ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 224/52

Action brought on 8 August 2006 — Quinn Barlo and Others v Commission

(Case T-208/06)

(2006/C 224/108)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Quinn Barlo Ltd (County Cavan, Ireland), Quinn Plastics NV (Geel, Belgium) and Quinn Plastics GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: W. Blau, F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— In main order, annul the decision insofar as it holds that the applicants have infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA Agreement (annulment of Articles 1 and 2 as they relate to the applicants);

— in subsidiary order, annul Article 2 of the decision insofar as it relates to the applicants;

— in further subsidiary order, annul Article 2 of the decision insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicants of EUR 9 million and to reduce the fine in line with the arguments of this application;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the partial annulment of the Commission's Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates, by which the Commission found that the applicants had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a cartel which consisted of discussing prices, agreeing, implementing and monitoring price agreements either in form of price increases, or at least stabilisation of existing price levels, discussing the passing on of additional service costs to customers, exchange of commercially important and confidential market and/or company relevant information and participating in regular meetings and other contacts to facilitate the infringement.

In support of their application, the applicants invoke two pleas in law.

Firstly, the applicants submit that the contested decision is erroneous as it does not establish to the requisite standard of proof that the applicants participated in a single and common anti-competitive scheme and in a continuous infringement. Furthermore, the role of the applicant's representatives at four specific meetings is assessed incorrectly and, apart from the applicants presence at these four meetings, the contested decision contains no evidence that the applicants have engaged in any conduct that is characterised as unlawful in the decision.

Secondly, the applicants invoke an infringement of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) due to an incorrect assessment of the duration of the alleged infringement, an incorrect assessment of the gravity of the alleged infringement and an incorrect assessment of the mitigating circumstances.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 56/36

Action brought on 12 January 2007 — Frucona Košice v Commission

(Case T-11/07)

(2007/C 56/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovak Republic) (represented by: B. Hartnett, O. Geiss, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission's Decision C(2006)2082 final, of 7 June 2006, in state aid Case No C25/2005;

— annul in whole or in part Article 1 of the said decision;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision of 7 June 2006 on state aid implemented by the Slovak Republic for the applicant (C25/2005), insofar as it treats the applicant as a recipient of incompatible state aid and compels it to repay to the Slovak Republic the entirety of the tax write-off with interest.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following ten pleas in law:

By its first plea, the applicant claims that the Commission manifestly erred when determining the amount of the alleged state aid.

By its second plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision violates an essential procedural requirement and fails to have regard to Article 33 EC. In fact, the applicant contends it is DG Agriculture and not DG Competition which was the competent directorate to carry out the investigation and take the procedural and formal steps that led to the contested decision.

By its third plea, the applicant further submits that the contested decision violates Section 3, Annex IV of the Treaty of Accession, Article 253 EC, Article 88 EC and Regulation 659/1999 because the Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue the contested decision.

By its fourth plea, the applicant contends that the Commission has erred in fact and in law in applying Article 87(1) EC when it found bankruptcy proceedings to be more favourable than the tax settlement.

By its fifth plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission further erred by finding the tax execution procedure to be more beneficial than the tax settlement.

By its sixth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission manifestly erred in law and in fact by failing to discharge the burden of proof thereby violating Article 87(1) EC and Article 253 EC. In addition, the applicant submits that the Commission disregarded the legal standards set forth by the Court on the application of the private creditor test.

By its seventh plea, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in law and fact by failing to adequately assess and have regard to the evidence at its disposal.

By its eighth plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission erred in law and in fact by taking into account irrelevant evidence such as internal differences within the tax administration.

By its ninth plea, the applicant further submits that the decision violates Article 253 EC by lacking sufficient reasoning to justify its conclusions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/66

Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Republic of Latvia v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-369/07)

(2007/C 269/121)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: E. Balode-Buraka, K. Bārdiņa)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2007) 3409, of 13 July 2007, on the amendment of the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Latvia under Article 3(3) of Commission Decision C/2006/5612 (final), of 29 November 2006, on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Latvia under European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87/EC (1).

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

— Adjudicate under an expedited procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that, by interpreting very widely the rights conferred by Article 9(3) of Commission Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission has significantly restricted the sovereign rights of the Republic of Latvia in relation to energy, in particular, as regards its choice of energy sources and as regards the supply of electrical energy, thus disregarding the powers set out in Article 175(2)(c) of the EC Treaty.

Similarly, the applicant submits that the Commission has infringed the principle of non-discrimination, in that the application of the method of calculation devised by it to determine the total volume of greenhouse gas emissions allowed disadvantages the Member States with low total emissions.

The applicant also submits that the first criterion of Annex III of Directive 2003/87 has been infringed in that the Commission, when adopting the decision, did not take account of the international obligations of the Republic of Latvia under the Kyoto Agreement.

Finally, it submits that the Decision was adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements in that the time limit for rejection of the plan set by Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87 was not respected.

(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 8/22

Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Crunch Fitness International v OHIM — ILG (CRUNCH)

(Case T-408/07)

(2008/C 8/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Crunch Fitness International Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ILG Ltd (Dun Laoghaire, Ireland)

Form of order sought

— The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal in relation to class 41 of the CTM be annulled;

— the CTM remain registered for services in class 41; and

— order that OHIM pay its costs both in these proceedings and in the appeal proceedings before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘CRUNCH’ for goods and services in classes 9, 25 and 41 — Community trade mark No 62 083

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: ILG Ltd

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark for the goods and services in classes 9 and 25

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark also for the services in class 41

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 50(1)(a), alternatively Article 50(2), of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was no genuine use of the trade mark in question in the Community in connection with the services in class 41.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/46

Action brought on 12 October 2007 — Strack v Commission

(Case T-392/07)

(2007/C 297/93)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decisions adopted by the Commission — either actually or in the form of a deemed refusal under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — in the context of the processing of the applicant's application for access to documents of 20 June 2007 and his confirmatory application of 23 July 2007 or, in the alternative, his confirmatory applications of 15 August 2007;

— order the European Commission to pay the applicant compensation for the immaterial and moral damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the processing of his application, of an appropriate amount, but at least symbolic damages in the amount of 1 Euro;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applied, on the one hand, for access to certain documents in connection with confirmatory applications for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) which the Commission rejected wholly or partially and, on the other hand, access to documents relating to Case T-110/04. He was refused access to those documents or access was not granted within the period provided for.

In support of his application, the applicant submits that the defendant has infringed Article 255 EC as well as Article 2(1), (4) and (6)ff of Regulation No 1049/2001. In addition, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement of the principles of good administration and Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

(1) 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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/47

Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Mirto Corporación Empresarial v OHIM — Maglificio Barbara (Mirtillino)

(Case T-427/07)

(2008/C 22/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mirto Corporación Empresarial, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, 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: Maglificio Barbara Srl

Form of order sought

— Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2007 in Case R 875/2006-2 and order expressly that OHIM pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Maglificio Barbara Srl

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Mirtillino’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 (application No 3 252 467)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Creaciones Mirto, S.A.; the applicant following transfer of the marks at issue in the opposition proceedings.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘MIRTO’ (Community trade mark No 1 653 351) for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 and a number of other national word and figurative marks ‘MIRTO’.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision under appeal and dismissal of the opposition.

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

(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 8/21

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

(Case T-406/07)

(2008/C 8/38)

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 12 September 2007, notified on 17 September 2007, Case R 120/2007-1 refusing its application for registration of Community trade mark PAYWEB CARD, application No 3 861 051, for all the goods and services designated in classes 9, 36 and 38;

— Registration of Community trade mark application PAYWEB CARD No 3 861 051, for all the goods and services designated.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PAYWEB CARD’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 38 (Application No 3 861 051)

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 ‘PAYWEB 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 51/50

Action brought on 19 December 2007 — GALP Energia España and Others v Commission

(Case T-462/07)

(2008/C 51/92)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: GALP Energia España SA (Madrid, Spain), Petróleos de Portugal SA (Lisbon, Portugal) and GALP Energia, SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Slotboom, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Primarily, to set aside the contested decision; or

— alternatively, to set aside Articles 1, 2 and 3 of that decision as far as the applicants are concerned; or

— alternatively, to set aside Article 2 of the decision to the extent that a fine has been imposed on the applicants; or

— alternatively to reduce the fine that has been imposed on the applicants in Article 2 of the decision;

— to order the Commission to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application, the applicants request annulment, in whole or partially, of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38710 — Bitumen Spain) by which the Commission found that the applicants, among other undertakings, participated in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the penetration bitumen business which covered the territory of Spain and which consisted in market sharing agreements and price coordination.

In support of their claims the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:

— the Commission, in violation of the principle of sound administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, failed to institute a fair, careful and impartial investigation, substituting its own independent investigation of the relevant facts by vague and incorrect accusations made by other leniency applicants;

— the Commission allegedly breached Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) through manifest errors of appraisal and misapplication of the law, by finding that GALP Energia España took part in customer allocation, in monitoring and compensation mechanisms, or in any of the price arrangements, as described in the contested decision;

— the Commission further breached Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 through its determination of the duration of the alleged breach of Article 81 EC by concluding that GALP Energia España's involvement in the prohibited practices lasted until October 2002. In addition, the applicants submit that the Commission violated the abovementioned provisions in determining the level of the fine imposed on them;

— finally, since the Commission failed to carry out a careful and independent investigation, there was a defective adduction of evidence and a breach of the principle of the obligation to state reasons, embodied in Article 253 EC.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/24

Action brought on 26 November 2007 — Gebr. Heller Maschinenfabrik v OHIM — Fernández Martinez (HELLER)

(Case T-431/07)

(2008/C 37/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gebr. Heller Maschinenfabrik (Nürtingen, Germany) (represented by: W. Kessler and S. Baur, 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: Manuel Fernández Martinez (Alicante, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2007 in Case R 974/2006-2;

— Dismiss the opposition of the other party before the Second Board of Appeal, Manuel Fernández Martinez;

— Order the other party before the Board of Appeal, Manuel Fernández Martinez, to pay the costs and fees of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of OHIM and of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HELLER’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 37 and 40 (application No 3 306 602).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Manuel Fernández Martinez.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark ‘HELLER’ for goods in Class 7 (No 2 520 584).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

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

(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 51/56

Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Nynäs Petroleum and Nynas Petróleo v Commission

(Case T-482/07)

(2008/C 51/101)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AB Nynäs Petroleum (Stockholm, Sweden) and Nynas Petróleo, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Beard, Barrister and M. Dean, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Article 1 of the decision insofar as it applies to Nynas for the period 1991-1996;

— annulment of Article 1 of the decision insofar as it applies to Nynas in respect of price coordination;

— annulment of Article 2 of the decision insofar as it imposes fines of EUR 10 642 500 on Nynas SA and EUR 10 395 000 on AB Nynäs or, in the alternative, reduce that fine as appropriate;

— order that the Commission pays the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application partial annulment is sought, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.710 — Bitumen — Spain) by which the Commission found that the applicants, Nynäs Petroleum and Nynas Petróleo (together ‘Nynas’), among other undertakings, participated in a set of agreements and concerted practices in the penetration bitumen business which covered the territory of Spain and which consisted in market sharing agreements and price coordination; as well as/or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant, pursuant to Article 229 EC.

The grounds of the appeal are based on the following pleas:

(i) It is claimed that the Commission erred in its assessment of the duration of the involvement of Nynas in the alleged market allocation arrangements, in particular, by holding that Nynas has participated in the alleged infringement between 1991 and 1996.

(ii) It is further submitted that the Commission erred in its finding that Nynas were involved in the alleged pricing infringements.