ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/49

Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-433/07)

(2008/C 22/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— To declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the Commission has failed to act pursuant to its obligations under the EC Treaty by not having defined a position with respect to the applicant's complaint lodged with the Commission on 22 December 2006 followed by a letter of formal notice of 2 August 2007;

— to order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings even if, following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application as inadmissible;

— to take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position, after having been invited to do so, under Article 232 EC, on the basis of the applicant's complaint filed on 22 December 2006, regarding unlawful aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airlines and Olympic Airways Services (‘OA/OAS’) following an arbitration ruling of the Greek Supreme Court, ordering the Greek State to pay OA/OAS EUR 563 million for allegedly unpaid services and the cost of relocation to Athens' new airport.

The applicant puts forward that the difference between the amounts owed by the Greek State to OA/OAS as approximately assessed in Commission Decision 2003/372/EC (1) and the compensation for damages awarded to OA/OAS by the ruling of 20 December 2006 constitutes an advantage within the meaning of state aid rules, granted to the company. The grant of such advantage is attributable, according to the applicant, to the Greek State because the arbitration Court has acted as an organ of the State.

The applicant further submits that the Commission was under a duty to carry out a diligent and impartial examination of the complaint received in order to either adopt a decision declaring that the State measures did not amount to aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, or that those measures were to be classified as aid within the meaning of the said provision but were compatible with the common market under Article 87(2) and (3) EC, or to initiate a procedure under Article 88(2) EC.

The applicant further submits that the period of seven months which elapsed between the applicant's complaint and its letter of formal notice was unreasonably long, and the inaction of the Commission during that period constitutes failure to act within the meaning of Article 232 EC.

(1) Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways (notified under document number C(2002) 4831) (OJ, L 132, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/26

Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Lodato Gennaro & C. v Commission

(Case T-417/07)

(2008/C 8/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Lodato Gennaro & C. Spa (Castel San Giorgio, Italy) (represented by: M.A. Calabrese, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Order the annulment of Commission Decision SG/E/3/MIB/frw D(2007) 8690 of 8 October 2007;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought against the Commission decision of 8 October 2007, which refused access to certain documents sent to the Commission by the Italian Government in the context of a preliminary examination of State aid, Cases No 701/98 and 824/01, with reference to the opposition to disclosure expressed by the Italian Government following its consultation by Commission staff.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement and misapplication of Article 4(5) of 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 (1). It claims in this regard that the Commission erred in its interpretation of that provision, by granting Member States the power to prohibit the disclosure of documents originating from the Member State and held by Community institutions.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/45

Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Ecolean Research & Development v OHIM

(Case T-452/07)

(2008/C 51/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Ecolean Research & Development A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Referral back to the Board of Appeal for a fresh examination.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark CAPS for goods in Classes 7, 16 and 17 — application No 4 957 131

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal infringed essential procedural requirements and Council Regulation No 40/94, in part by failing to declare that the appeal should have been translated into the applicant's first language, Swedish, and in part by upholding the appeal and continuing to correspond in English. The Board of Appeal thus failed to comply with the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the right to equal treatment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/32

Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Harwin International v OHIM — Cuadrado (Pickwick)

(Case T-450/07)

(2008/C 37/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Harwin International LLC (Albany, United States) (represented by: D. Przedborski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cuadrado SA (Paterna, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the decision of the OHIM's Second Board of Appeal in Case R 1245/2006-2, rendered on 10 September 2007;

— order the defendant and Cuadrado SA to bear their own costs and to reimburse the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative trade mark containing the word components ‘PICKWICK COLOUR GROUP’ for goods and services in Class 25 — application No 826669

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Harwin International LLC

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Cuadrado SA

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The earlier national word mark ‘PICK OUIC, CUADRADO SA, VALENCIA’ and the figurative trade mark containing the word elements ‘Pick Ouic’ for goods in class 25

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the mark applied for invalid in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 56(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

The applicant claims that the Board's finding as to the non-examination by the Cancellation Division of the evidence submitted by Cuadrado is inconsistent and contrary to law. Furthermore, the applicant submits that there is no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/59

Action brought on 28 December 2007 — GlaxoSmithKline v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)

(Case T-493/07)

(2008/C 51/107)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: GlaxoSmithkline SpA (Verona, Italy) (represented by: G. Richard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Serono Genetics Institute SA (Evry, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 14 September 2007 in Case R 8/2007-1 and declare the request for invalidation brought by the applicant to be well founded;

— the applicant invites the Board to annul all cost orders made against the applicant by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, and to order the later to bear the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The Community word mark ‘FAMOXIN’ for goods and services in Class 5 — Application No 2 491 298

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Serono Genetics Institute SA

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 ‘LANOXIN’ for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for invalidation in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 52 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/52

Action brought on 25 December 2007 — Osram v Council

(Case T-466/07)

(2008/C 51/95)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Osram GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 and order that the contested regulation's effects be upheld until a fresh review regulation comes into force.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a German producer of a broad range of various types of light bulbs, including integrated electronic fluorescent lamps (CFL-i), seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (1), as this regulation only provides for the continuation of the anti-dumping duties for one year instead of the five-year period foreseen in the Basic Regulation (2).

In support of its application, the applicant submits, first of all, that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment by holding that two entities of the Philips group are ‘Community producers’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Basic Regulation.

Secondly, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of law by applying a Community interest test even though such a test is not foreseen for an expiry review.

Thirdly, the applicant contends that the Council breached Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation and abused its powers by limiting the duration of the anti-dumping duties to one year.

Finally, the applicant alleges that the Council based the Community interest test on manifestly erroneous factual findings, made an erroneous assessment and failed to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2007 L 272, 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 64/43

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Nuova Agricast v Commission

(Case T-479/07)

(2008/C 64/70)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Nuova Agricast srl (Cerignola, 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 64/44

Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Cabel Hall Citrus v OHIM — Casur (EGLÉFRUIT)

(Case T-488/07)

(2008/C 64/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: C. Rogers, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Casur S. Coop. Andaluza (Viator, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 19 September 2007 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 293/2007-1;

— direct the relevant Cancellation Division of OHIM to declare invalid Community trade mark registration No 3 517 431 EGLÉFRUIT;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘EGLÉFRUIT’ for goods and services in classes 29, 30 and 31 — Community trade mark No 3 517 431

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Casur S. Coop. Andaluza

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 Community and national word and figurative marks ‘UGLI’ for goods in classes 29, 31 and 32

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 because the Board of Appeal misapplied the test of likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/61

Action brought on 8 January 2008 — Evets v OHIM (DANELECTRO)

(Case T-20/08)

(2008/C 64/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evets Corporation (Irvine, United States) (represented by: S. Ryan, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

— That the decision R 603/2007 — 4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 5 November 2007 be set aside;

— that an order be substituted that the application for restitutio in integrum was brought within the time-limits as prescribed by Article 78(2);

— that the matter be referred back to the Fourth Board of Appeal for them to deal with the substantive issue as to whether all due care was taken to renew the trade mark concerned;

— that the costs be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘DANELECTRO’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 15 — application No 117 937

Decision of the Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division: Refused the request for restitutio in integrum and declared the trade mark as deemed to have been cancelled

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and declared the restitutio in integrum request as deemed not to have been filed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 78(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

The applicant claims that the question of compliance with the two month time-limit set by the abovementioned provision for the filing of the application for renewal of trade mark registrations and payment of the renewal fee was not part of the appeal. Should the Court decide that the Board was entitled to examine this issue, the applicant alternatively argues that the time-limit was calculated in an incorrect fashion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/29

Action brought on 4 January 2008 — Kinotita Grammatikou v Commission

(Case T-13/08)

(2008/C 79/57)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Kinotita Grammatikou (Community of Grammatiko) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Papakonstantinou and M. Khaïntarlis, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Decision C(2004) 5509 of 21 December 2004 relating to the grant of assistance from the Cohesion Fund for the project ‘Construction of a Landfill Site at the Integrated Waste Management Facility of North-East Attica at the location “Mavro Vouno Grammatikou”, in the Hellenic Republic’;

— in the event of doubt, order an on-the-spot inspection in the project area and seek independent technical opinions to corroborate the applicant's submissions;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards its locus standi to bring the action for annulment on the basis of Article 230 EC, the applicant considers that the contested decision, which seeks the creation of a landfill site on an area which is within the boundaries of the Community of Grammatiko, is of direct and individual concern to it because it is a public body responsible for the protection of public health and the environment in the area where the project that is being financed is located.

The applicant submits that the contested decision, the content of which it maintains came to its notice on 9 November 2007, infringes a number of provisions of primary Community law for the protection of health and the environment as well as provisions of secondary Community law giving concrete expression to the primary law.

Specifically, the applicant claims that the financing of the project contravenes the aims of maintaining, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, of protecting public health and of using natural resources in a wise and rational manner. In addition, in the applicant's view the contested Commission decision infringes first and foremost Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Directive 75/442 (1) and Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 91/156 (2), which lay down specific obligations in the areas of prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness.

Lastly, according to the applicant, it is clear that the creation of a waste management and disposal facility within a protected area cannot in any circumstances be regarded as a project eligible for financing by a financial instrument such as the Cohesion Fund, which by definition should finance only works complying with the requirements of protection of the environment.

(1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39).

(2) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/61

Action brought on 8 January 2008 — Evets v OHIM (QWIK TUNE)

(Case T-21/08)

(2008/C 64/99)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evets Corporation (Irvine, United States) (represented by: S. Ryan, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

— That the decision R 604/2007– 4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 5 November 2007 be set aside;

— that an order be substituted that the application for restitutio in integrum was brought within the time-limits as prescribed by Article 78(2);

— that the matter be referred back to the Fourth Board of Appeal for them to deal with the substantive issue as to whether all due care was taken to renew the trade mark concerned;

— that the costs be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark ‘QWIK TUNE’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 15 — application No 117 994

Decision of the Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division: Refused the request for restitutio in integrum and declared the trade mark as deemed to have been cancelled

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and declared the restitutio in integrum request as deemed not to have been filed

Pleas in law: The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-20/08, Evets/OHIM (DANELECTRO).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/35

Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission

(Case T-42/08)

(2008/C 92/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shetland Islands Council (represented by: E. Whiteford, Barrister, R. Murray, Solicitor and R. Thompson, QC)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Articles 1(2), 3, 4 and 5 of the decision; and

— the costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a public authority that made payments to the fisheries sector under the scope of two general aid measures, named ‘Aid to Fish Catching and Processing Industry’ and ‘Aid to the Fish Farming Industry’ consisting of different types of aid schemes. The Commission found that the aid which the United Kingdom implemented on the basis of the ‘Fishing Vessel Modernisation Scheme’ was incompatible with the common market, in so far as it concerned aid granted for the modernisation projects concerning capacity in terms of tonnage or power.

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C 37/2006 (ex NN 91/2005) of 13 November 2007 concerning the Fishing Vessel Modernisation Scheme implemented in the United Kingdom. In particular, the applicant seeks annulment of Article 1(2), 3, 4, and 5 of the contested decision on two grounds:

(1) The Commission allegedly erred in law in finding that payments for replacement or improvement of engines that do not affect the gross tonnage or power of any vessel ‘concern capacity in terms of tonnage or power’ within the meaning of Article 9(1)(c)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (1), and are thus incompatible with the common market;

(2) The Commission erred in law in finding that recovery of payments would be compatible with: (a) Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2); (b) the general principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and of equality of treatment.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (OJ L 337, p. 10).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1).