ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/14

Action brought on 24 February 2009 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-81/09)

2009/C 129/24

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by K. Meidanis and E. Lampadarios, assisted by M. Tassopoulou)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Decision C (2008) 8573 of 15 December 2008 reducing the financial assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (‘ERDF’) which was granted to Greece under Objective 1 of the operational programme ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ by Commission Decision C (94) 3579 of 16 December 1994 authorising financial assistance from the ERDF, CCI No 94.08.09.019, in so far as it reduces the financial aid by imposing financial corrections amounting to EUR 11 946 583,53 and EUR 17 488 622, as more specifically set out in the application;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contends that the contested decision should be annulled for the following reasons.

First, in the applicant’s submission, the contested decision was adopted in breach of an essential procedural requirement laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, (1) since the check on the basis of which the decision was adopted and financial corrections were imposed in respect of certain works was carried out by, amongst others, persons who were not Commission officials. Furthermore, in breach of the principle of transparency, the report on the check does not mention the names of the auditors from the private firm who participated in the check, nor is the report signed by them.

Second, the applicant pleads that the decision was adopted without full, clear and sufficient reasons being stated.

Third, the applicant submits that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the law, in particular (i) it was adopted pursuant to a rule which had not been enacted in the programme period 1994-99 and (ii) the Commission misinterpreted the provisions of Greek law transposing a Community directive, or in the alternative the statement of reasons is insufficient.

Fourth, the applicant maintains that in adopting the decision the Commission misappraised the factual circumstances (error as to the facts) and infringed 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 141/49

Action brought on 8 April 2009 — France v Commission

(Case T-139/09)

2009/C 141/103

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 2003 final of 28 January 2009 on the contingency plans in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France, in so far as it refers to the part of the measures taken under the contingency plans which was financed by sectoral contributions;

— In the alternative, were the Court to find that application for partial annulment inadmissible, annul Decision C(2009) 2003 final in its entirety;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2009) 203 final (1) of 28 January 2009, by which the Commission declared incompatible with the common market State aids granted by the French Republic to producers of fruit and vegetables under the ‘contingency plans’ aimed at facilitating the marketing of agricultural products harvested in France.

The applicant seeks annulment of the contested decision, to the extent that the Commission found that the measures taken in favour of the producers of fruit and vegetables constituted State aid, whereas those measures were in part financed by voluntary contributions from the producers which do not, according to the applicant, amount to State resources or resources attributable to the State.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas based on:

— breach of the obligation to state reasons, to the extent that the Commission did not justify the extension of the finding of State aid to measures financed by voluntary contributions from the producers in the sector concerned;

— an error of law, since the Commission regarded as State aid measures financed by private resources paid voluntarily and without State intervention. Those measures cannot be regarded as advantages granted through State resources.

(1) That is the number stated in the contested decision, whereas the applicant consistently refers to the number C(2009) 2003 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 167/22

Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Formenti Seleco v Commission

(Case T-210/09)

2009/C 167/44

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Formenti Seleco SpA (Pordenone, Italy) (represented by: A. Malatesta, G. Terracciano and S. Malatesta, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay compensation totalling EUR 1 562 008 915,03 to Formenti Seleco SpA, which is in liquidation under special administration, together with statutory interest with effect from the date of declaration of insolvency or, in the alternative, to the extent which the Court may consider equitable;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company, one of the main manufacturers in Italy of colour televisions, was declared insolvent and placed under special administration following the wide-scale importation into the European market of colour televisions manufactured by Turkish companies which were sold at prices that amounted to dumping.

That situation arose within the Community as a direct result of the infringement by the Turkish Republic of the Association Agreement concluded with the EC in 1963 and subsequent supplementary measures, in so far as the Turkish Government established a legal framework designed to avoid its obligations under the Association Agreement with the Community with regard, in particular, to the determination of the Turkish origin of colour televisions imported into the Community, the Commission having been aware since at least 1993 of such circumventions.

In particular, Formenti Seleco SpA maintains that the Commission is liable on the following grounds, which are capable of establishing its non-contractual liability to it and its consequent obligation to pay compensation for damage:

(1) infringement of its obligations under the Association Agreement and the Additional Protocol thererto, in so far as, either during the transitional period for the implementation of the customs union between the Community and the Turkish Republic or until 1994, or, in particular, at the time when full customs union was accomplished, it failed to ensure that the relevant customs legislation was correctly applied, even though it was aware that the Turkish Republic was disregarding the agreements.

(2) Infringement of Article 211 EC and the principle of sound administration, since, in so far as the Association Agreement and the Additional Protocol form part of Community law, the Commission is also obliged to monitor the implementation of those provisions and to ensure sound administration.

(3) Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, since, as a result of the conduct referred to above, it frustrated the expectation of individual Community commercial operators, and in particular that of the applicant, that the customs union with Turkey would function properly, an expectation that should have been met by means of the checks and controls which the Commission failed to carry out.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/40

Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Eliza v OHIM — Went Computing Consultancy Group (eliza)

(Case T-130/09)

2009/C 153/78

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Eliza Corporation (Beverly, United States) (represented by: R. Köbbing, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Went Computing Consultancy Group BV (Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 February 2009 in case R 1244/2008-4; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “eliza”, for goods and services in classes 9, 37 and 42

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: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “ELISE” for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (1) (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its holding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned on the part of the relevant public

(1) Replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 78, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 167/17

Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Poloplast v OHIM — Polypipe Building Products (P)

(Case T-189/09)

2009/C 167/33

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Poloplast GmbH & Co KG (Leonding, Austria) (represented by: G. Bruckmüller, 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: Polypipe Building Products Ltd (Edlington, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 February 2009 or alter it in such a way that it establishes that there is no likelihood of confusion between the markets covered, and

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Poloplast GmbH & Co KG.

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘p’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 11, 17, 19 and 42 (application No 3 148 194).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Polypipe Building Products Ltd.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘P’ for goods in Class 17 (Community trade mark No 33 191) and the figurative mark ‘P POLYPIPE’ for goods in Classes 6, 11, 17, 19 and 20 (Community trade mark No 2 685 691).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)), as there is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 193/23

Action brought on 2 June 2009 — Denmark v Commission

(Case T-212/09)

2009/C 193/38

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Bering Liisberg, Agent, assisted by P. Biering and J. Pinborg, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Primarily, set aside the Commission decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in so far as that decision involves the exclusion from Community financing of the expenditure declared by Denmark;

— In the alternative, set aside in part the Commission decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in so far as that decision involves the exclusion from Community financing of the expenditure declared by Denmark, to the extent to which the exclusion from Community financing is based on:

— an alleged breach of the rules on, and weakness in, the control of set-aside areas in 2002, 2003 and/or 2004; and/or

— an alleged breach of the rules on, and weakness in, remote-sensing control in 2003 and/or 2004;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2009/253/EC of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in so far as that decision involves the exclusion from Community financing of the expenditure declared by Denmark. (1)

The applicant submits that the Commission’s decision is, in a number of respects, based on an erroneous understanding and application of the legal basis, particularly in regard to the issue of maintenance of the set-aside areas and the requirements relating to remote-sensing control.

It is further submitted that the decision suffers from fundamental defects in its reasoning and is in a number of respects at variance with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and with the principle of legal certainty.

In conclusion, the applicant contends that the correction was carried out in a manner contrary to the Commission’s own guidelines, has an insufficient basis in the facts and is disproportionate in light of the fact that the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund was not faced with a genuine financial risk in this case.

(1) OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15; notified under document number C(2009) 1945.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/60

Action brought on 3 June 2009 — ERGO Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle (ERGO)

(Case T-220/09)

2009/C 180/110

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: ERGO Versicherungsgruppe (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, 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: Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle SAS (Chenôve, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 in Case No R 515/2008-4;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘ERGO’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 5 (registration application No 3 292 638)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle SAS

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘URGO’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 (Community trade mark No 989 863)

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 (1)) on the grounds that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two opposing marks.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/44

Action brought on 26 June 2009 — Wilo SE v OHIM (shape of a motor casing)

(Case T-253/09)

2009/C 205/80

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wilo SE (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by G. Braun)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 March 2009 in Case R 1184/2008-1;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: a three-dimensional mark representing the casing of a motor of a heating pump, for goods in Classes 7 and 11 (Application No 5 805 692)

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (CE) No 207/2009 (1))as the mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
—

Infringement of Articles 32 and 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, (2) in so far as the defendant reduced payment of the expenditure certified in respect of measure 1.7 ‘pending the outcome of Case T-99/09’ and that the fact that there are proceedings pending against previous payment procedure measures is not one of the circumstances in which payment from Structural Funds may be reduced in accordance with the provisions referred to above.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/39

Action brought on 9 July 2009 — Aiello v OHIM — Cantoni ITC (100 % Capri)

(Case T - 279/09)

2009/C 220/83

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Antonio Aiello (Vico Equense, Italy) (represented by: M. Coccia and L. Pardo, 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: Cantoni ITC SpA (Milan, Italy)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2009, notified by fax on 14 May 2009, in case R 1148/2008-1 between Antonio Aiello and Cantoni ITC SpA and, by way of correction, reject opposition B 856 163 to the registration of the trade mark ‘100 % CAPRI’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 (No 003563848).

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Antonio Aiello

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark composed of the word and number elements ‘100 % Capri’ (registration application No 3 563 848) for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: CANTONI L.T.C. S.p.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark (registration application No 2 689 891) and national figurative mark composed of the word element ‘CAPRI’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application for registration for all the contested goods.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Articles 50(1) and 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (replaced by Regulation No 207/2009).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 244/14

Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Onidol v Commission

(Case T-313/09)

2009/C 244/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Organisation nationale interprofessionnelle des graines et fruits oléagineux (Onidol) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret et L. Olza Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final () of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 244/9

Action brought on 29 July 2009 — CNIEL v Commission

(Case T-293/09)

2009/C 244/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre National Interprofessionnel de l'Économie Laitière (CNIEL) (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Cabanes and V. Kostrzewski-Pugnat, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 10 December 2008 in Case N 561/2008 — France (Actions by interprofessional organisations);

— in the alternative, order the Commission to institute the formal procedure to review the aid laid down in Article 88(2) EC;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order (‘CVLs’) taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.

In support of its action, the applicant advances three pleas in law, alleging:

— manifest error of assessment in breach of Article 87(1) EC, since CVLs do not constitute State resources and since the measures adopted cannot be attributed to the State and do not give rise to any advantage for the final beneficiaries;

— breach of the duty to state reasons, since the Commission has not indicated its reasons for finding that the CVLs constitute State resources or how trade between Member States is affected or competition distorted;

— breach of Article 88(3) EC in that the Commission failed to institute the formal review procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC despite the existence of serious difficulties in assessing the nature of the framework system at issue.

(1) OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.