ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/27

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

(Case T-44/08)

(2008/C 107/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shetland Islands Council (Lerwick, United Kingdom) (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 the Fish Catching and Processing Industry’ and ‘Aid to the Fish Farming Industry’, consisting of different types of aid schemes. One of these schemes was the First Time Shareholders Scheme. The Commission found that the aid which the United Kingdom implemented on the basis of this scheme was incompatible with the common market, in so far as it concerned aid granted for the first time acquisition of a share in a second-hand fishing vessel.

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C 39/2006 (ex NN 94/2005) of 13 November 2007 concerning the First Time Shareholders 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 the following grounds:

(1) The Commission erred in law in finding that all payments made for the first time acquisition of a share in a second-hand fishing vessel were incompatible with the common market and had to be paid back;

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

(1) 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 1999 L 83, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/37

Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Global Digital Disc v Commission

(Case T-96/08)

(2008/C 107/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Global Digital Disc GmBH & Co. KG (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: E. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission decision COMP/C-3/38.803 of 7 December 2007 — Global Digital Disc (GDD) v Philips;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests Commission decision COMP/C-3/38.803 of 7 December 2007 — Global Digital Disc (GDD) v Philips. In that decision the Commission dismissed the applicant's complaint, in which it pleaded several infringements of Article 82 EC by the party complained of in connection with that party's licensing practice in the CD-R field, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (1).

In its grounds of complaint the applicant contends first that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to give reasons. Furthermore the defendant infringed the applicant's rights of defence. Finally the applicant complains that the Commission's arguments for rejecting the Community-wide importance of the subject-matter of the complaint are misjudged.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/28

Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Atlantean v Commission

(Case T-125/08)

(2008/C 116/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Atlantean Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland) (represented by: M. Fraser, Solicitor, G. Hogan, E. Regan and C. Toland, Barristers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— order the defendant to make good to the applicant damages caused to it by Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 insofar as it unlawfully rejected the request by Ireland to increase the capacity of the vessel MFV Atlantean, the said damages amounting to EUR 7 419 522, subject to updating in the course of proceedings, together with interest from the 4 April 2003 until the final settlement and default interest in the event of delay, after delivery of the judgment, in payment of the sums awarded;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant is bringing an action for non-contractual liability arising from the losses it claims to have suffered as a result of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 which provided for the rejection of the request by Ireland in respect of the applicant's vessel Atlantean to increase capacity under the fourth multi-annual guidance programme (MAGP IV) applicable for the reasons of improvements in safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (1). This decision was annulled by the Court's judgment of 13 June 2006 in so far as it applied to the applicant's vessel Atlantean (2).

The applicant states in support of its contentions that in adopting the annulled decision the Commission breached a number of superior rules of law: it not only lacked the competence to make the decision, as found by the Court in its judgment, but it also infringed the principle of legal certainty, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of non-retroactivity, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of proportionality, its obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC, the right of the applicant to be heard and it misused its powers. The applicant also states that the Commission was manifestly and gravely in disregard of the limits of its discretion. It claims that in such circumstances, the mere infringement of Community law establishes a sufficiently serious breach of law.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that it has suffered and continues to suffer substantial loss and damage as a direct consequence of the Commission adopting the annulled decision as it was required to purchase additional polyvalent replacement capacity. Therefore, the applicant claims that its damage is actual and certain.

(1) OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48.

(2) Case T-192/03, Atlantean Ltd v Commission [2006] ECR II-42.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/29

Action brought on 5 February 2008 — IEA and Others v Commission

(Case T-56/08)

(2008/C 107/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stichting IEA Secretariaat Nederland (IEA) (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Educational Testing Service Global BV (ETS-Europe) (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung (DIPF) (Frankfurt am Main, Germany), Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen (IQB) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of 23 November 2007 rejecting the tender from the applicant in response to the call for tender No EAC/21/2007 ‘European survey on language competences’, in so far as it infringes EU law and is based on manifest errors of assessment;

— annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission awarding the contract related to this call for tender to the SurveyLang Consortium, in so far as it infringes EU law and is based on manifest errors of assessment; and

— order, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the CFI, the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call for tender concerning the ‘European survey on language competences’ (OJ 2007/S 61-074161), as rectified (OJ 2007/S 109-133727). The applicants contest the defendant's decision of 23 November 2007 to reject their bid and to award the contract to another tenderer.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the contested decision violates the principle of equal treatment, Article 100(1) of the financial regulation (1) and the tender specifications.

Furthermore, the applicants claim that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the qualitative criteria laid down in the tender specifications, which in turn led to a manifest error of assessment in the setting of the bidders' respective scores.

Finally, the applicants allege that the Commission breached the principle of good administration by failing to exercise due care during the tender procedure.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1), as rectified (OJ 2003 L 25, p. 43).
—

requests for information and measures of inquiry: If the dispute is not decided solely on the basis of the evidence submitted in this application in favour of the applicants, in accordance with the above principal heads of claim, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities should: 1. order the Commission of the European Communities to provide the applicants, in CD-Rom format, with the proposals submitted to it by Finland, including all the areas included in the contested decision together with all information referred to in recital (7) in the preamble to the contested decision, 2. order the Commission of the European Communities to provide to the applicants, in CD-Rom format, scientific data concerning habitats and other information in its possession relating to all the areas of the Republic of Finland referred to in recital (8) in the preamble to the contested decision, together with, in paper format, the maps and the information referred to in recital (9) in the preamble thereto, 3. order the Commission of the European Communities to provide the applicants, in CD-Rom format, with all the documents relating to the sites in the Republic of Finland drawn up during the cooperation mentioned in recital (10) in the preamble to the contested decision, or made available to the Commission at that time, together with paper copies of the maps, and 4. order the Commission of the European Communities to provide the applicants with the opinion of the Habitats Committee mentioned in recital (15) in the preamble to the contested decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/46

Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Tay Za v Council

(Case T-181/08)

(2008/C 171/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pye Phyo Tay Za (Yangoon, Myanmar) (represented by: D. Anderson QC, M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— The annulment of Regulation 194/2008 of 25 February 2008, as a whole or in so far as it concerns the applicant; and

— order that the Council pays the applicant's costs for this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 (1) in so far as it applies to him for four reasons:

First, the applicant contends that the regulation has no proper legal basis. He submits to this end that neither Article 60 EC nor Article 301 EC gives the Council the power to freeze the entirety of a person's funds who is not connected with the military regime of Burma/Myanmar. Second, the applicant claims that the regulation infringes the obligation to state reasons on the basis of Article 253 EC. Namely, the applicant claims that the regulation does not provide any reasons why the applicant has been included in Part J of Annex VI of the said regulation which lists members of the Burmese government and people associated with it. Also, the Common Position No 2006/318/CFSP (2) requiring Member States to prevent the applicant form entering into and transiting through their territories does allegedly not provide any reasons either for the applicant's inclusion in the list, but simply includes him in a list under a heading ‘Persons who benefit from Government Economic Policies’. Third, the applicant submits that the regulation infringes his fundamental rights, since it allegedly interferes in a disproportionate manner with his rights to peaceful enjoyment of his property, to a fair hearing and to effective legal protection. Fourth, according to the applicant the regulation infringes the principle of proportionality.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (OJ 2008 L 66, p. 1).

(2) Council Common Position No 2006/318/CFSP of 27 April 2006 renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (OJ 2006 L 116, p. 77) extended until 30 April 2009 by Council Common Position 2008/349/CFSP of 29 April 2008 (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 57).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/24

Action brought on 13 May 2008 — DEI v Commission

(Case T-169/08)

(2008/C 183/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Anestis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 824 final of 5 March 2008 relating to the grant or retention in force by the Hellenic Republic of rights for the mining of lignite in favour of Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou (Public Power Corporation).

The applicant puts forward the following pleas for annulment.

The applicant submits, first, that the defendant erred in law when applying Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC, and made a manifest error of assessment.

Specifically, according to the applicant the defendant erred (i) with regard to the definition of the relevant markets; (ii) with regard to application of the theory of extension of a dominant position, since it did not take into account that, even in the case of public undertakings, the extension must be based on State measures that grant exclusive or special rights; (iii) because the Greek legislation on the basis of which the applicant acquired rights in respect of the exploitation of lignite does not lead to a situation of unequal opportunity to the detriment of competitors; (iv) since the aforementioned legislation does not lead to the maintenance or strengthening of the applicant's dominant position in the wholesale electricity market; and (v) by reason of a manifest error of assessment in not taking into account the recent developments in the Greek electrical energy market inasmuch as they were important for proving the absence of an infringement.

Under the second plea for annulment, the applicant submits that, in issuing the contested decision, the defendant did not comply with the rules laid down by Article 253 EC that govern the statement of reasons.

Under the third plea for annulment, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the general principles of legal certainty, of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the protection of property. The applicant further contends that it falls to the Court to rule whether the defendant misused its powers.

Finally, under the fourth plea for annulment, the applicant submits that the defendant did not comply with the principle of proportionality as regards the corrective measures proposed by the contested decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/40

Action brought on 28 April 2008 — Paroc v OHIM — (INSULATE FOR LIFE)

(Case T-157/08)

(2008/C 171/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Paroc Oy/AB (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: J. Palm, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2008 in case R 0054/2008-2; and

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INSULATE FOR LIFE’ for goods and services in classes 6, 17, 19 and 37 — application No 593 2827

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application for all goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the mark acquired the minimum degree of distinctiveness required to be registered.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/30

Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Verhuizingen Coppens v Commission

(Case T-210/08)

(2008/C 197/53)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Verhuizingen Coppens NV (Bierbeek, Belgium) (represented by: J. Stuyck and I. Buelens, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 so far as concerns the applicant;

— annul Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 so far as concerns the applicant;

— in the alternative, reduce the fine and set it at an amount not exceeding 10 % of the applicant's turnover on the relevant market for international removal services;

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant's first two pleas in law seek the annulment of the Commission decision of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services).

The applicant submits, first, that there is an infringement of Article 81(1) EC. The applicant was sanctioned for participation in a complex cartel even though, according to the Commission's file, the applicant differed from the other participants in that it was found only to have participated in a small part of the alleged cartel. Furthermore, the applicant's alleged participation in the cartel was shorter than was found by the Commission, and the Commission failed to take into account the relative weight of the applicant's participation in the cartel.

Second, the applicant submits that there is an infringement of Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation 1/2003 (1), since the Commission incorrectly established both the duration and the continuing nature of the infringement.

In the alternative, the applicant seeks an exemption from the fine imposed or at least a drastic reduction in its amount on the ground that the basic amount of the fine was wrongly established and calculated and there was a manifest breach of the principle of proportionality when setting the fine.

(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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/64

Action brought on 18 June 2008 — Batchelor v Commission

(Case T-250/08)

(2008/C 209/113)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edward William Batchelor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Young, Solicitor, A. Barav, Barrister, and D. Reymond, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the implied negative decision deemed, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Access Regulation, to have been made by the European Commission on 9 April 2008 and the express negative decision made by the Commission on 16 May 2008, relating to a request for access to documents presented pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43);

— Order the Commission to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application for annulment under Article 230 EC is directed against the Commission's implied decision of 9 April 2008 and its express decision of 16 May 2008, made pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) (‘the Access Regulation’), by which the Commission rejected the applicant's request for access to documents relating to the notification of measures taken under Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities.

The applicant claims that the contested decision violates Article 253 EC and Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of the Access Regulation and thus is vitiated by an infringement of an essential procedural requirement, namely, by failing to give sufficient reasons for denial of access to the documents requested. The applicant further submits that, in denying access to the documents requested, the contested decision violates Article 255 EC and Articles 1(a), 2(1) and (3), 4(1) to (6) of the Access Regulation. In particular, the applicant contends that the contested decision infringes the Access Regulation in holding that the exceptions under the second paragraph of Article 4(3) and of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) thereof applied and, finally, that the contested decision infringes Article 4(6) of the Access Regulation in failing to provide reasons for the refusal of partial access to the documents requested.

(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 209/61

Action brought on 20 June 2008 — CBI and Abisp v Commission

(Case T-241/08)

(2008/C 209/109)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Coordination Bruxelloise d'Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) (Brussels, Belgium) and Association Bruxelloise des Institutions de Soins Privées (Abisp) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and D. Slater, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the confirmatory decision of the Commission;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 April 2008, which, in their opinion, confirms the Commission's decision of 10 January 2008 rejecting their complaint made on 7 September and 17 October 2005 against the State aid granted by the Kingdom of Belgium to public hospitals of the IRIS network in the Brussels-Capital Region and refusing to initiate the formal investigation procedure in respect of the aid in question pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants are identical to those submitted in Case T-128/08 CBI and Abisp v Commission (1).

(1) OJ 2008 C 142, p. 30.