ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/43

Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-589/08)

(2009/C 69/97)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decisions of the Commission to evaluate the applicant's bids as not successful and award the contracts to the successful contractor;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 920 000 EUR to be increased up to 1 700 000 EUR depending on the final amount of the CITL project;

— order the Commission 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 decisions to reject its bids submitted in response to a call for an open tender ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 regarding the ‘Emission Trading Scheme — CITL/CR’ (1) 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 two pleas in law.

First, it argues that the Commission committed several manifest errors of assessment while evaluating the three bids submitted by the applicant to the three Lots of the tender respectively.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to observe the principles of transparency and equal treatment and therefore infringed relevant provisions reflecting these principles such as Articles 92 and 100 of the financial regulation (2). Moreover, the applicant argues that the contracting authority infringed its obligation to sufficiently state reasons for its decision. It claims as well that the Commission failed to provide it with additional information that it requested after the award decision regarding the merits of the successful tenderer. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the contracting authority applied criteria that were not set out in advance and thus were unknown to the candidates.

(1) OJ 2008/S 72-096229.

(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 L 248, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/44

Action brought on 30 December 2008 — Cantiere Navale De Poli v Commission

(Case T-584/08)

(2009/C 55/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cantiere Navale De Poli SpA (represented by: A. Abate, lawyer, R. Longanese Cattani, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision adopted by the European Commission on 21 October 2008 on State aid from Italy No C 20/2008 (ex N 62/2008).

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 of 27 June 2002 (OJ 2002 L 172, p. 1) is based on Article 87(3)(e) EC and introduced a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding, with the aim of restoring the market conditions distorted by the anti-competitive practices of the Korean shipyards. The expiry of the regulation, initially set for 31 March 2004, was subsequently postponed for one year, thus allowing Community shipyards until 31 March 2005 (the new expiry date of the regulation) to conclude further contracts for building certain types of cargo vessel. In support of those contracts, the regulation provides for aid of up to 6 % of the contract value. The applicant is party to five contracts for the construction of chemical vessels.

In order to finance all of the contracts during the period from 2002 to 2005, Italy notified two financing packages of EUR 10 million each. The Commission authorised the first by decision of 19 May 2004 but refused, by the contested decision, to authorise the second financing package. The Commission maintains that the additional financing constitutes ‘new aid’ within the meaning of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1) in that it represents more than 20 % of the original budget of the scheme. The Commission further argues that the additional financing is incompatible with the common market in that the notification was made after 31 March 2005, the date on which Regulation No 1177/2002 expired.

The applicant submits that it was not possible for the Italian Government to prepare the financing for the contracts by 31 March 2005, since it was not in a position to have knowledge of all the contracts concerned: that being the last day of application of the regulation, the undertakings had the right to conclude contracts up to and on that day.

The applicant accordingly puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its action to contest the decision, in particular:

— infringement of Regulation No 1177/2002 in the light of the specific aims of the legislature in relation to Article 87(3)(e) EC;

— infringement of Article 4(2)(a) of Commission Regulation No 794/2004 in so far as the additional financing of EUR 10 million has been categorised as ‘new aid’;

— irrelevance of the recommendation of 20 June 2005 of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in respect of the shipbuilding contracts lawfully concluded under Regulation No 1177/2002;

— failure to state reasons to substantiate the allegation that there is no legal basis for authorising the additional financing;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/45

Action brought on 2 January 2009 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-3/09)

(2009/C 55/81)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission Decision of 21 October 2008 on State aid C 20/2008 (ex N 62/2008) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/2004 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding, registered as number C(2008)6015 final, notified to the Italian Republic on 22 October 2008 by note of 22 October 2008 No SG-Greffe (2008) D/206436.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the same as that contested in Case T-584/08 Cantiere Navale De Poli v Commission.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in that case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/48

Action brought on 15 January 2009 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)

(Case T-15/09)

(2009/C 69/105)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'Information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2008, Case R 70/2006-4, in that it refused registration of the Community trade mark application EURO AUTOMATIC CASH No 4 114 864 with regard to the entirety of the goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42;

— registration of the application for Community trade mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH No 4 114 864 for all the goods and services referred to in the application filed;

— OHIM to be ordered to pay the costs of the applicant incurred in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, under Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EURO AUTOMATIC CASH’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42 — application No 4 114 864

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94, since the trade mark applied for is not descriptive and has the necessary distinctive character.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/46

Action brought on 12 January 2009 — Schunk v OHIM (cylinder-shaped section of a chuck)

(Case T-7/09)

(2009/C 69/101)

Language in which the application was lodged: Germany

Parties

Applicant: Schunk GmbH & Co. KG Spann- und Greiftechnik (Lauffen am Neckar, Germany) (represented by C. Koppe-Zagouras, 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 31 October 2008 — Case R 1109/2007-1;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: another type of mark, showing the cylinder-shaped section of a chuck, for goods in Classes 7 and 8 — Application No 3 098 894

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 40/94 (1), as the registered mark has the necessary distinctive character. Further, the registered mark has distinctive character in consequence of use under Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94.

(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 90/30

Action brought on 11 Februar 2009 — XXXLutzMarken v OHIM — Natura Selection (Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil)

(Case T-54/09)

2009/C 90/48

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: XXXLutzMarken (Wels, Austria) (represented by: H. Pannen, 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: Natura Selection SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2008 in Case R 1787/2007-2;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: XXXLutzMarken

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘LineaNatura Natur hat immer Stil’ for goods in Classes 8, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 27 (Registration No 4 626 693)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Natura Selection S.L.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘natura selection’ (Community trade mark No 2 016 384) for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 20, 25, 35, 38, 39 and 42, and further Community trade marks and Spanish mark comprising the word ‘natura’, for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 39 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/941 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/31

Action brought on 26 January 2009 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Selecciones Americanas (VOGUE CAFÉ)

(Case T-40/09)

(2009/C 82/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Selecciones Americanas, SA (Sitges (Barcelona), 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 19 November 2008 in case R 280/2008-4 insofar as it relates to the opposition based on Spanish trade marks registration No 255 186 and 2 529 728;

— Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2008 in case R 280/2008-4 such that consideration of the opposition is suspended pending the outcome of the opposition for Community trade mark application No 3 064 219; and

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal 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 ‘VOGUE CAFÉ’, for goods and services in classes 21, 25 and 43

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 No 255 186 of the figurative mark ‘Vogue Juan Fort, S.A. — Badalona’ for goods in class 25; Spanish trade mark registration No 2 529 728 of the figurative mark ‘VOGUE studio’ for goods in class 25; Community trade mark application No 3 064 219 of the figurative mark ‘VOGUE’ for goods and services in classes 25, 35 and 39.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition for the goods applied for in class 25

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 and/or of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was capable of proving use of Spanish trade mark registration No 255 186; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark concerned and Spanish trade mark registration No 2 529 728; Infringement of Rules 20(7) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 as the Board of Appeal stated inapplicable grounds for refusing to grant a suspension of proceedings pending determination of the opposition to Community trade mark application No 3 064 219.

(1) 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 102/21

Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Meica v OHIM — Bösinger Fleischwaren (Schinken King)

(Case T-61/09)

2009/C 102/33

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co KG (Edewecht, Germany) (represented by: S. Russlies, 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: Bösinger Fleischwaren GmbH (Bösingen, Germany)

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) (OHIM) of 11 December 2008 (Case R 1049/2007-1);

— Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bösinger Fleischwaren GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Schinken King’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30 (Application No. 3 720 968)

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Community word mark ‘Curry King’ (Community trade mark No 2 885 077) for goods in Class 30 and the German word marks ‘Curry King’ (No 399 02 969,9) and ‘King’ (No 304 04 434,2) for goods in Classes 29 and 30

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) because there is a likelihood or confusion or at least a likelihood of association between the marks at issue and of Article 74(1) on the ground of inadequate reasoning of the decision.

(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 113/40

Action brought on 13 March 2009 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM — Maclean (Archer Maclean’s Mercury)

(Case T-106/09)

2009/C 113/80

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Archer Maclean (Banbury, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

— Declare non-conformity of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 January 2009 in case R 1266/2007-1 with Council Regulation 40/94;

— Declare that Community trade mark application No 4 290 227 for classes 9 and 28 falls within the prohibition contained in Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94; and

— Order OHIM and, as appropriate, the intervener in the proceedings 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 ‘Archer Maclean’s Mercury’, for goods in classes 9, 16 and 28 — application No 4 290 227

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

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘Merkur’ for goods and services in classes 6, 9, 28, 35, 37, 41 and 42

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 Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there were no visual, phonetic or conceptual identity similarities between the trade marks concerned, as well as that there was no identity of goods for classes 9 and 28, and therefore no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/32

Appeal brought on 2 March 2009 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 15 December 2008 in Case F-34/07, Skareby v Commission

(Case T-91/09 P)

2009/C 102/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Carina Skareby (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Declare the appeal admissible;

— set aside the judgment delivered on 15 December 2008 by the European Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/07;

— allow the pleadings seeking the setting aside of that judgment and compensation submitted by the applicant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 15 December 2008 delivered in Case F-34/07 Skareby v Commission dismissing the action by which the appellant sought, firstly, annulment of her career development report for 2005 and, secondly, damages.

In support of her appeal, the appellant raises three pleas alleging an error of legal characterisation of the facts, a failure correctly to apply Article 5 of the general implementing provisions and Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and a failure to state reasons, since the CST ruled that it could not be said that the Commission had not carried out an assessment of the appellant for the period from January to September 2005, despite the fact that the appellant’s career development report for 2005 was, almost word for word, merely a virtually identical copy of the appellant’s career development report for 2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/43

Action brought on 24 march 2009 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission

(Case T-114/09)

2009/C 141/93

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 4 August 2008 in Case N 287/2008; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this application, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 august 2008 in Case N 287/2008 (1) by which the Commission approved, on the basis of Article 87 (3) (c) EC rescue aid granted by the Danish State to TV 2 Danmark A/S (‘TV 2’).

The applicant submits that the aid does not comply with Article 87(3) (c) since it infringes the principle of proportionality enshrined in that provision according to which such aid must not ‘adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest’. In particular, the applicant claims first that the Commission erred in law when it held that TV 2 constituted a ‘firm in difficulty’ within the meaning of the Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (2). Secondly, the applicant contends that the Commission erred in law when holding that the rescue aid was limited to what was necessary to keep TV 2 business and that aid was maintained at a level which would not allow TV 2 to invest in new activities or to behave aggressively in commercial markets. Thirdly, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in law when it failed to take into account the State aid received by TV 2 in the past.

(1) A summary of the contested decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2009 C 9, p. 2) and a non-confidential version of the decision was made available on http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

(2) Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 C 244, p. 2)
—

Annulment of Notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 (public health), EPSO/AD/145/09 (food safety (policy and legislation)), and EPSO/AD/146/09 (food safety (audit, inspection and evaluation)) for the drawing up of a reserve from which to recruit 35, 40 and 55 administrators (AD 5) respectively, with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, in the field of public health.