ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/39

Action brought on 5 March 2010 — Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-109/10)

2010/C 134/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent, and P. Kinsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision in so far as it applies to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment, in so far as it applies to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 reducing the assistance granted to the Community Initiative Interreg II/C ‘Rhine/Meuse Flooding*’ in the Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Commission Decision C(97) 3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No. 970010008).

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

By the first plea in law, the applicant claims that if the actions for annulment brought by the Dutch and German authorities are upheld, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg should benefit as a result. If it is found that the errors and weaknesses, allegedly systematic, which the Commission’s audit was thought to have revealed in the functioning of the program in question in the Netherlands and Germany, do not in reality exist, the very basis of the decision’s reasoning fails and with it the linear financial correction applied to the projects implemented in Luxembourg.

The second plea in law alleges the illegality of the extension, to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of a financial adjustment* that might be justified only in respect of other Member States. No anomalies have been found in the operation* of the program in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. The fact that Luxembourg agreed to participate in a joint project with Germany, Belgium, France and the Netherlands does not justify the negative effects, in terms of financial adjustment* of its own projects, of errors or weaknesses that were discovered during the audit of Dutch or German projects, and which consist almost exclusively in alleged breaches of provisions of the procedure for awarding public contracts. Despite the fact that this is a matter of joint participation by five Member States in the same program, procedures for public procurement* awarding public contracts come within the exclusive responsibility of the national authorities of the Member States concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/70

Appeal brought on 5 March 2010 by the European Parliament against the order of 18 December 2009 of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-92/09 R U v Parliament

(Case T-103/10 P(R))

2010/C 113/103

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Parliament (represented by S. Seyr and K. Zejdovà, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: U

Form of order sought by the appellant

— the setting aside of the order under appeal of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal;

— final adjudication on the application for interim relief and its dismissal as unfounded;

— the reservation of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the setting aside of the order of 18 December 2009 of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) in Case F-92/09 R U v Parliament suspending the operation of the dismissal decision of 6 July 2009 pending the Tribunal's decision disposing of the proceedings.

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appealing alleging:

— failure properly to state the reasons for the decision, because the reasoning set out in the order under appeal does not, on several points, enable the grounds justifying the decision reached by the President of the Civil Service Tribunal to be ascertained;

— infringement of the European Parliament's rights of the defence, because the order for interim relief goes beyond the compass of a simple evaluation under Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal that applications for interim measures must state, in particular, the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie the case for the interim measures applied for. By going into the details of the merits of the case, particularly by adjudicating on the details of the conduct of the improvement procedure, the order infringes the European Parliament's rights of the defence, depriving it of the possibility of taking a position and defending itself on those aspects;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/44

Action brought on 30 March 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM

(Case T-152/10)

2010/C 148/73

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, M. López Camba and E. Seijo Veiguela, 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: Azzedine Alaïa (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM;

— order the party or parties which oppose this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ALIA’ (application No 3 788 999) for goods in Classes 3, 14, 18 and 25.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The French company Azzedine Alaïa.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International word mark ‘ALAÏA’ (No 773 126) for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25, Community figurative mark which contains the verbal element ‘ALAÏA’ (No 3 485 166), for goods and services in Classes 16, 20 and 25, and the earlier unregistered mark ‘ALAÏA’ for the manufacture, sale of clothing, articles for women and fashion accessories.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/40

Action brought on 8 March 2010 — Insula v Commission

(Case T-110/10)

2010/C 134/68

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-D. Simonet and P. Marsal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare the action to be admissible and well-founded;

— Declare that the Commission's demand for repayment of a sum of EUR 84 120 is unfounded and, therefore, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 84 120;

— Order that the action be joined to Case T-366/09, on account of the connection between them, for the purposes of the written and oral procedure;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests the Court to declare that the debit note of 28 January 2010 by which the Commission, following an audit report from OLAF, demanded recovery of the advances paid to the applicant, does not comply with the terms of the EL HIERRO (NNE5/2001/950) contract concluded within the framework of a specific program for research, technological development and demonstration on energy, the environment and sustainable development.

The applicant puts forwards two pleas in law.

By the first plea in law, it challenges the enforceability of the debt claimed by the Commission following the audit carried out in 2005.

By the second plea in law, it claims that the Commission, by issuing the new debit note, is in breach of its contractual obligations which no longer entitle it to demand, six years after the last payment to Insula and without notification on its part in the period laid down by the contract, additional supporting documentary evidence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/43

Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Telefónica O2 Germany v OHIM — Loopia (LOOPIA)

(Case T-150/10)

2010/C 148/71

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Loopia AB (Västeras, Sweden)

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 12 January 2010 in case R 1812/2008-1; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those related to the appeal proceedings.

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 “LOOPIA”, for services in class 42

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

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registrations of the word mark “LOOP”, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 an 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “LOOP”, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 ad 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “LOOPY”, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, rejected the opposition and allowed the application

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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/56

Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission

(Case T-225/10)

2010/C 179/96

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far as it states that Article 12(5) TRLIS (Amended Law on Corporation Tax) contains elements of State aid;

— In the alternative, annulment of Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far as it states that Article 12(5) TRLIS contains elements of State aid where it applies to share acquisitions which result in acquisition of control; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision against which the present action is brought is the same as that contested in Cases T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission and T-221/10 Iberdrola v Commission.

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in the context of those cases.

They allege, in essence, errors of law both in the legal classification of the measure as State aid and in identifying the beneficiaries of that measure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/31

Action brought on 21 May 2010 — Asociación Española de Banca v Commission

(Case T-236/10)

2010/C 195/49

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Asociación Española de Banca (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) of the consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax (texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades, TRLIS) involves State aid elements;

— in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) TRLIS involves State aid elements when it applies to acquisitions of shares which entail the acquisition of control;

— in the alternative, annul Article 4 inasmuch as it applies the recovery order to operations which occurred prior to the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the final decision which is the object of the present action, and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision against which these proceedings are brought is the same as that contested in Cases T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission; T-221/10 IBERDROLA v Commission; and T-225/10 BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA v Commission.

The pleas in law and the principal arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/46

Action brought on 26 April 2010 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission

(Case T-193/10)

2010/C 179/80

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Nucara, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Commission contained in the letter of 15 February 2010 by which the defendant rejected the applicant’s complaints.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision contained in the letter of 15 February 2010 rejecting the applicant’s complaint.

That complaint concerns not only the exemption from the Imposta Comunale sugli Immobili (Communal Tax on Immovable Property), as in Case T-192/10 Pietro Ferracci v Commission, but also the partial exemption (at the rate of 50 %) from payment of the Imposta sul reddito delle persone giuridiche (tax on the income of legal persons) provided for under Italian tax law.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-192/10.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/41

Action brought on 17 May 2010 — Association Belge des Consommateurs Tests-Achats v Commission

(Case T-224/10)

()

2010/C 209/63

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL/Belgische Verbruikersunie Test-Aankoop VZW (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Filpo and A. Fratini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decisions No C(2009) 9059 and No C(2009) 8954, both of 12 November 2009, in Case COMP/M.5549 — EDF/SEGEBEL; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the contested decisions in so far as the Commission decided not to partially refer the concentration between Electricité de France S.A. and Segebel to the Belgian Competition Authority under Article 9 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (the EC Merger Regulation) and declared the concentration compatible with the common market subject to commitments, under Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, without initiating proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

In support of its submissions, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

In its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decisions lack adequate statements of reason, violate Article 6(2) of the Merger Regulation, and are affected by manifest errors of evaluation, in so far as the Commission does not take adequately into account the competitive relation between the merged entity and the incumbent operator GDF Suez.

In its second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission has infringed its procedural rights to participate in the procedure.

In its third plea, the applicant maintains that the Commission did not have the compelling and decisive elements to conclude that the transaction would not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market, without initiating proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. Furthermore, the applicant claims that these defects also affect the decision not to refer the case to the Belgian Competition Authority, as the Commission did not have sufficient elements to establish whether or not it was the best placed authority to deal with the notified transaction.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 24, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/30

Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Ebro Puleva v Commission

(Case T-234/10)

2010/C 195/48

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ebro Puleva, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) of the consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax (texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades, TRLIS) involves State aid elements

— in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) TRLIS involves State aid elements when it applies to acquisitions of shares which entail the acquisition of control;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision against which these proceedings are brought is the same as that contested in Cases T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission; T-221/10 IBERDROLA v Commission; and T-225/10 BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA v Commission.

The pleas in law and the principal arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/56

Action brought on 21 June 2010 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (WESTERN GOLD)

(Case T-278/10)

()

2010/C 221/90

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr und T. Melchert, 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: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, 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) of 24 March 2010 in Case R 770/2009-1;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Lidl Stiftung & Co KG.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark WESTERN GOLD for goods in Class 33.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: a national and Community word mark WeserGold for goods in Classes 29, 31 and 32; a national and international word mark Wesergold for goods in Classes 29, 31 and 32 und a national word mark WESERGOLD for goods in Class 32.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed, decision of the Opposition Division annulled.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, because the Board of Appeal did not remit the case or examine the substance of the opposition, also infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the basis of infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard, also infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 because the Board of Appeal failed to state the reasons for its decision.

(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 209/48

Action brought on 28 May 2010 — medi v OHIM — Deutsche Medi Präventions (deutschemedi.de)

(Case T-247/10)

()

2010/C 209/72

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: medi GmbH & Co KG (Bayreuth, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen, H. Lindner and T. Kiputh, 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: Deutsche Medi Präventions GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)

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 16 March 2010 in Case R 1366/2008-4;

— reject the application for Community trade mark EM 5 089 099 in its entirety;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Deutsche Medi Präventions GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘deutschemedi.de’ for services in Class 35.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘medi.eu’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 10, 35, 39, 41, 42 and 44; German word mark ‘medi welt’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 10, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44; German word mark ‘medi-Verband’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 10, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44; Community word mark ‘World of medi’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 10, 35, 41 and 42; German figurative mark, containing the word elements ‘medi Ich fühl mich besser’, for goods and services in Classes 5, 10, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44; a trade and commercial name in commercial use containing the word element ‘medi’ for all goods and services to which the abovementioned marks relate in the territory of the European Union.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and opposition rejected.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) because there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue and the applicant has proved that it owns the commercial rights including the right to a commercial name, and infringement of the right to a hearing under Article 73 of Regulation No 207/2009.

(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 234/49

Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (CHEMOCONTROL)

(Case T-285/10)

()

2010/C 234/87

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Milux Holding S.A. (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 29 April 2010 in case R 1444/2009-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CHEMOCONTROL’ 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 Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.