ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/26

Appeal brought on 21 May 2008 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06, Skareby v Commission

(Case T-193/08 P)

(2008/C 197/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Carina Skareby (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside the judgment delivered on 6 March 2008 by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-46/06;

— uphold the claims seeking annulment and damages put forward by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of both cases.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the appellant requests the Court to set aside the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06 Skareby v Commission, which dismissed her action for, first, annulment of her career development report for 2004 and, second, damages.

In support of her appeal, the appellant puts forward two pleas, alleging manifest errors of assessment (paragraphs 66, 98 and 113 of the contested judgment) and distortion of the clear sense of evidence (paragraph 68).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/56

Action brought on 4 July 2008 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-265/08)

(2008/C 223/99)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2008) 1690 final of 30 April 2008 reducing the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for an operational programme in the Objective 1 region Thuringia in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994-1999);

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision, the Commission, reduced the financial assistance from the ERDF for the operational programme in the Objective 1 region Thuringia in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994-1999).

The applicant relies on four grounds in support of its action.

Firstly, it complains that the Commission did not correctly assess important elements of fact in connection with priority axis 2.1 of the operational programme at issue (support measures for small and medium-sized enterprises: support for productive investment).

Second, the applicant alleges an infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) since no irregularities within the meaning of that provision have occurred. In that connection, it argues, in particular, that that provision does not permit the Commission to make financial corrections for administrative errors or allegedly inadequate systems of administration or supervision.

In addition, the applicant, argues that the Commission is not permitted to carry out extrapolated financial corrections under Regulation No 4253/88, since Article 24 of that provision refers to concrete cases and assistance which may be expressed in figures and not to hypothetical conclusions of systematic misadministration drawn on the basis of an administrative error which has been discovered.

Finally, the applicant complains that there is an infringement of Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation No 4253/88 even if it is accepted that extrapolated financial corrections are permitted inasmuch as the extrapolations are erroneous. It argues in that connection that the Commission should not have emphasised extrapolations based on the analysis of weak points by the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, that the Commission is partly to blame for the matters of which it complains and that the extrapolations at issue infringe the principle of proportionality.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/57

Action brought on 11 July 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-274/08)

(2008/C 223/100)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C (2008) 1711 of 30 April 2008 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2007 financial year.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision that is the subject of these proceedings is challenged in so far as it charges interest on sums to be borne by the Italian State budget pursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/05 and, in particular, in so far as it accounts for interest, with effect from the date of payment of sums that are not due, on sums which have not been recovered within eight years of the date of the primary administrative or judicial procedure and where judicial proceedings are pending before the national courts or tribunals, 50 % of which is to be borne by the Member State and 50 % by the Community budget.

In support of its action, the applicant Government claims infringement of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/05. That measure cannot be interpreted as meaning that, where recovery is being disputed in legal proceedings, interest must be charged, both because the literal wording of paragraph 5 makes no such provision (unlike paragraph 1 of that provision) and because the date from which interest runs can be established only once a judicial finding has been made.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/55

Action brought on 8 July 2008 — Canon Communications v OHIM — Messe Düsseldorf (MEDTEC)

(Case T-262/08)

(2008/C 223/97)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Canon Communications LLC (Los Angles, United States) (represented by: M. Mak, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Messe Düsseldorf GmbH (Düsseldorf, 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 30 April 2008 in case R 817/2005-1; and

— Order the defendant/the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MEDTEC’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 39 975 563 of the word mark ‘Metec’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41; international trade mark registration No 752 637 of the word mark ‘Metec’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition with respect to all the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The decision of the Board of Appeal should be annulled on the ground that there is a considerable chance that the national trade marks cited in the opposition proceedings are void; alternatively, infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no similarity between the services concerned and therefore no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks, or, in the alternative, that the services concerned are not sufficiently similar to conclude that there is a likelihood of confusion. In the alternative, it should be established that the Board of Appeal erred in not considering the fact that the public concerned is highly specialised and will therefore not confuse the conflicting trade marks. Finally, as an alternative plea in law, it should be established that the Board of Appeal erred in not taking into account the fact that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal tolerated the use of the Community trade mark concerned by the applicant for more than five years.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 247/16

Action brought on 15 July 2008 — Austria v Commission

(Case T-281/08)

(2008/C 247/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Decision C(2008) 1625 Final of 30 April 2008 on State aid No C 56/2006 (ex NN 77/2006) of Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2008) 1625 Final of 30 April 2008 in which the Commission decided that the State aid implemented by Austria in breach of Article 88(3) EC for the insurance company Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG and to GW Beteiligungserwerbs- und -verwaltungs-GmbH in connection with the privatisation of HYPO Bank Burgenland AG is incompatible with the common market.

With regard to the grounds of the application, reference is made to the summary of pleas in law relating to Case T-268/08 Land Burgenland v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 247/21

Action brought on 1 August 2008 — Hoo Hing v OHIM — Tresplain Investments (Golden Elephant Brand)

(Case T-300/08)

(2008/C 247/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Romford, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tresplain Investments Ltd (Hong Kong, China)

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 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1, in respect of the finding that Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 ground of objection was inadmissible;

— Alternatively, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1 such that Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 ground of objection is held to be admissible and well founded;

— Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1 such that Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 ground of objection is held to be admissible and well founded;

— Provided that the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1 is altered as requested, alter further the same decision so that Community trade mark No 241 810 is declared invalid on either or both of these additional grounds as appropriate; and

— Order OHIM or the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs. Alternatively, order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs jointly and severally.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘Golden Elephant Brand’ for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 241 810

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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 unregistered figurative mark ‘GOLDEN ELEPHANT’, which had been in use in the United Kingdom

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred when it held that the allegation based upon Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 was inadmissible, as well as when it failed to find that the objection to registration based upon Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 was admissible and well founded.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/15

Action brought on 5 August 2008 — Parfums Christian Dior v OHIM — Consolidated Artists (MANGO adorably)

(Case T-308/08)

(2008/C 260/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Parfums Christian Dior SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Cornu, D. Moreau and F. de Visscher, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consolidated Artists B.V. (Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

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 23 May 2008 in case R 1162/2007-2; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 figurative mark ‘MANGO adorably’ for goods in class 3

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

Mark or sign cited: French trade mark registration No 33 209 849 of the word mark ‘ADIORABLE’ for goods in class 3; French trade mark registration No 94 536 564 of the word mark ‘J'ADORE’ for various goods, amongst which goods in class 3; international trade mark registration No 811 001 of the word mark ‘ADIORABLE’ for various goods, amongst which goods in class 3; international trade mark registration No 687 422 of the word mark ‘J'ADORE’ for various goods, amongst which goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned and that the use of the trade mark applied for would not take unfair advantage of the reputation of earlier trade marks, on the wrong reasoning that under both legal grounds the trade marks concerned are not sufficiently similar.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/34

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Società di armatori G. padre dei F.lli Incorvaia G.I. e S. v Commission

(Case T-317/08)

(2008/C 272/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società di armamento Gaetano padre dei fratelli Incorvaia Giuseppe, Ignazio e Salvatore Snc (Licata, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. de Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/27

Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Abadía Retuerta v OHIM (CUVÉE PALOMAR)

(Case T-237/08)

(2008/C 272/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Abadía Retuerta, S.A. (Sardón de Duero, Spain) (represented by X. Fàbrega Sabaté and Curell Aguilà, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 2 April 2008 in Case R 1185/2007-1, and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CUVÉE PALOMAR’ for goods in Class 33 (Application for Registration No 5.501.937).

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration.

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

Pleas in law: The application for the Community mark in question does not infringe Article 7(1)(j) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since it does not contain or consist of a false geographic indication.

(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 272/42

Action brought on 25 August 2008 — EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission

(Case T-344/08)

(2008/C 272/83)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: A. Bach and A. Hahn, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision D(2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 concerning a request for access to the administrative files in Case COMP/F/38.899 (Gas insulated switchgear);

— in the alternative, annul Commission Decision D(2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 concerning a request for access to the administrative files in Case COMP/F/38.899 (Gas insulated switchgear) in so far as the Commission also refused the applicant partial access to the documents on the file;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant objects to the Commission's decision of 16 June 2008 rejecting the applicant's second request for access to documents on the Commission's file in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear.

The applicant advances three pleas in support of its application.

First of all, the applicant alleges an infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), since the exceptions laid down in those provisions were misinterpreted or misapplied. Further, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed the last clause of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, since it wrongly denied that the applicant has an overriding public interest in access to the file in Case COMP/F/38.899. Finally, the applicant submits that there was an infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, since the applicant ought to have been allowed to consult at least part of the documentation included in the file in Case COMP/F/38.899.

(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 285/44

Action brought on 19 August 2008 — Arkema France v Commission

(Case T-343/08)

(2008/C 285/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented by: A. Winckler, S. Sorinas Jimeno and H. Kanellopolous, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, the decision adopted by the Commission of the European Communities of 11 June 2008 in Case COMP/38.695 in so far as it concerns Arkema;

— In the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Article 229 EC, the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 in Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate, by which the Commission found that certain undertakings, including the applicant, infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by sharing sales volumes, by fixing prices, by exchanging commercially sensitive information on prices and sales volumes and by monitoring the execution of those anticompetitive arrangements on the market for sodium chlorate in the European Economic Area.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law alleging:

— an infringement of the rules concerning the responsibility of a parent company for offences committed by a subsidiary, inasmuch as the Commission committed errors of fact by asserting that Elf Aquitaine had a decisive influence on the applicant's commercial policy;

— an infringement of the applicant's rights of defence and of the principles of proportionality, non bis in idem, equality of treatment and of sound administration, since the basic amount of the fine payable by the applicant was increased by 90 % on the ground of recidivism;

— an underestimate of the value of the information provided by the applicant pursuant to the Leniency Notice of 2002 (1), inasmuch as the applicant should have received a reduction of the fine of between 30 and 50 %; and

— errors of law and of fact and an infringement of the principles of sound administration, proportionality and equality of treatment, since the Commission did not grant the applicant a reduction of the fine on the basis of its cooperation in the administrative procedure.

(1) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).