ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/34

Action brought on 8 January 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-9/10)

2010/C 80/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul OPOCE’s decision to reject the applicant’s bid, filed in response to the open call for tenders AO 10224 for the ‘Provision of electronic publications’ (1) Lot 2, communicated to the Applicant by a letter dated 29 October 2009 and all further related decisions of OPOCE including the one to award the contact to the successful contractors;

— annul OPOCE’s decision to award contracts to Siveco/Intrasoft and Engineering/Intrasofitn, the field of the abovementioned call for tenders Lot 3, communicated to the Applicant by a letter dated 29 October 2009, in case one company is directly or indirectly associated to both framework contracts;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 260 760;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision to reject its bid submitted in response to a call for an open tender for services of electronic publications (AO 10224) (Lot 2) and to award the contract to the successful contractor (Lot 2 and 3). The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.

In support of its claims the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

First, the applicant argues that the defendant committed various and manifest errors of assessment and that it refused to provide sufficient justification or explanation to the applicant in breach of the financial regulation (2) and its implementing rules as well as in breach of directive 2004/18/EC (3) and of Article 253 EC.

Second, it contends that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and failed to state reasons in respect of the applicant’s bid as the negative considerations given by evaluation committee were vague, unsubstantiated wrong and unfounded.

(1) OJ 2009/S 109-156511

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

(3) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/45

Action brought on 10 February 2010 — Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi and Leali v Commission

(Case T-56/10)

2010/C 80/71

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA in liquidazione (Brescia, Italy) and Leali SpA (Odolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission’s decision of 8 December 2009 amending the earlier decision C(2009) 7492 final adopted by the Commission on 30 September 2009;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those advanced in Case T-55/10 SP v Commission.
First, the applicants submit that the Commission committed an infringement of law in adopting a fining decision against the applicants in breach of the rules on limitation contained in Articles 25(5) and 25(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (hereinafter ‘Regulation No 1/2003’) on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 EC (now 101 and 102 TFEU) (1). According to Article 25(5) of Regulation No 1/2003, the absolute limitation period beyond which the Commission may not impose sanctions for antitrust violations is 10 years from the date that the infringement ceased. Accordingly, the applicants put forward that the decision taken over 11 years after the end of the applicants’ infringement (2 October 1998) was adopted in violation of the said provision. Further, the applicants submit that the Commission’s position on the legality of the fine despite the expiry of the ten year period rests on its erga omnes interpretation of the suspension of the limitation period provided for in Article 25(6) of Regulation No 1/2003, which, according to the applicants is flawed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/49

Action brought on 11 February 2010 — Phoenix-Reisen and DRV v Commission

(Case T-58/10)

2010/C 113/79

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Phoenix-Reisen GmbH (Bonn, Germany) and Deutscher Reiseverband eV (DRV) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Gerharz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the defendant’s decision of 20 November 2009, notified by letter of 11 December 2009, by which it refused to take action against State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany in the form of insolvency payments;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants’ action is directed against Commission Decision C(2009) 8707 final of 19 November 2009 concerning State aid NN 55/2009 — Germany; alleged State aid in the form of insolvency payments and the financing thereof. The Commission came to the conclusion in that decision that the measure in question does not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC.

In support of their claim, the applicants maintain that the subsidisation of insolvent undertakings cannot be justified on the basis of Directive 80/987/EEC (1) as it serves solely to protect the employees of the insolvent undertaking, not the undertaking itself. The applicants take the view that the legal practice applied in the Federal Republic of Germany is such that insolvent undertakings profit directly from insolvency payments. Furthermore, the applicants submit that examples from other countries in the Community show that Directive 80/987/EEC can be transposed without competitors being unlawfully subsidised as a result.

(1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/57

Action brought on 16 February 2010 — Bell & Ross v OHIM — Klockgrossisten i Norden (Representation of a watch)

(Case T-80/10)

2010/C 113/88

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Bell & Ross BV (Zoetermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Guerlain, lawyer)

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

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Klockgrossisten i Norden (Väsby, Sweden)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of 9 September 2009 in Case R 1285/2008-3 notified on 16 December 2009 to the representatives of the company BELL & ROSS BV on grounds of: — infringement of Article 91 of Council Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs; — infringement of Articles 57 and 63 of Council Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; — infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: No 342 951 (watches)

Proprietor of the Community design: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Klockgrossisten i Norden

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community design declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Articles 6, 57, 63 and 91 of Council Regulation No (EC) 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/47

Action brought on 23 March 2010 — Pieno žvaigždės v OHIM — Fattoria Scaldasole (Iogurt.)

(Case T-135/10)

2010/C 134/76

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: AB ‘Pieno žvaigždės’ (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: I. Lukauskienė and R. Žabolienė, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fattoria Scaldasole Srl (Monguzzo, Italy)

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) of 18 January 2010 in case R 1070/2009-2; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Iogurt.’, for goods in class 29

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

Mark or sign cited: Lithuanian trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘jogurtas’, for goods in class 29; Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘jogurt’, for goods in class 29

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Deemed the appeal not to have been filed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 60 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation No 2869/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the fee for appeal was not paid within the prescribed time-limit of two months from the date of notification of the appealed decision.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 of 13 December 1995 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ L 303, p. 33)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/62

Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission

(Case T-92/10)

2010/C 113/94

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (Odolo, Italy) and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (Odolo, Italy) (represented by: D. Fosselard, lawyer, S. Amoruso, lawyer, L. Vitolo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final, adopted on 30 September 2009 in Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption, as corrected and completed by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in so far as it finds that Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA had infringed Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty and imposes upon them, jointly and severally, a fine of EUR 10.25 million; in the alternative, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final, by which the penalty is imposed on the applicants; in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in other actions challenging Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final. In particular, the applicants allege:

— following the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, lack of competence on the part of the Commission to penalise the infringement of Article 65 of that Treaty and, in any event, to use Article 7(1) and Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) as a legal basis;

— breach of the applicants’ rights of defence during the procedure before the Commission;

— infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, in so far as the facts described in Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final do not indicate a single and continuous offence;

— breach of the Guidelines on the method of calculating fines and breach of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality;

On that last point, it is argued in particular that it was unlawful to place the applicants in the first category of undertakings, which were given the higher basic fine, since, in calculating the amount of the fine, the Commission misapplied the criterion of the undertaking’s specific weight on the market and did not uniformly apply the criterion of the undertaking’s overall size. Furthermore, the manner of conducting the procedure for calculating the fine was also incorrect with regard to the evaluation of the ‘attenuating circumstances’. Lastly, the excessive lengthiness of the procedure seriously compromised the right to an impartial ruling within a reasonable time.

(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 of 4.1.2003, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/40

Action brought on 24 March 2010 — Solae v OHIM — Délitaste (alpha taste)

(Case T-145/10)

2010/C 148/67

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Solae Holdings LLC (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Délitaste S.A. Industrielle et Commerciale d’Aliments (Thessaloniki, Greece)

Form of order sought

— Deem the present appeal and attached documents to have been duly filed;

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 December 2009 in case R 92/2009-2; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “alpha taste”, for goods and services in classes 29, 30, 39 and 43

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

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the mark “ALPHA”, for goods in class 29

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially admitted the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was only a partial likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Entegris v OHIM — Optimize Technologies (OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES)

(Case T-163/10)

(2010/C 161/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Entegris, Inc. (Billerica, United States) (represented by: T. Ludbrook, Barrister and M. Rosser, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimize Technologies, Inc. (Oregon City, United States)

Form of order sought

— Uphold the appeal;

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 January 2010 in case R 802/2009-2;

— Reject the Community trade mark application in question; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those related to the appeal and opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES’, for goods in class 9.

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

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “OPTIMIZER”, for goods in classes 1, 9 and 11.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to apply the said legal provision in accordance with the relevant case law, thereby wrongly finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/47

Action brought on 8 April 2010 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Tecnifar (E-PLEX)

(Case T-161/10)

2010/C 148/77

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tecnifar — Industria Tecnica Farmaceutica, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Form of order sought

— Admit the complaint filed by the applicant;

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 February 2010 in case R 662/2009-4 and dismiss the opposition filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal with respect to pharmaceutical and veterinary medical products with the exception of medicinal products for diseases related to the central nervous system; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “E-PLEX”, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 35

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: Portuguese trade mark registration of the word mark “EPILEX”, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially allowed the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/46

Action brought on 29 April 2010 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green and white cross)

(Case T-196/10)

2010/C 179/81

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Apotheke DocMorris Holding GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by Y. Dick, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 February 2010 in Case R 470/2009-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a green and white cross, in respect of goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21, 25, 29, 30, 32, 35-42 and 44 — Application No 5 930 979.

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the Board of Appeal’s assessment in relation to establishing distinctiveness was incorrect in a number of respects.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
—

Annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, debit note No 3241001630 of 1 March 2010, received on 11 March 2010, issued by the European Commission, D.G. Regional Policy, as a consequence of Decision C(2009) 10350 of the European Commission of 22 December 2009, notified on 23 December 2009, concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) allocated to Italy for the operational programme POR Puglia Obiettivo 1 2000-2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/53

Action brought on 30 April 2010 — Vesteda Groep v Commission

(Case T-206/10)

2010/C 179/90

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Vesteda Groep BV (Maastricht, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van der Wal and T. Boesman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission’s decision of 15 December 2009;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 26 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations. The applicant relies on three pleas in law in support of its application.

First, the applicant submits that, at paragraphs 25 to 37 of the contested decision, the Commission erred in law in finding that the Netherlands system of financing social housing and all changes to that system since the introduction of the EEC Treaty constitute existing aid and that, on that basis, the Commission’s assessment is made in the context of Article 108(1) TFEU and Chapter 5 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1) According to the applicant, the Commission made errors of assessment, its examination of the changes to that system was inadequate and it gave insufficient reasons for the contested decision.

Second, according to the applicant, the Commission erred in law in the contested decision in accepting on the basis of Article 19 of Regulation No 659/1999 the measures proposed by the Netherlands as referred to in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 659/1999. The appropriate measures accepted by the Commission are inadequate and/or are not suitable for ensuring that the existing aid is compatible with Articles 107 TFEU and 106 TFEU. Furthermore, the Commission applied the requirements of Article 106(2) TFEU incorrectly and gave insufficient reasons for its decision.

Third, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in neglecting to initiate the procedure provided for under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/49

Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Italy v Commission and EPSO

(Case T-248/10)

()

2010/C 209/73

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission and European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 — Administrators (AD 5) published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 March 2010 (OJ 2010 C 64A);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-218/09 Italy v Commission. (1)

(1) OJ C 180 of 1.8.09, p. 59.