiji poudarilo, prvič, da bi moral OLAF predhodno obvestitiY. Francheta in D.
That judgment relates to the operation concentrating the undertakings Airtours and First Choice, declared incompatible with the common market by the Commission.
Byka o posredovanju spisov, ki se nanašajo nanju, luksemburškim in francoskim pravosodnim organom in da pravilo, v katerem je predvidena taka obveznost, posameznikom podeljuje pravice.
That decision having been annulled by the Court in Case T-342/99 Airtours v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585, the Commission set up a working group comprising officials of its Directorate-General (DG) for Competition and the legal service in order to consider whether it was appropriate to bring an appeal against that judgment and to assess the implications of that judgment on the procedures for the control of concentrations or in other areas.
Čeprav ima OLAF diskrecijsko pravico, kadar je zaradi preiskave potrebna ohranitev popolne tajnosti, to ne velja v postopku sprejetja sklepa, da se odloži obveščanje zadevnih uradnikov.
MyTravel, the successor in title to Airtours, made a request to the Commission for access to two kinds
Tako neizpolnjevanje te obveznosti predhodnega obveščanja pomeni dovolj resno kršitev.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Drugič, Sodišče prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da v nasprotju z Uredbo št. 1073/1999 nadzorni odbor OLAF ni bil obveščen, preden so bile informacije v zvezi s tožečima strankama posredovane nacionalnim organom.
Proceedings of documents: on the one hand, the working documents and the report drawn up by the working group and, on the other, the documents in the Airtours/First Choice file on which that report was based.
Dejavnost informacij je menilo, da ker Komisija ni predložila nobenega dokaza, na podlagi katerega bi bilo mogoče sklepati, da je vir informacij nekdo drug, je zato odgovoren OLAF.
The Commission refused access to most of those documents on the basis of the exceptions provided for by Regulation No 1049/2001.
Navedena načela posameznikom podeljujejo pravice in njihova kršitev, ki jo je storil OLAF, je dovolj resna glede nato, da mora slednji poskrbeti zato, da do uhajanj ne pride, in da nima diskrecijske pravice v zvezi s spoštovanjem te obveznosti.