Traduction de «Ressort d'arrêt » (Français → Anglais) :

Although the General Court correctly identified, at paragraphs 63 to 67 and 62 to 66 of the judgments in T-109/08 and T-110/08 respectively, the criteria laid down by the case-law, it is apparent from those judgments that the General Court did not follow that case-law in its assessment of the case.

In their view, it followed from the judgment that the only requirement the Court had imposed on the Danish State was that it should, ‘in essence’, comply with the Altmark conditions.

In that regard, the Civil Service Tribunal took the view that while the examiners marking the written tests, in contrast to the members of the selection board sitting in the oral phase, may admittedly not be known to the persons concerned, and are thereby protected from interference and pressures to which the judgment in Parliament v Innamorati, paragraph 16 above, refers, that circumstance does not objectively justify the existence of significant differences between the requirements concerning the statement of reasons in the case of failure in the written phase, as those requirements are formulated in the case-law cited in paragraph 39 ...[+++]of the judgment under appeal, and those advocated by the Commission in the case of failure in the oral test, which, in particular in the instant case, would consist in giving the applicant only his eliminatory individual mark.

Secondly, paragraph 39 of the contested judgment shows that the Court of First Instance considered the evidence summarised at paragraphs 21 and 22 of the contested judgment, but rejected it as not permitting the distinctive character of the marks in question to be established for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

Whether or not the evidence before it is sufficient is a matter to be appraised by it alone and, as already noted at paragraph 39 of this judgment, is not subject to review by the Court of Justice on appeal, except where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted or the substantive inaccuracy of the Court of First Instance’s findings is apparent from the documents in the case-file (Case C‑315/99 P Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [2001] ECR I-5281, paragraph 19, and Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P Glencore and Compagnie Continentale v Commission [2002] ECR I-10119, paragraphs 77 and 78).

In this instance, the Court of First Instance, having examined each of those components separately, then assessed – as is clear from paragraphs 54 to 63 of the judgments under appeal – the overall impression deriving from the shape and other component features of the tablets concerned, as described in paragraph 29 above, in the way required by the case-law referred to in paragraph 44 of this judgment.