ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/44

Action brought on 3 April 2009 — Kitou v European Data Protection Supervisor

(Case T-164/09)

2009/C 153/88

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Erasmia Kitou (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor

Form of order sought

— declare that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is inapplicable;

— in the alternative, declare an error of law in the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001;

— consequently, annul the Decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor 2008-0600;

— declare that the request for access to the document does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Regulation No 45/2001;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor by which the latter found that the disclosure during national legal proceedings of certain data concerning the applicant’s career in the Commission of the European Communities is not contrary to the provisions of Regulations No 45/2001 (1) and No 1049/2001. (2)

In support of its action, the applicant claims that:

— the contested decision is unfounded inasmuch as it is based on Regulation No 1049/2001 which is inapplicable in the present case, since the request for access does not concern a document within the meaning of Regulation No 1049/2001, but exclusively an item of personal data.

— even if Regulations No 1049/2001 and No 45/2001 were to apply in conjunction with one another in the present case, the defendant, when applying them, erred in considering that the conditions imposed by Regulation No 45/2001 concerning the processing of personal data apply only where the exception provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding access to documents is applicable;

— the defendant infringed the provisions of Regulation No 45/2001 inasmuch as the request for access did not concern a document and was not based on any of the conditions for permitting the processing of personal data.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

(2) 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 153/44

Action brought on 21 April 2009 — Ilink Kommunikationssysteme v OHIM (ilink)

(Case T-161/09)

2009/C 153/87

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ilink Kommunikationssysteme GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by B. Schütze, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 5 February 2009 in Case R 1849/2007-4; and

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ilink’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 38 and 42

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)), since the trade mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character and there is no need for it to be allowed to remain available.

(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 167/15

Action brought on 5 May 2009 — Z v Commission

(Case T-173/09)

2009/C 167/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Z (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: C. Grau and N. Jäger, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

— Grant the applicant, through acces to the file in Case COMP/39406 — ‘Marine Hoses’ — in particular through the provision of a copy of the Commission Decision of 28 January 2009, which imposed a fine on Dunlop Oil & Marine/ContiTech AG/Continental AG for their alleged participation in the marine hoses cartel between 1986 and 2007, information about whether it is identified by name in that decision and — if so — in what context the identification of the applicant takes place, in particular the extent to which relevant cartel- or criminal law representations relating to the applicant are included in the Commission decision;

— Remove, after the granting of access to the file, any references, yet to be defined, identifying the applicant by name, in particular relevant cartel- and criminal law representations relating to the applicant in the Commission Decision of 28 January 2009, which imposed a fine on Dunlop Oil & Marine/ContiTech AG/Continental AG for their alleged participation in the marine hoses cartel between 1986 and 2007;

— Remove the identification by name of the applicant and any references to the applicant in the version of the decision to be published;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission’s refusal of 5 March 2009 to grant it access to the documents on the file in Case COMP/39.406 — ‘Marine Hoses’. The applicant also requests the removal of possible references to itself in the Commission decision of 28 January 2009 in this case and the removal of references to itself in the version of the decision to be published.

The applicant asserts in support of the action that the right to be granted access to the file and the removal of any references to the applicant are based on the infringement of the applicant’s fundamental procedural rights, namely the right to a fair hearing and the right of access to the file, and on the principle of the presumption of innocence. A right of access to the file is based also on the right of public access to Commission documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1).

(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 167/19

Action brought on 20 May 2009 — UOP v Commission

(Case T-198/09)

2009/C 167/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UOP Ltd (Brimsdown, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister and O. Geiss, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Article 2(2) of the Commission Decision of 16 July 2008 on the aid measure implemented by France for the IFP Group [C 51/05 (ex NN 84/05)] (1);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision, of 16 July 2008, on the aid measure implemented by France for the Institute Français du Petrol (IFP) Group [C 51/05 (ex NN 84/05)], [notified under number C (2008) 1330] in so far as it declared, under certain conditions, the aid compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) EC. The applicant is a competitor of the beneficiary of the State aid and its subsidiaries, Axens and Prosernat.

The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its claims.

First, it argues that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and in law in violation of Article 87(3) EC and the 1996 Research et Development Framework by mischaracterising the nature of the research and development undertaken by IFP under Annex I of the 1996 Research et Development Framework and thereby wrongly determining the weighted maximum aid intensity. The applicant bases this plea on the following grounds: the activities of Axens and Prosernat as regards processes do not qualify as research and development and the entire pre-competitive development is carried out by IFP; IFP carried out at least the part of pre-competitive development for process technology and for catalysts that involve the use of pilot plants as well as the part of pre-competitive development that falls within its patent portfolio.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and in law in violation of Article 87(3) EC and the 1996 Research et Development Framework by failing to have regard to operating aid granted to Axens and Prosernat, the subsidiaries of IFP. The applicant bases the plea on three grounds and claims that: direct benefits for Axens through the continued use of pilot plants as well as indirect benefits for Axens through education grants by IFP and through international research cooperation by IFP were not considered.

Third, the applicant contends that the Commission manifestly erred in law and in fact by concluding that the aid granted to IFP and its subsidiaries, Axens and Prosernat, has an incentive effect.

Fourth, it claims that the Commission manifestly erred in law and in fact by failing to provide adequate reasoning and/or failing to have full regard to the evidence at its disposal.

(1) OJ 2009 L 53, p. 13
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 193/32

Action brought on 26 June 2009 — Société des Pétroles Shell v Commission

(Case T-251/09)

2009/C 193/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société des Pétroles Shell (Colombes, France) (represented by: P. Hubert, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul, in its entirety or in part, the implied negative response of the Commission of 9 May 2009 to the request for access to documents held by the Commission (reference GESTDEM 372/2009) and draw all the appropriate conclusions therefrom with regard to the applicant’s access to the documents requested;

— In the alternative, should the Court consider it a decision, annul, in its entirety or in part, the letter of 7 May 2009 from the Secretariat General of the Commission stating that it is not possible to reply to the applicant’s request for access to the Commission documents (reference GESTEDEM 372/2009) and draw all the appropriate conclusions therefrom with regard to the applicant’s access to the documents requested;

— Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the implied decision of the Commission refusing it access to all the correspondence, relating to the enquiry into practices on the jet fuel supply market in La Réunion, held by the Commission or exchanged by the Commission and the French competition authority, in particular under Article 11(4) of Regulation No 1/2003. In the alternative, should the Court consider it an express decision of refusal, the applicant seeks annulment of the letter of the Secretariat General which states that the Commission is not in a position to reply to the request made by the applicant for access to the documents.

In support of its action, the applicant raises pleas in law identical or similar to those raised in Case T-245/09 Shell Hellas v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/53

Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Residencias Universitarias (GALILEO)

(Case T-188/09)

2009/C 180/98

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Residencias Universitarias, SA (Valencia, Spain)

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 19 February 2009 in case R 471/2005-4; and

— Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs and those incurred by the applicant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “GALILEO”, for goods and services in classes 9, 39, 41 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: Spanish trade mark registrations of the figurative mark “GALILEO GALILEI” for services in classes 39, 41 and 42, respectively

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 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal committed a procedural error under Article 63(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 65(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009) by failing to remit the case back to the Opposition Division; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to carry out a proper assessment of the likelihood of confusion and incorrectly concluded that the applicant did not argue at all against the reasoning of the Opposition Division on this point; The Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity and the likelihood of confusion of the trade marks concerned and failed to provide proper reasons for its findings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/44

Action brought on 26 June 2009 T-254/09 — Wilo SE v OHI (Representation of a green casing)

(Case T-254/09)

2009/C 205/81

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 1196/2008-1;

— 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 figurative mark, which represents a green casing

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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 193/24

Action brought on 9 June 2009 — British Telecommunications v Commission

(Case T-226/09)

2009/C 193/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: British Telecommunications plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Robert and M. M. Newhouse, Solicitors)

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

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 685 final of 11 February 2009 declaring incompatible with the common market the aid granted by the British authorities in favour of the applicant by means of Crown guarantee to BT Pension Fund (State aid No C 55/2007 (ex NN 63/2007, CP 106/2006)).

The applicant puts forward seven pleas in law in support of its claims.

First, the applicant claims that in concluding that the applicant has a selective economic advantage, the Commission erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment incorrectly applying Article 87(1) EC and the notion of State aid. The applicant submits that the Commission failed to take into account the full economic and factual context in which the applicant acts.

Second, the applicant contends that in concluding that the applicant enjoys a selective economic advantage because the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme (BTPS) do not contribute to the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) in respect of the pensions of BTPS members covered by the Crown guarantee, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of equal treatment by failing to compare like with like. In the applicant’s opinion, the Commission failed to take into consideration differences between the private sector schemes covered by PPF and civil service-type scheme inherited by the applicant at the time of privatisation.

Third, the applicant argues that the Commission erred in law and infringed the principle of legitimate expectations in re-characterising a measure which was not aid at the time it was granted as the ‘underlying reason’ why it should be considered to be an aid twenty years later because a legislative measure has been adopted in the meantime.

Fourth, the applicant submits that in requiring the BTPS Trustees to contribute to the PPF, the Commission infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.

Fifth, it claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and failed to investigate as to whether the selective economic advantage alleged by the Commission distorts competition and affects trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.

Sixth, the applicant argues that the Commission made a manifest error of fact and law in concluding that there existed a transfer of state resources.

Seventh, it submits that, by failing to provide reasons for the contested decision, the Commission infringed Article 253 EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/33

Action brought on 17 June 2009 — Commission v Edificios Inteco

(Case T-235/09)

2009/C 220/70

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Valero Jordana, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Edificios Inteco, SL (Valladolid, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Order the defendant to repay the applicant EUR 157 238,07, plus the sum of EUR 81 686,22 of interest due until 1 June 2009 and daily interest for late payment at the rate of EUR 21,73796 per day accrued from 2 June 2009 until the full amount of the debt has been repayed;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission requests the partial repayment of the payments made to Edificios Inteco, S.L. within the framework of a contract concerning the project ‘Energy — Comfort 2000 Phase I’ relating to the construction of a commercial and business centre in the city of Valladolid (Spain) which was annulled by the Commission.

In support of its claims the Commission submits that the defendant failed to meet its contractual obligations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/37

Action brought on 14 July 2009 — Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg v OHIM — British-American Tobacco Polska (Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg)

(Case T-271/09)

2009/C 220/78

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: U. Fitzner and U. Fitzner, 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: British-American Tobacco Polska S.A. (Augustów, Poland)

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 — OHIM) of 13 May 2009 (Appeal case R 771/2008-4);

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 14 March 2008; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg’ for goods in Classes 33 and 34 (application No 4 583 761)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: British-American Tobacco Polska S.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Polish word mark ‘JAN III SOBIESKI’ for goods in Classes 34 (No 110 327) and the Polish word and figurative mark ‘JAN III SOBIESKI’ for goods in Classes 3, 30, 32 and 33 (No 160 417). The opposition concerns registration in Classes 33 and 34

Decision of the Opposition Division: acceptance of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 (2) and of Article 60 in conjunction with Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009.

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

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 of 13 December 1995 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 33)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 244/11

Action brought on 3 August 2009 — CIVR and Others v Commission

(Case T-303/09)

2009/C 244/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Conseil interprofessionnel des vins du Roussillon — CIVR (Perpignan, France), Comité national des interprofessions des vins à appellation d’origine et à indication géographique — CNIV (Paris, France), Interprofession nationale porcine — Inaporc (Paris) and Others (Perpignan, France) (represented by: H. Calvet, O. Billard and Y. Trifounovitch, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 10 December 2008 State aid N 561/2008 — France — Actions led by inter-branch organisations, C(2008) 7846 final, (1) inasmuch as it found the actions led by the agricultural inter-branch organisations in technical assistance, production and marketing aid for quality products, research and development and marketing to be State aid and inasmuch as it found compulsory voluntary levies used to finance those actions to be State resources;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission had found that the framework scheme of actions liable to be carried out by the French agricultural inter-branch organisations, consisting in aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing for quality products, for research and development and marketing for primary producers and undertakings engaged in processing and marketing agricultural products, financed through voluntary levies made compulsory by inter-ministerial decree, to be collected from the members of those inter-branch organisations, were a measure constituting State aid compatible with the common market.

The pleas in law and principal arguments relied on by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.

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