ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/35

Action brought on 22 March 2010 — Communauté de communes de Lacq v Commission

(Case T-132/10)

2010/C 148/61

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Communauté de communes de Lacq (Mourenx, France) (represented by: J. Daniel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Order the European Union to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 000 because of the unlawfulness and deficiency of the Commission’s behaviour in the light of the breach, by ACETEX, of its undertakings;

— order the European Union to pay the applicant EUR 25 000 by way of non -recoverable costs;

— order the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Communauté de communes de Lacq (Community of the communes of Lacq) seeks damages for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s decision to declare compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement the concentration involving the acquisition, by Celanese Corporation, of control of Acetex Corporation, without acknowledging the legal value to an alleged undertaking by Celanese, in particular the commitment to continue the operation of the Acetex factory in Pardies for five years (Case COMP/M.3625 — Blackstone/Acetex).

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations since, through its interpretation of the EC Merger Regulation, (1) it deprived all third parties to concentrations (employees and local officials) of protection, even though, in the light of the commitments given by Celanese Corporation, it was certain that employees would be protected against a cessation of activity for five years.

The applicant thus certainly suffered significant damage. Indeed, local authorities in that area are deprived of important fiscal resources and have to pay out numerous social benefits because of the closure of the site. Numerous redundancies must be expected, both among employees of Acetex and also among employees of companies whose activities were closely linked to that of Celanese Corporation.

In the alternative, if it cannot be established that there was tortious liability on the part of the European Commission, the applicant asks that the Commission be held strictly liable. There can be no doubt as to the damage suffered by the applicant and its unusual and special nature and that that damage was directly caused by the refusal of the European Commission to sanction Celanese Corporation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/38

Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne v OHIM — Natura Cosméticos (NATURAVIVA)

(Case T-107/10)

2010/C 134/66

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natura Cosméticos, SA (Itapecerica da Serra, Brazil)

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 23 November 2009 in case R 1558/2008-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings before the defendant.

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 ‘NATURAVIVA’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44

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

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registrations of the mark ‘VIVA’, for goods in class 3; Community trade mark registration of the mark ‘VIVA’, for goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld 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 no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
Action brought on 2 April 2010 — France v European Commission

(Case T-154/10)

(2010/C 161/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, B. Beaupère-Manokha and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul in its entirety the contested decision;

— 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 C(2010) 133 Final of 26 January 2010 declaring the implicit unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste under the provisions of French law concerning the legal consequences of its status as a legal entity governed by public law, the equivalent of a State-owned industrial and commercial establishment, to be State aid incompatible with the Common Market (State aid No C 56/2007 (formerly E 15/2005)).

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law alleging:

— error of law in that the Commission did not establish to the requisite legal standard the existence of State aid. The Commission failed to comply with the evidential rules relating to State aid with regard both to the burden of proof and the standard of proof;

— errors in fact and in law in that the Commission found the existence of an implicit unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/37

Action brought on 16 March 2010 — M v EMEA

(Case T-136/10)

2010/C 148/63

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M (represented by: C. Thomann, Barrister and I. Khawaja, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMEA)

Form of order sought

— award damages pursuant to Article 340 TFUE for the losses sustained as a result of breaches, to be calculated or such other sums as the Court may rule appropriate;

— interest on such sums as are found to be due at a rate equivalent to that applied pursuant to section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 or such other sum as the Court may rule to be appropriate;

— costs;

— such further additional relief that the General Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant requests the Court to award him damages pursuant to Article 340 TFEU for the losses he sustained as a result of an accident at work. He claims that he sustained injuries by reason of the defendant’s breaches of duties owed to him as its employee.

The applicant relies inter alia, upon Article 6(3) of Directive 89/391 EEC (1), Article 15 of Annex I of Council Directive 89/654 EEC (2) and Article 3 of Directive 89/655 EEC (3) concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace.

The failure on the defendant’s part to comply with its health and safety obligations as regards the assessment and reduction of risk, the suitability of equipment provided and the provision of clear surface areas at the workplace breached the defendant’s obligations under United Kingdom Health and Safety Law, and its common duty of care. The applicant claims having suffered personal injury, financial losses and non-material damage as a result of the above breaches and he contends being entitled to be compensated for these.

(1) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1)

(2) Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (first individual directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), (OJ 1989 L 393, p. 1)

(3) Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), (OJ 1989 L 393, p. 13)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/45

Action brought on 26 April 2010 — Ferracci v Commission

(Case T-192/10)

2010/C 179/79

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pietro Ferracci (San Cesareo, Italy) (represented by: A. Nucara, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission decision contained in the letter of 15 February 2010, by which the Commission dismissed the applicant’s complaint;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the decision contained in the letter of 15 February 2010, by which the applicant’s complaint was dismissed.

That complaint concerned the exemption from municipal taxes on immovable property provided for in Article 7(1)(i) of Decree-Law No 504/1992 which, under Article 7(2a) of Decree-Law No 203/2005 as converted into law, is intended to apply to the activities referred to in Article 7(1)(i) of Decree-Law No 504/1992, regardless of their potentially commercial nature. In the applicant’s submission, that rule constitutes State aid in favour of ecclesiastical bodies and non-profit making organisations in so far as they pursue commercial activities, or at least economic activities for the purposes of the Community case-law.

The applicant puts forward two pleas in support of his action:

First of all, the applicant submits that the contested decision is vitiated because it infringes and misapplies, through incorrect interpretation, Article 108(3) TFEU. In fact, on the basis of the applicant’s complaint received on 14 June 2006, the Commission initiated a very lengthy preliminary investigation procedure characterised by an intense exchange of letters with the applicant and requests for information from the national authorities, only to conclude finally in the contested decision that there was no doubt that the measures in question did not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107 TFEU.

In the applicant’s submission, it is clear from the extraordinarily long period which elapsed before the preliminary investigation was closed that the Commission was unable to address the doubts raised in the complaint which it ought to have addressed, and that it should at least have pursued the matter in depth by ordering a formal investigation procedure as provided for under Article 108(2) TFEU.

Moreover, a careful reading of the aforementioned decision on the current tax can only give cause to believe that the Commission had doubts as to whether the disputed measures constituted State aid, but ultimately decided to dismiss the complaint without opening the formal investigation procedure, thereby infringing the applicant’s right to submit observations on any justifications which the Italian authorities might have submitted to the Commission in the context of the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108 TFEU and preventing the necessary examination as to compatibility which the Commission would have had to undertake in order to assess the extent to which competition was distorted as a result of the preferential tax regime which was the subject of the complaint.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Milux v OHIM (FERTILITYINVIVO)

(Case T-175/10)

(2010/C 161/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Milux Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, 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 2 February 2010 in case R 1116/2009-4; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FERTILITYINVIVO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for is not eligible for registration as a Community trade mark because it does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/42

Action brought on 22 April 2010 — Sviluppo Globale v Commission

(Case T-183/10)

2010/C 179/75

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sviluppo Globale GEIE (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, lawyer, R. Sciaudone, lawyer, and A. Neri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission decision of 14 February 2010;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the Commission’s decision of 14 February 2010 by which the Commission, in its capacity as contracting authority, notified Sviluppo Globale GEIE, the applicant, that it had excluded the consortium led by it from the short list drawn up for the restricted procedure EuropeAid/129038/C/SER/SY for the supply to the Syrian Government of technical assistance services designed to facilitate decentralisation and local development.

In support of its action for annulment, Sviluppo Globale GEIE alleges manifest error in the interpretation and application of the selection criteria laid down in the tender specifications. In particular, it argues, the Commission misapplied the selection criteria laid down in the tender specifications in respect of technical capability, thereby excluding the consortium led by Sviluppo Globale GEIE from the short list, despite the fact that it fulfilled the requirements laid down in those specifications. Such a manifest error on the part of the contracting authority can be seen clearly simply by comparing the technical capability requirements laid down for admission to the short list in question, on the one hand, with the actual technical capability of the consortium led by Sviluppo Globale GEIE, on the other.

Moreover, and in any event, Sviluppo Globale GEIE submits that the reasons stated for the exclusionary decision of 14 February 2010 are inadequate, in that no explanation is given as to why its tender does not satisfy the selection criteria relating to technical capability as laid down in the tender specifications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/54

Action brought on 5 May 2010 — Deutscher Ring v OHIM (Deutscher Ring Sachversicherungs-AG)

(Case T-209/10)

2010/C 179/92

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutscher Ring Sachversicherungs-AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by A. Busse, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 March 2010 in Case R 1290/2009-1 and register the trade mark applied for; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Deutscher Ring Sachversicherungs-AG’ for services in Class 36.

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the Community trade mark concerned is distinctive and not merely descriptive.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/23

Action brought on 7 May 2010 — Moselland v OHIM — Renta Siete (DIVINUS)

(Case T-214/10)

2010/C 195/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft (Bernkastel-Kues, Germany) (represented by: M. Dippelhofer, 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: Renta Siete, SL (Albacete, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 22 February 2010 in Case R 1204/2009-2;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Renta Siete, SL

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘DIVINUS’ for goods and services in classes 30, 33 and 35.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Moselland eG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: a national figurative mark, which includes the verbal elements ‘Moselland Divinum’, for goods in class 33.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), and Rule 19(2) und Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2), as the Board of Appeal has not correctly and/or sufficiently addressed the substantiation of earlier rights, infringement of Article 76(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not confine itself to relying on the evidence submitted by the applicant, infringement of Article 78(1),(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 for incorrect evaluation of evidence and, as the Board of Appeal merely relied on a request for information despite having had evidence contrary to the information received already submitted to it, also infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to grant the applicant the opportunity to make known its views on the factual information gathered by OHIM, infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly did not consider the presentation of an acknowledgement of receipt as sufficient evidence of submission of documents within the prescribed time-limit, infringement of Rule 50(1)(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 for misuse of power and finally infringement of Rule 51(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal erred in not reimbursing the fee for appeal.

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

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/29

Action brought on 21 May 2010 — Couture Tech Limited v OHMI (representation of an escutcheon containing the globe, a star, the hammer and sickle)

(Case T-232/10)

2010/C 195/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Couture Tech Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: B. Whyatt, Barrister)

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

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 5 March 2010 in case R 1509/2008-2; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: A figurative mark in colour representing an escutcheon with the globe, a star, the hammer and sickle for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 18, 23, 26 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 5585898

Decision of the examiner: Refused registration of the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application

On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied these articles to the Community trade mark application

By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision fails to apply the rules of natural justice by not recognising the applicant's right to legitimate expectations that its Community trade mark application would be registered.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/57

Action brought on 30 June 2010 — Fondation de l'Institut de Recherche Idiap v European Commission

(Case T-286/10)

()

2010/C 221/91

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fondation de l'Institut de Recherche Idiap (represented by: G. Chapus-Rapin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— first, order that this action should have suspensory effect;

— principally, — declare the action admissible; — allow the action;

— consequently, — annul the European Commission's decision of 11 May 2010 — declare eligible to be met by European Union external funding the costs of IDIAP researchers holding permanent contracts working on the AMIDA, BACS and DIRAC programmes; — order that IDIAP is not obliged to repay EUR 98 042,45 in respect of DIRAC and EUR 251 505,76 in respect of AMIDA; — order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings; — order the European Commission to pay the expenses and fees of the lawyer acting for IDIAP;

— alternatively, — declare the action admissible; — allow the action;

— consequently, — annul the European Commission's decision of 11 May 2010; — order the European Commission to undertake a fresh audit of IDIAP and to assign it to an institution other than Treureva; — order the European Commission to pay the expenses and fees of the lawyer acting for IDIAP.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant asks in essence that the General Court declare the eligibility of costs incurred in respect of researchers holding permanent employment contracts in relation to the AMIDA, BACS and DIRAC contracts within the framework of the specific research and technological development and demonstration programmes ‘Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area (2002-2006)’ and ‘Information Society Technologies (2000-2006)’.

In support of its action, the applicant claims that:

— the European Commission's interpretation of the AMIDA, BACS and DIRAC contracts, to the effect that costs in respect of permanent employment contracts of researchers are ineligible ordinary operating costs and not additional costs linked to the projects, is arbitrary or at least unfounded, since: — the model contract on which the AMIDA, BACS and DIRAC contracts are based does not exclude permanent employment contracts from eligible costs; — the link between researchers’ employment contracts and the AMIDA, BACS and DIRAC project is expressly mentioned in the employment contracts; — the researchers’ employment contracts exist solely because of the projects, the applicant having no funds of its own to pay the researchers outside of the projects; — the best way of ensuring that researchers can be released at the end of a project is a permanent contract, since under Swiss law (where the applicant is established) such a contract can be terminated at any time without cause on a brief period of notice;

— the Commission's interpretation is contrary to the principles of good faith and protection of legitimate expectations, since that interpretation has been gradually altered;