ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 170/27

Action brought on 18 May 2007 — Far Eastern Textile v Council

(Case T-167/07)

(2007/C 170/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Far Eastern Textile Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 of 22 February 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating, inter alia, in Taiwan, insofar as it relates to the applicant; and

— order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a Taiwanese producer and exporter of polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’), seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 of 22 February 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and Taiwan following an expiry review and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) and Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1).

In support of its application, the applicant, first of all, submits that the Council violated Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation (2) by applying the asymmetrical method to calculate the applicant's dumping margin.

Secondly, the applicant alleges that the Council violated Article 253 EC by failing to provide adequate reasons why the symmetrical comparison methods did not reflect the full degree of dumping.

Thirdly, the applicant contends that the Council violated Article 2(10), (11) and (12) of the Basic Regulation by calculating the applicant's dumping margin using zeroing techniques zeroing any negative dumping margins when calculating the weighted average dumping margin pursuant to Article 2(12).

Finally, the applicant alleges that the Council violated Article 253 EC by failing to state adequate reasons why the applicant's dumping margin must be calculated using zeroing techniques.

(1) OJ 2007 L 59, p. 1.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/37

Action brought on 22 September 2007 — Pachtitis v Commission of the European Communities and EPSO

(Case T-374/07)

(2007/C 283/68)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Demetrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis, B. Niangou, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities and the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

Form of order sought

— annul the decision by EPSO of 27 June 2007 and its implied decision to reject the applicant's confirmatory application of 10 July 2007, relating to his right to access to EPSO documents;

— order EPSO to send to him (i) a true copy of the questions put to him and his answers at the two preliminary tests (a) and (b) when he took part in the Open Competition EPSO/AD/77/06 (OJ C 277 A, p. 1) to constitute a reserve list for recruitment by the European institutions of administrator linguists (AD 5) having Greek as main language, in the field of translation and (ii) a true copy of the list of correct answers to those two preliminary tests taken by him;

— order the Commission of the European Communities and EPSO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the refusal of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to provide to him a true copy of the questions put to him and his answers at the two preliminary tests (a) and (b) when he took part in the Open Competition EPSO/AD/77/06 (OJ C 277 A, p. 1) and a true copy of the list of the correct answers to those preliminary tests taken by him, is a decision which is unlawful and insufficiently justified, given that it infringes his right to access to the documents of the European institutions under Article 255 EC and Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), and that the statement of its reasons is very vague and infringes Article 253 EC. At the same time, according to the applicant, the refusal of EPSO to produce the above documents is contrary to the principles of transparency, proper administration, legal certainty and the protection of the legitimate expectations of citizens.

(1) 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 L 145,p. 43).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 247/37

Action brought on 24 August 2007 — Jones e.a. v Commission

(Case T-320/07)

(2007/C 247/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Glenn Jones and Daphne Jones (Neath, Wales), FForch-y-Garron Coal Company Ltd (Neath, Wales), Desmond Ivor Evans and David Raymond Evans (Maesteg, Wales) (represented by: D.I.W. Jeffreys, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Commission Decision of 18 June 2007 in Case COMP/37.037 concerning the applicants' complaint of unlawful price discrimination by the Central Electricity Generating Board;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This is an application lodged pursuant to Article 230 EC seeking annulment of Commission Decision of 18 June 2007 (Case COMP/37.037 — SWSMA) rejecting a complaint according to which pricing practices adopted by the Central Electricity Generating Board in the period 1984 to 1990 in relation to coal producers constituted unlawful price discrimination towards private coal producers including the applicants, which was contrary to Article 4(b) of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty then in force.

The applicants contend that, in reaching this decision, the Commission has committed a number of fundamental errors of law and/or of appreciation and thus, the decision should be annulled.

The applicants claim that the Commission was wrong as a matter of law to assess the question of price-discrimination on a country-wide basis rather than with reference to the local market in which the complainants operated. Moreover, the applicants submit that the Commission was wrong in stating that the licensed private mines could only supply limited amounts of coal and on a short term basis, taking into account the size of the mining facilities and British Coal Corporation's licensing policy. Finally, the applicants claim that the Commission was wrong to conclude that since the ECSC Treaty has expired and that it no longer enjoys exclusive competence with regards to infringements of the latter, a Commission decision was no longer required before judicial protection was sought before national courts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/23

Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Cohausz v OHIM — Izquierdo Faces (acopat)

(Case T-409/07)

(2008/C 8/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Helge B. Cohausz (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. Friedhoff, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Izquierdo Faces (Bilbao, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested action [decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2007 in Case R 289/2006-1];

— order intervener and/or [OHIM] to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘acopat’ for services in classes 35 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 643 782

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: José Izquierdo Faces

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national word mark ‘COPAT’ for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 41 and 42

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division's decision and dismissal of the request for a declaration of invalidity

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 56(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rules 22(2) and 40(5) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly found that the national trade mark had not been used in Germany during the period 1996 to 2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/19

Action brought on 8 November 2007 — Union Nationale de l'Apiculture Française and Others v Commission

(Case T-403/07)

(2008/C 8/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Union Nationale de l'Apiculture Française (Paris, France), Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV (Soltau, Germany), Unione Nazionale Associazioni Apicoltori Italiani (Castel San Pietro Terme, Italy) and Asociación Galega de Apicultura (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: B. Fau, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare admissible the application for annulment of Commission Directive 2007/52/EC of 16 August 2007;

— annul Commission Directive 2007/52/EC of 16 August 2007;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicants are seeking the annulment of Commission Directive 2007/52/EC of 16 August 2007, amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant products on the market, to include ethoprophos, pirimiphos-methyl and fipronil as active substances (1).

In support of their action for annulment, the applicants are putting forward three pleas.

First of all, they submit that the contested directive was adopted in breach of the procedural rules which, the applicants claim, the Commission was required to comply with. In the applicants' submission, even if the Commission may have been authorised by the Council to adopt, by means of a directive, the implementing measures necessary to apply Directive 91/414/EEC, it does not have the authority to amend that latter directive, in particular with regard to the obligations on the Member States. The applicants submit that the contested directive is not a mere implementing directive but a directive amending Directive 91/414/EEC and, as such, should have been adopted pursuant to the procedure requiring prior consultation of the European Parliament. In the absence of such consultation, it is vitiated by a procedural defect.

In addition, the applicants allege that, under the cloak of amendments to the national authorisation procedures for the placing of plant products on the market, the contested directive in fact infringes the uniform rules of assessment laid down by the basic directive 91/414/EEC with regard to the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I thereto.

(1) OJ L 214, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/30

Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Royal Appliance International v OHIM — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (Centrixx)

(Case T-446/07)

(2008/C 37/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Royal Appliance International GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: K.-J. Michaeli and M. Schork, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Form of order sought

— To annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 in Case R 572/2006-4;

— To order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs and those of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Centrixx’ for goods in Class 7 (application No 3 016 227).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘sensixx’ for goods in Class 7 (No 30 244 090).

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and refusal of the application for registration of the mark.

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the Board of Appeal incorrectly applied the principles of Community case-law concerning the likelihood of confusion.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
—

Breach of Articles 88(2) EC and 87(1) EC by reason of what the applicant considers to be an erroneous assumption that a situation consisting in the existence of public-law arrears on the part of the company Technologie Buczek S.A. constitutes aid that is contrary to the common market. The applicant submits that such an assertion on the part of the Commission results from an erroneous assumption that the public-law authorities had desisted from enforcement proceedings against the company Technologie Buczek S.A. The breach of Articles 88(2) EC and 87(1) EC has also resulted, the applicant argues, from the fact that the Polish State was ordered to secure recovery of aid declared incompatible with the common market, even though Poland did not grant aid in the amount indicated in the decision to either the company Technologie Buczek S.A. or the group Technologie Buczek, and from the fact that the amount of aid to be returned was fixed at an arbitrary level without any foundation in law or economic justification. The applicant further submits that Articles 88(2) EC and 87(1) EC were infringed by reason of the fact that the Polish State was ordered to secure reimbursement of aid from the company Huta Buczek sp. z o.o. notwithstanding the fact that there was no basis for assuming that that company could have been the actual beneficiary of aid granted to the company Technologie Buczek S.A and despite the fact that that aid was not granted to it, and by reason of the acknowledgement that the only actual beneficiaries of the alleged aid were the companies Huta Buczek sp. z o.o. and Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o., even though they benefited only from a portion of the assets of the company Technologie Buczek S.A.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/54

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Wella v OHIM (TAME IT)

(Case T-471/07)

(2008/C 51/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wella AG (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: B. Klingberg, K. Sandberg, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— That the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 24 October 2007 in Case R 713/2007-2 be annulled;

— that the defendant be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade mark concerned: The international word mark ‘TAME IT’ for goods in Class 3 (international registration No 879 186) — request for EC territorial extension of protection in accordance with the Madrid Protocol

Decision of the examiner: Refusal on absolute grounds for all the goods applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partly upheld the appeal and allowed the EC territorial extension of the protection of international registration No 879 186 to proceed in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 40/94.

According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal based its decision on a purely theoretical philological analysis of the mark applied for with regard to grammar, composition and spelling rules as well as structure and syntax of the trade mark applied for, completely leaving aside the overall impression of the mark to the average consumer.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/26

Action brought on 4 December 2007 — Coats Holdings v Commission

(Case T-439/07)

(2008/C 37/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Coats Holdings Ltd (represented by: W. Sibree and C. Jeffs, Solicitors)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Articles 1(4) and 2(4) of the decision insofar as they relate to Coats;

— in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on Coats by Article 2(4) of the decision; and

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by Coats.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC by among others exchanging price information, fixing minimum prices and sharing markets.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission's assessment of the evidence as a whole is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment. According to the applicant the Commission failed to prove to the requisite standard that the applicant was a party to a bilateral market-sharing agreement with Prym between January 1977 and July 1998.

In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to prove that any infringement continued beyond 19 September 1997 or failed to prove a single continuous infringement for the period to 15 July 1998 entitling the Commission to fine the applicant for an infringement lasting 21 years.

The applicant further, alternatively, claims that the Commission infringed the applicant's fundamental procedural rights under Article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to examine or have examined witnesses against it in proceedings of a criminal nature.

Finally, the applicant alleges, in the alternative, that the Commission erred in mechanically applying a multiplier of 215 % to the basic amount of the fine for a duration of 21 years, rather than exercising its discretion under the applicable fining guidelines.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/50

Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Compañía Española de Petróleos (Cepsa) v Commission

(Case T-497/07)

(2008/C 64/81)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Compañía Española de Petróleos (Cepsa) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Pérez-Llorca Zamora, O.Armengol i Gasull and A. Pascual Morillo, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Articles 1 to 4 of the Commission Decision [C(2007) 4441] to the extent that they declare respectively that Compañía Española de Petróleos SA has infringed Article 81 EC, impose a fine on it, order it immediately to cease the infringement and include it as an addressee of the Decision

— Alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on Compañía Española de Petróleos SA, and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is directed against Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007in the Case COMP/38710 — Bitumen Spain. In the contested decision, the Commission declared that the applicant, together with other companies, had infringed Article 81 EC by having taken part, over a certain period, in a set of agreements and concerted practices in the market for penetration bitumen, namely agreements for sharing the market and coordinating prices. In respect of those infringements the Commission imposed a fine for which the applicant and another company are jointly and severally liable.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges first that there is an error of law in attributing to the applicant the infringement committed by another company by applying the case-law on ‘economic unit’. Further the applicant considers that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment of the facts by rejecting the evidence produced by the applicant in proof of the independence of the company which committed the infringement and by considering that there were many factors indicating that the latter company was not autonomous. In that context, the applicant also considers that the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons by rejecting without foundation the arguments of the applicant on the independence of the company which committed the infringement.

Alternatively, in respect of the amount of the fine, the applicant complains that the Commission infringed the principle of sound administration and the right of the applicant to a procedure without undue delays by not adopting the statement of objections in a reasonable time in light of the information available, infringed the principle of proportionality and made a manifest error of assessment by not taking into account that the applicant implemented a programme of compliance.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/51

Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Korsch AG v OHIM (PharmaResearch)

(Case T-464/07)

(2008/C 51/94)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Korsch AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by J. Grzam, 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 18 October 2007 in Case R 924/2007-4 concerning word mark No 5 309 836 ‘PharmaResearch’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PharmaResearch’ for goods and services in Class 9 (Application No 5 309 836)

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Art 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there were no grounds for refusal of registration.

(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 79/28

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Enercon v OHIM — Hasbro (ENERCON)

(Case T-472/07)

(2008/C 79/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hasbro Inc. (Pawtucket, United States)

Form of order sought

— That the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 October 2007 in Case R 959/2006-4 be annulled insofar as it dismissed the appeal of Enercon GmbH against the decision of the opposition division of 26 May 2006 ruling on opposition No B 763 666;

— that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is to be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘ENERCON’ for goods in Classes 16, 18, 24, 25, 28 and 32 — Application No 3 326 031

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Hasbro Inc.

Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘TRANSFORMERS ENERGON’ for goods in classes 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30 and 32 — Application No 3 152 121 as well as the earlier non-registered marks ‘TRANSFORMERS ENERGON’ and ‘ENERGON’

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) No 40/94.