C 70/32 EN 22.3.2003 Official Journal of the European Union
In support of its application, the applicant contests the
economic approach adopted in relation to the facts by theCommission which, on the one hand, defined as the relevant
market the Italian geographic market but which, on the other
hand, completely overlooked the fact that the average price of
reinforced concrete in Italy has always been, on average, less
than that in the other States.
Furthermore, S.P. contests the use of documents by the
Commission to substantiate its charges, in particular the
memorandum of a partner undertaking which, in the Com-
mission’s view, provided useful information to understand the
way in which the accused undertaking operated, without such
documents having been notified to the applicant during theproceeding. Moreover, although the Commission was in
possession of them, it failed to mention that it had made use
of such cooperation, preventing the applicant from adopting aposition in good time in relation to the charges made against
it. In that respect also, the applicant seeks the annulment of
the decision on the ground of a serious breach of the rights of
defence.
S.P. further alleges error of law, in particular the misapplication
of Article 65 ECSC, claiming that the contested objections donot contain sufficient evidence to support the existence of an
agreement or concerted practices.
Finally, S.P. further contests the methods adopted by the
Commission when determining the fines to be imposed, in
particular the multiplier and the increment linked to the
allegedly uninterrupted duration of the alleged infringementsand to the alleged extreme seriousness, which has not been
proven, of the infringements.
Action brought on 27 January 2003 by ComunidadAutónoma de Andalucía against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities
(Case T-29/03)
(2003/C 70/51)
(Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theEuropean Communities on 27 January 2003 by Comunidad
Autónoma de Andalucía, Seville (Spain), represented by Car-
men Carretero Espinosa de los Monteros, lawyers.The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of 11 November 2002 of the Director
General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) which,
as an internal service of the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, declares inadmissible the complaint lodged
by the Junta de Andalucía.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present proceedings contests the rejection
of the complaint submitted by Counsellor for Agriculture and
Fisheries to the Director General of the Anti-Fraud Office
(OLAF) after becoming aware of the existence of Report IO/2000/7057 concerning the investigations carried out by OLAF
into possible irregularities in the olive oil sector in Spain,
concentrating in particular on the territory of the Comunidad
Autónoma de Andalucía.
In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
— infringement of the principles of legality, in that OLAF’s
activities covered areas over which there is no judicial
oversight, and of equality, inasmuch as such conductdiscriminated against any legal or natural person who is
not an official, agent or staff of the Community insti-
tutions, who alone may lodge administrative complaints
against OLAF’s conduct.
— infringement of the fundamental right of defence.
— that OLAF must accept the complaint in issue by analogy
with the provisions of Article 14 of Regulation No 1073/
1994, and reply to the substantive questions raised in the
aforementioned complaint.
Action brought on 30 January 2003 by The GeneralWorkers Union in Denmark (Specialarbejderforbundet iDanmark ‘SID’) against the Commission of the European
Communities
(Case T-30/03)
(2003/C 70/52)
(Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
22.3.2003 EN C 70/33 Official Journal of the European Union
European Communities on 30 January 2003 by The General
Workers Union in Denmark (Specialarbejderforbundet i Dan-mark ‘SID’), Copenhagen, Denmark, represented by Philip
Bentley QC, Mr Anders Worsøe and Mr Filip Ragolle, Lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission decision C(2002)4370fin of 13 Nov-
ember 2002 in so far as it is decided not to raise any
objections to fiscal measures that have been applied since
1 January 1989 to seafarers on board vessels registeredin Denmark, either in the DAS or in the DIS registers;
— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, the General Workers Union in Denmark, lodged
a complaint with the Commission regarding the tax regimeapplied to seafarers employed on board ships registered in the
Danish International Shipping register (DIS). In the contested
decision, the Commission decided not to raise objections to
the fiscal measures and considered that they constituted state
aid, but that they were and still are compatible with thecommon market on the basis of Article 87 (3)(c) EC Treaty.
The fiscal measures in question grant tax exemptions to all
seafarers employed on board ships registered in the DIS
register. The Commission considered that this was in conform-
ity with the Community guidelines on state aid to maritime
transport (
1) according to which reduced rates of income tax
for EC seafarers on board ships registered in a Member State
are compatible with the common market.
In support of its application, the applicant invokes an infringe-
ment of essential procedural requirements and the principle of
good administration. The applicant alleges that the case
involved serious difficulties and that the Commission thereforeshould have opened an investigation pursuant to Article 88(2)
EC Treaty.
The applicant furthermore submits a violation of
Article 87(3)(c) EC Treaty in conjunction with the Community
guidelines on state aid to maritime shipping and the principle
of legitimate expectations. According to the applicant, theCommission erred by interpreting the notion of ‘EC seafarers’
as meaning any seafarer employed on board a vessel registered
in a Member State.The applicant finally invokes a manifest error of assessment.
The applicant alleges that the Commission should have madean assessment of the effect of the tax exemptions have on the
employment of seafarers residing in a Member State and
employed on terms and conditions which meet the high
standards prevailing in the Community.
(1) Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (OJ
C 205 of 1997, p. 5.
Action brought on 31 January 2003 by GRUPO SADA,
P.A., S.A. against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
(Case T-31/03)
(2003/C 70/53)
(Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on31 January 2003 by GRUPO SADA, P.A., S.A., whose regis-
tered office is in Madrid, represented by Álvaro Aguilar De
Armas and José María Marrero Ortega.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the OHIM of 20 November 2002
in so far as it refuses to register ‘GRUPO SADA’ as aCommunity trade mark; and
— order OHIM to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com- The applicant
munity trade mark:
The Community trade GRUPO SADA — Application
mark concerned: No 157545 for goods in Class-
es 29, 31 and 35