Case T-49/01: Action brought on 1 March 2001 by P&O European Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-06-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for failure to act, complaint to the Commission, maritime transport

2.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 161/19

application for suspension of operation of Commission Regu-
lation No 2081/2000 of 29 September 2000 introducing
safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries
and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-
lation of origin (OJ 2000 L 246 of 30.9.2000, p. 64), or for
any other interim measure to protect the interests of the
applicant — the President of the Court of First Instance, made
an order on 1 February 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:

1.

2.

The application for interim relief is dismissed;

The costs are reserved.

Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Lichtwer Phar-
ma AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-10/01)

(2001/C 161/42)

Proprietor of an oppos-
ing mark or of an oppos-
ing sign:

Opposing mark or sign:

Orsem Sarl, Neuilly sur Seine,
France

The Danish mark PREDONIUM,
the Greek mark PREDONIUM, the
Swedish mark PREDONIUM and
the United Kingdom mark PRE-
DONIUM for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

opposition upheld and appli-
cation rejected

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Grounds of claim:

rejection of the applicant’s appeal

infringement of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 on the Community
trade mark (Article 8(1)(b)) — no
likelihood of confusion

the case:

(Language of
to be determined in accordance with
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the
application is drafted: German)

Action brought on 1 March 2001 by P&O European
Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited against the Commission of
the European Communities

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
22 January 2001 by Lichtwer Pharma AG, Berlin (Germany),
represented by Robert Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwalt. The other
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
Orsem Sarl., Neuilly sur Seine (France).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 8 November 2000 by the
Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in
appeal No R 586/1999-2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

(Case T-49/01)

(2001/C 161/43)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 March 2001 by P&O European
Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited, represented by Mark Clough QC
and Julian Ellison, of Ashurst Morris Crisp.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity mark:

Trade mark applied for:

Lichtwer Pharma AG

the oral mark ‘SEDONIUM’ —
application No 312 447 for goods
in Class 5 (including medicinal
products)

— declare, pursuant to Article 232 (ex 175) of the EC Treaty
that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under
the Treaty by failing to define its position on the
applicant’s complaint dated 29 February 2000 against
Brittany Ferries, and/or at least that part of the complaint
dealing with the period up to 1995 outside the scope of
the Case C-31/98 procedure, and in particular by failing
to initiate the procedure provided for under Article 88(2)
(ex 93(2)) of the EC Treaty;

C 161/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.6.2001

— further, or in the alternative, to annul under Article 230
(ex 173) of the EC Treaty the implied decision of the
Commission not to initiate the procedure provided for
under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (ex93(2)) regarding
the applicant’s complaint at all, or at least regarding that
part of the applicant’s complaint dealing with the period
up to 1995 outside the scope of the Case C-31/98
procedure, (and/or the implied decision not to close the
preliminary investigation procedure in any of the other
ways available to it), contained in a letter dated 7 February
2001;

compatibility with the common market. It follows that the
Commission has committed an error of law and a procedural
irregularity by not initiating the procedure provided for under
Article 88(2) (ex 93(2)) of the Treaty.

(1) See Commission communication pursuant to Article 93(2) of the
EC Treaty to the other Member States and other interested parties
concerning aids in the shipping sector (State aids for the shipping
company Brittany Ferries (BAI)), C 31/98, OJ C 244, 4.8.1998,
p. 9.

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 9 March 2001 by Asahi Vet SA against
the Commission of the European Communities

The applicant is a ferry operator which provides tourist and
freight ferry services on certain routes between France and the
United Kingdom in the western end of the Channel. Its main
competitor is the French ferry operator Bretagne-Angleterre-
Irlande S.A. (‘Brittany Ferries’).

In February 2000, the applicant submitted a complaint to the
Commission against State aid granted to Brittany Ferries by
the French authorities. Prior to this complaint, the Commission
initiated a formal investigation procedure against certain State
aid granted to Brittany Ferries in 1998 (1). However, according
to the applicant, a part of its complaint is not covered by this
procedure.

The applicant submits that by failing to define its position on
the complaint, the Commission has, in breach of Article 232
EC, failed to act. In particular, the Commission has failed to
adopt one of the three decisions that it is required by the
Court’s case law to take in order to close the preliminary
examination of State aid within a reasonable time when it has
serious doubts as to whether a measure constitutes aid and, if
so, as to whether it is compatible with the common market.
Each of such decisions is of direct and individual concern to
the applicant under Article 230 EC.

As far as the grounds for annulment are concerned, the
applicant claims that it is clear from the correspondence and
meetings between the parties that the Commission had cause
its
to suspect

the existence of State aid and to doubt

(Case T-55/01)

(2001/C 161/44)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties as brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 March 2001 by Asahi Vet SA,
Rubı´, Barcelona (Spain), represented by Rechtsanwalt Carsten
Bittner.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the defendant’s decision of 29 January 2001
rejecting the applicant’s request for an unlimited unauth-
orisation in respect of ToyoCerin for rearing pigs, sows
and piglets, and an interim authorisation for fattening
chickens, laying hens, calves, fattening cattle, fattening
rabbits and breeding rabbits;

— require the defendant to propose to the Standing Com-
mittee for Feedingstuffs under Article 23(3) of Directive
70/524/EEC that it be awarded an unlimited Community
authorisation in respect of ToyoCerin for use with rearing
pigs, piglets and sows;

— require the defendant to propose to the Standing Com-
mittee for Feedingstuffs under Article 23(3) of Directive
70/524/EEC that it be awarded a temporary Community
authorisation in respect of ToyoCerin for use on fattening
chickens, laying hens, calves, fattening cattle, fattening
rabbits and breeding rabbits;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.