ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/45

Action brought on 12 January 2009 — Hansen v Commission

(Case T-6/09)

(2009/C 69/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bent Hansen (Aarslev, Denmark) (represented by: I. Anderson, advocate)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of 800 000 EUR or such other sum as the Court may consider just and equitable for past, present and future pain, suffering and diminution of the enjoyment of life from serious impairments to his health resulting from the Commission's capricious and unlawful refusal to enforce the implementation of medical monitoring of Directive 96/26 for radiation related illnesses and conditions in the case of former Thule workers;

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant or the medical treating facilities or care givers, the future costs of medical treatments and medications to alleviate and/or treat his impaired health, referred to in the first claim above, which are not available to him through the socialized medical system of his Member State;

— order the Commission to pay reasonable legal costs and disbursements incurred by the applicant in bringing the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant is bringing an action for non-contractual liability arising from the damages he claims to have incurred as a result of the alleged illegal refusal by the Commission to comply with plenary resolution of the European Parliament (1) and to enforce the application by Denmark of the provisions of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation (2) to the case of workers, including the applicant, involved in a nuclear accident in Thule, Greenland.

(1) European Parliament report of 20 April 2007 on the public health consequences of the 1968 Thule crash (Petition 720/2002) [2006/2012(INI)].

(2) OJ L 159, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/29

Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Park v OHIM — Bae (PINE TREE)

(Case T-28/09)

(2009/C 82/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mo-Hwa Park (Hillscheid, Germany) (represented by: P. Lee, 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: Chong-Yun Bae (Berlin, Germany)

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 in Case R 1882/2007-4; and

— order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which revocation has been sought: the figurative mark ‘PINE TREE’ for goods in Class 28 (Community trade mark No 318 857)

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Chong-Yun Bae

Applicant for the declaration of revocation: the applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: declaration of revocation of the Community trade mark concerned

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the application for a declaration of revocation of the trade mark concerned

Pleas in law: inadmissibility of the appeal and absence of use of the Community trade mark concerned capable of maintaining in force the right to use it, in accordance with Article 15 and the first sentence of Article 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/26

Action brought on 18 February 2009 — France v Commission

(Case T-74/09)

2009/C 102/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Cabouat, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) inasmuch as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic in favour of fruit and vegetables producer organisations for the financial years 2005 and 2006;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) inasmuch as it excludes, for the financial years 2005 and 2006, certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic.

In support of its action the applicant relies on two pleas in law alleging:

— misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 11(2)(d) of Regulation No 2200/96 (1) in so far as, contrary to what the Commission found, the French Government satisfies the conditions laid down by that provision since every producer has the necessary material and, in accordance with the objective of economic effectiveness pursued by that regulation, it may, in certain circumstances, be more appropriate for each producer to hold the necessary material than to use a single sorting, storage and packaging centre provided by the producer organisation;

— misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 11(1)(c), point 3, of Regulation No 2200/96 in so far as the Commission was wrong to take the view that the French Government had not complied with the conditions of that provision, which provides that the rules of association of producer organisations require producer members to market their entire production through the producer organisation although the French legislation provides for producer organisations to play an active role in the marketing of products and the fixing of selling prices.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/19

Action brought on 9 February 2009 — Alfastar Benelux v Conseil

(Case T-57/09)

2009/C 102/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alfastar Benelux (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul the Council’s decision to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open call for Tender UCA-218-07 for the provision of “Technical maintenance — help desk and on site intervention services for the PC’s, printers and peripherals of the general secretariat of the Council” (1) communicated to the applicant by letter dated 1 December 2008 and all further related decisions of the Council including the one to award the contract to the successful contractor;

— order the Council to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 2 937 902 or the proportion of the above amount according to the date of annulment of the above decision of the Council;

— order the Council to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if 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 UCA-218-07 for the provision of “Technical maintenance — help desk and on site intervention services for the PC’s, printers and peripherals of the general secretariat of the Council” and to award the contract to the successful contractor. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.

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

First, it argues that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment concerning: the absence of certification of the winning tenderer, the absence of NATO security clearance of the personnel of the winning tenderer, the fact that the winning tenderer did not dispose of the personnel offered, the qualifications of the personnel of the winning tenderer as opposed to those of the applicant, the knowledge transfer marks and the evaluation of the number of staff proposed by the tenderers.

Second, the applicant claims that the defendant failed to observe its obligations for equal treatment of the candidates and transparency.

Third, it submits that the call for tender included numerous inconsistencies and inaccurate information.

Last, the applicant contends that the defendant infringed its obligation to motivate its acts.

(1) OJ 2008/S 91-122796
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/42

Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission

(Case T-116/09)

2009/C 113/85

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Whirlpool Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: F.Tuytschaever, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision in its entirety on account of the fact that one or more of the (cumulative) conditions of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty are not met or that, in any event, the Commission has failed to ascertain to the requisite legal standard that each of such conditions is met;

— in subsidiary order, annul the decision in its entirety on account of the failure to comply with the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5995 final of 21 October 2008 declaring compatible with the common market the restructuring aid to be paid out by the French authorities to FagorBrandt company, subject to a number of conditions [C 44/2007 (ex N 460/2007)]. The applicant is a competitor to the beneficiary of the aid and has participated in the investigation procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision.

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-115/09 Electrolux v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/27

Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Mundipharma v OHIM — Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI)

(Case T-76/09)

2009/C 102/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Mundipharma GmbH (Limburg (Lahn), Germany) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (Alfafar (Valencia), Spain)

Form of order sought

— Revoke the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2008 in case R 852/2008-2; and

— Order OHIM to pay 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 “FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI”, for goods and services in classes 5, 35 and 39 — application No 4 841 136

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

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 4 304 622 of the trade mark “mundi pharma” for goods and services in classes 5 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was no similarity of the goods and/or services covered by the trade marks in question
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/17

Action brought on 30 March 2009 — Valigeria Roncato v OHIM — Roncato (CARLO RONCATO)

(Case T-124/09)

2009/C 129/29

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Valigeria Roncato SpA (Campodarsego, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani, lawyer, and P. Pozzi, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roncato Srl (Campodarsego, Italy)

Forms of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2009, notified on 30 January 2009, in joined cases R 237/2008-1 and R 263/2008-1;

— Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of these proceedings, as well as those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: RONCATO Srl.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark “CARLO RONCATO” (registration application No 4 631 719) for goods in Classes 3, 9 and 14.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian figurative mark “RV RONCATO” (No 622 773), Italian word mark “RONCATO” (No. 510 528) and non-registered Italian figurative marks “RV RONCATO”.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the opposition and upheld the application for registration in its entirety.

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/42

Action brought on 15 April 2009 — Maxcom v OHIM — Maxdata Computer (maxcom)

(Case T-155/09)

2009/C 153/83

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Maxcom sp. z o.o. (Tychy, Poland) (represented by: P. Kral, 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: Maxdata Computer GmbH & Co. KG (Marl, Germany)

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2009 in Case R 1019/2008-2, served upon the applicant on 16 February 2009;

— order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: graphic trade mark ‘maxcom’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Maxdata Computer GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: national word mark ‘max’ registered in Germany for services in Classes 38 and 42 and certain goods in Class 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in relation to goods in Class 9

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal brought by the applicant

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/48

Action brought on 7 April 2009 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

(Case T-135/09)

2009/C 141/101

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor and J.-P. Tran Thiet, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the Commission’s decision of 9 January 2009 — Case COMP/39610 — Surge;

— declare unlawful the Commission’s decision to remove four DVD-ROMs and a copy of the whole hard drive of the laptop of an employee of Nexans France, for review at its premises in Brussels at a later date;

— annul the Commission’s decision to interview a Nexans France employee on 30 January 2009;

— order the Commission to return to Nexans France any documents or evidence which it might have obtained pursuant to the annulled decisions, including without limitation: (a) documents outside the proper product scope of the dawn raid; (b) documents relating to electrical cable projects located outside the European Economic Area; (c) documents seized improperly from the hard drive and DVD-ROMs; and (d) statements created during or based on interviews of the Nexans France employee;

— order the Commission to refrain from using, for the purposes of proceedings in respect of an infringement of the Community competition rules, any documents or evidence which it might have obtained pursuant to the annulled decisions;

— order the Commission to refrain from transmitting such documents or evidence (or derivatives or information based thereon) to competition authorities in other jurisdictions;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— take such other or further steps as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission decision C(2009) 92/1 of 9 January 2009 ordering Nexans SA and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, including Nexans France SAS to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20, paragraph 4 of Council Regulation 1/2003 (1) (Case COMP/39610-Surge) as well as the way in which it was executed.

In support of its claims, the applicants argue that the contested decision is in breach of the applicants’ fundamental rights, including the rights of defence, the right to a fair legal process, the privilege against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence and right to privacy. Furthermore, they submit that in the execution of the contested decision the Commission went beyond the scope of the investigation.

(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 L 1, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 167/13

Action brought on 20 April 2009 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM

(Case T-160/09)

2009/C 167/27

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Winzer Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Schneller, 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: Alcon Inc.

Forms of orders sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2009 in case R 147/2007-1 and uphold the opposition No B 809899;

— Grant an oral procedure;

— Order OHIM or, in the alternative, the intervener, to bear all the costs of the proceedings; and

— In the alternative, remit the case to OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Alcon Cusì SA, who later transferred its rights to Alcon Inc.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘OFTAL CUSI’ of goods in class 5 (Registration No 3 679 181)

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘Opthal’ for goods in class 5 (Registration No 489 948)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009), as there is a likelihood of confusion or at least a likelihood of association between the marks at issue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/41

Appeal brought on 8 April 2009 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli v Commission

(Case T-143/09 P)

2009/C 153/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Nicole Petrilli (Woluwé-Saint-Étienne, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

— annul the judgement of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli; and

— order each of the parties to bear their own costs in connection with the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the Commission seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli v Commission by which the Tribunal annulled the Commission decision of 20 July 2007 dismissing Ms Petrilli’s request for her contract as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks to be extended.

In support of its appeal, the Commission puts forward three grounds of appeal alleging that:

— the Tribunal should, according to the Commission, have declared the action inadmissible in view of the fact that the annulled decision contained no real and detailed examination of the applicant’s personal situation;

— the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the six year rule contained in Decision C(2004) 1597/6 of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services (1) infringes Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities;

— the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the unlawfulness of the six year rule alone sufficed for the Commission to incur non-contractual liability without checking in addition whether the Commission had manifestly and gravely infringed its wide discretion to assess the interest of the service in not renewing of Ms Petrilli’s contract.

(1) Administrative Notices No 75-2004 of 24 June 2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/62

Action brought on 11 June 2009 — United States Polo Association v OHIM — Textiles CMG (U.S. POLO ASSN.)

(Case T-228/09)

2009/C 180/114

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: United States Polo Association (Lexington, United States) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Textiles CMG, SA (Onteniente, Valencia, Spain)

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 20 March 2009 in case R 886/2008-4; and

— Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant, and, should the other party before the Board of Appeal intervene in the proceedings, order it to pay its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “U.S. POLO ASSN.”, for goods in classes 9, 20, 21, 24 and 27

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: Spanish trade mark registration of the word mark “POLO-POLO” for goods in class 24; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “POLO-POLO” for goods in classes 24, 25 and 39

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.