ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 140/35

Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Ireland v Commission

(Case T-129/07)

(2007/C 140/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, E. Alkin, Agents, and P. McGarry, Barrister)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C(2007) 286 final of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively, insofar as it concerns the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Shannon region implemented by Ireland;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 286 final of 7 February 2007 by which the Commission found that the exemptions from excise duty granted by France, Ireland and Italy in respect of heavy fuel oils used in the production of alumina as from 1 January 2004 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and that a certain part of this aid was incompatible with the common market.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes four pleas in law.

Firstly, the applicant submits that the Commission was wrong when it concluded that Ireland had not demonstrated that the exemptions fall within the nature and logic of the domestic taxation system.

Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to carry out a proper competition analysis in support of its conclusion that the Irish measure can be assumed to affect intra-community trade and to distort or threaten to distort competition.

Thirdly, the applicant alleges that the contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty in circumstances where the Council had already authorised the specific derogation until the end of 2006.

Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission erred in law in concluding that the State aid concerned constitutes new aid, as opposed to existing aid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/29

Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission

(Case T-312/07)

(2007/C 283/53)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dimos Peramatos (Municipality of Perama, Greece) (represented by: G. Gerapetritis and P. Petropoulos)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested measure so that any obligation owed by the applicant to refund sums paid within the framework of the project LIFE97/ENV/GR/000380 ceases or, in the alternative, amend the contested measure so as to oblige the applicant to pay EUR 93 795,32, the sum calculated to be the ineligible expenditure, as the Commission itself has acknowledged;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and in particular the costs incurred by the applicant on lawyers' fees.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application seeks the annulment of the Commission decision of 7 December 2005, served by bailiff on the applicant for the purposes of enforcement on 17 May 2007, relating to Debit Note No 3240504536 which was issued to the Municipality of Perama to recover the financial contribution which had been paid by the Commission in the context of the subsidy granted to the Municipality of Perama by Commission Decision C(97)/1997/29 final.

The applicant pleads an error of fact and incorrect interpretation of the Commission decision. More specifically, the applicant infers that its obligation was exclusively to plant the trees and did not in any event involve their subsequent survival, since any subsequent destruction of the trees could not be attributed to the municipality. Therefore, it considers that its legal obligation was exhausted with regard to provision of the works and it was not possible in that connection to seek the payment of sums from it, except where the documentation submitted did not meet the eligibility conditions laid down by the decision.

Also, the applicant submits that the contested measure infringes the general principle requiring reasons to be stated for measures of the Community institutions and the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/12

Action brought on 9 July 2007 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-267/07)

(2007/C 223/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello and S. Fiorentino, Avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Decision C(2007) 1901 final of 27 April 2007 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year, in so far as it charges to the Italian Republic, as provided for in Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery of amounts in the cases of irregularity or negligence under consideration in the present application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian Government has challenged before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities Commission Decision C(2007) 1901 final of 27 April 2007, notified on even date, on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year, in so far as it charges to the Italian Republic, as provided for in Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery of amounts in particular cases of irregularity or negligence.

In support of its action the Italian Government complained of the inclusion in the decision of cases which the Commission ought to have decided expressly, with diligence and within a reasonable period, at a earlier time, by charging in full to the EAGGF. That is also having regard to the fact that, in respect of several of those positions, the Commission had taken a favourable decision.

The Italian Government therefore pleaded the following grounds of appeal:

(a) infringement and/or misapplication of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 and Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95. Infringement of Article 253 EC in respect of failure to state the grounds;

(b) infringement and/or misapplication of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/99. Infringement of Article 253 EC in respect of failure to state the grounds;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/21

Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe v OHIM (P@YWEB CARD)

(Case T-405/07)

(2008/C 8/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and J. Schouman, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2007, notified on 14 September 2007, Case R 119/2007-1 refusing its application for registration of Community trade mark P@YWEB CARD, application No 3 861 044, for all the goods and services designated in classes 9, 36 and 38;

— Registration of Community trade mark application P@YWEB CARD No 3 861 044, for all the goods and services designated.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘P@YWEB CARD’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 38 (Application No 3 861 044)

Decision of the Examiner: Application for registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) in that, according to the applicant and contrary to the findings in the contested decision, the term ‘P@YWEB CARD’ is not descriptive but, on the contrary, distinctive in relation to the goods and services designated.

(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 22/49

Action brought on 29 November 2007 — France v Commission

(Case T-432/07)

(2008/C 22/92)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Decision 2007/647/EC of 3 October 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the applicant for producers' organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector in respect of the financial years 2003 and 2004;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested decision on the ground that the Commission wrongly interpreted and applied Article 11 of Council Regulation No 2200/96 (2) in finding that the French Government had failed to observe the conditions laid down in that provision for the recognition of producers' organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector.

(1) Notified under document number C(2007) 4477, OJ 2007 L 261, p. 28.

(2) 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 22/46

Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Deutsche Post v Commission

(Case T-421/07)

(2008/C 22/86)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 12 September 2007‘State aid C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) — State aid to Deutsche Post AG, invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty’;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Commission to institute the proceedings under Article 88(2) EC with regard to State aid C 26/07 (ex NN 25/07). That decision was notified to Germany by letter of 12 September 2007 (OJ 2007 C 245, p. 21). The proceedings begun by that decision are intended as a supplementary investigation into the proceedings which were instituted on 23 October 1999 by the Commission and in which the Commission issued a negative decision on 19 June 2002 (OJ 2002 L 247, p 27). In that negative decision, the Commission found that Deutsche Post's prices for its Haus-zu-Haus-Paketdienst (house to house parcel service) were below the service-specific supplementary costs and that that aggressive discount policy was not part of its public supply obligations.

In support of its claim, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes basic procedural principles. In particular, there is an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, since the Commission had for years been aware of the predominant facts of the case and on 19 June 2002 issued a final decision relating thereto. In addition, the right of the Federal Republic of Germany and the applicant to participate has been infringed in that they were not given the opportunity to take a position on the contested decision before it was issued. Finally, it is submitted in that regard that there is a breach of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), since it follows from the scheme of that provision that a negative decision, such as that of 19 June 2002, is final and that the defendant cannot make facts which are subject to a final ruling the subject-matter of a renewed aid verification procedure.

Further, the applicant submits that the defendant has infringed the duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC and Article 6(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, since the contested decision does not make it clear which measures the Commission seeks to classify as State aid and, moreover, the decision contains no legal description.

Finally, it is alleged that there is an infringement of Article 87(1) EC and Article 88 EC, since the measures referred to in the contested decision ought not to be classified as State aid.

(1) Council Decision (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/59

Action brought on 31 December 2007 — IIC-Intersport International Corporation v OHIM — McKenzie Corporation (McKENZIE)

(Case T-502/07)

(2008/C 51/108)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: IIC-Intersport International Corporation GmbH (Ostermundigen, Switzerland) (represented by: P.J.M. Steinhauser, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The McKenzie Corporation Ltd (Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

— Annul the appealed decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 15 October 2007 in Case R 1425/2006-2 and confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 6 September 2006 by which the opposition of Intersport has been received in respect of certain of the goods concerned.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The McKenzie Corporation Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: The Community figurative mark ‘McKENZIE’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25, 36 and 37

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: IIC-Intersport International Corporation GmbH

Mark or sign cited: The earlier Community figurative mark ‘MCKINLEY’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 20, 22, 25 and 28 and the earlier Community word mark ‘MCKINLEY’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 18, 20, 22, 25 and 28.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the opposition in its entirety and allowed registration to proceed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/24

Action brought on 27 November 2007 — BP Aromatics v Commission

(Case T-429/07)

(2008/C 37/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BP Aromatics Ltd (Sunbury on Thames, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Renshaw and G. Bushell, Solicitors)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and any interveners granted leave to intervene in the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

— take any other actions that the Court considers to be appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3202 final of 10 July 2007 by which the Commission found State aid notified by the Portuguese authorities in favour of Artensa (Artenius) for the construction of a new plant for the production of chemical products to be compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) EC.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, the rules relating to their application, certain essential procedural requirements and a number of principles of Community law, in that the Commission:

— misconstrued and misapplied the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects 2002 (1), which requires an analysis based on the EEA market and not on a worldwide market;

— committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the relevant market for purified terephthalic acid is worldwide when it is, according to the applicant, an EEA-wide market; and

— committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the relevant share of sales of Artensa will be below 25 % when in fact it will exceed 25 % on an EEA-wide basis.

The applicant alleges that if the Commission had conducted a detailed and proper investigation of the EEA market for purified terephthalic acid, it would have had serious difficulties in determining whether the aid is compatible with the common market which would have made it necessary to open the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.

According to the applicant, the fact that the Commission had serious difficulties in assessing the aid during its preliminary investigation and that it should, accordingly, have initiated the formal procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC is corroborated by the length of time elapsed between the notification from the Portuguese authorities and the adoption of the contested decision.

The applicant further contends that its procedural rights were infringed as the Commission did not, as it should have, open a formal investigation under Article 88(2) EC.

Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC.

(1) Communication from the Commission — Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (notified under document No C(2002) 315) (OJ 2002 C 70, p. 8).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/55

Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex

(Case T-476/07)

(2008/C 51/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of FRONTEX to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful tenderer;

— order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 500 000 EUR;

— order the Commission (DIGIT) to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected;

— order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call for an open tender for the provision of informatics services and hardware and software licences (OJ 2007/S 114-139890). The applicant contests the defendant's decision of 3 October 2007 rejecting the applicant's bid and informing the applicant that the contract will be awarded to another tenderer.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the defendant failed to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC and used evaluation criteria that were not expressly included in the call for tender. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/57

Action brought on 22 December 2007 — Romania v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-484/07)

(2008/C 51/103)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented by: Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea, Agent, Emilia Gane and Dumitra Mereuță, Advisers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— Annul the Commission's decision (C(2007) 5253 final) of 26 October 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission certificates for the period 2008-2012, notified by Romania pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the Commission rejected in part the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission certificates for the period 2008-2012, notified by Romania pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC (1), reducing by 19,754248 million tonnes of CO2, equivalent per year the overall number of certificates that will be allocated for the Community scheme and establishing that the average overall annual volume covered by the emission quotas that may be allocated will not exceed 75,944352 million tonnes.

In support of its action, the applicant submits as follows:

— the Commission has failed to comply with Article 9(1) and (3) and Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, in that it has established, with binding force, on the basis of a method of its own, the overall volume of the emission quotas that can be allocated by Romania, thus encroaching upon the latter's sphere of competence;

— the Commission has applied a method wholly lacking in transparency for the purposes of determining the overall volumes of the emission quotas, thus infringing not only Article 9(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, but also Article 9(3) thereof;

— in applying its own system, the Commission has infringed the principle of non-discrimination;

— the Commission has failed to comply with Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC and Article 253 EC, in that it has failed to give adequate reasons for decision C(2007) 5253 final.

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/43

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Cofra v Commission

(Case T-477/07)

(2008/C 64/69)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cofra srl (Barletta, Italy) (represented by: A. Calabrese, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of the Commission of 17 October 2007;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-417/07 Lodato Gennaro & Co.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/43

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — SIMSA v Commission

(Case T-480/07)

(2008/C 64/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl SIMSA (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: A. Calabrese, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of the Commission of 17 October 2007;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-417/07 Lodato Gennaro & Co.