Case T-85/01: Action brought on 11 April 2001 by IAMA Consulting S.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-06-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), contract, group of companies, overheads

C 186/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.6.2001

Action brought on 5 April 2001 by VOF Josanne and
Others against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-82/01)

(2001/C 186/18)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 April 2001 by VOF Josanne,
established in Papendrecht, P. van Wijnen and A.J. van Wijnen,
both resident
in
Meerkerk, all represented by J. van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar.

in Papendrecht, and A. Veen, resident

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(1) Annul Commission Decision SG (2001) D/286100 of
9 February 2001 not to grant the applicants the requested
exemption from the old-for-new obligations set out in
Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of
29 March 1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to
promote inland waterway transport, and rule that the
requested exemption ought to be granted in respect of
the hopper and suction dredger Josanne;

(2) Order the defendant to pay the costs.

In regard to dredging equipment, the applicants submit that in
the activities in question involve removal of the
general
is in general an activity
dredged material. Such removal
inherent in that of dredging equipment such as hopper and
suction dredgers. This, however, does not constitute a carriage
of goods within the meaning of Article 1 of the regulation.

Should it none the less be held that the transport inherent in
the operation of dredging equipment does constitute a carriage
of goods within the meaning of Article 1 of the regulation, the
question arises as to whether the Josanne, as a specialised vessel
under Article 4(6) of the regulation, is eligible for exemption
from the scope of Article 4(1) thereof. The applicants take the
view that the conditions laid down by Article 4(6) of the
regulation have been satisfied and that the vessel does not
contribute to an increase in fleet capacity and does not
adversely affect the objectives of the Community rules. The
Commission, they submit, errs in its view that the Josanne fails
to satisfy those criteria on the ground that the vessel can
transport a variety of types of goods, and that bringing that
into service would consequently contribute to an
vessel
increase in fleet capacity. The Josanne is not suitable for the
carriage of any sort of goods other than dredged material.

The applicants offer to substantiate their views by all legal
means, in particular by way of witnesses and experts.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 11 April 2001 by IAMA Consulting
S.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

The applicants challenge Commission Decision SG (2001)
D/286100 of 9 February 2001, which is addressed to them.
That decision was issued in response to the request which VOF
Josanne submitted to the Commission on 27 June 2000 that
the hopper and suction dredger Josanne be exempted from
application of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation No 718/1999
of 29 March 1999. In the contested decision, the Commission
decided not to grant the requested exemption, a decision
which has a direct adverse effect on the applicants’ interests.

The Josanne was specially designed to perform dredging and
suction work and consequently intended for use in ‘wet
contracting’, that is to say, with regard to water- (public-works)
related activities. The Josanne was thus designed for only one
sort of material, namely ‘dredged material, dredged mud’.

According to the Commission, although the Josanne is indeed
an item of dredging equipment,
the exemption under
Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation No 718/1999 is not applicable
inasmuch as the vessel is also designed for the transport of
filling sand, filling earth, fouled earth and fouled dredged mud.

(Case T-85/01)

(2001/C 186/19)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 April 2001 by IAMA Consulting
S.r.l., represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested provisions in so far as they are
unlawful, inasmuch as the expenses incurred by IAMA
Consulting S.r.l. in the periods 1 May 1996 to 31 October
1997 (Project REGIS 22337) and 1 November 1996 to
31 October 1997 (Project REFIAG 23200) are not
recognised as eligible, and make any other appropriate
order;

30.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 186/13

— in the alternative: review the amounts accounted for in
the decision of 21 February 2001, reducing the amount
not attributed to IAMA Consulting S.r.l., to its detriment,
in each case in an amount not less than LIT 600 000 000
(six hundred million), the exact amount to be quantified
according to prudent and fair assessment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Action brought on 11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-86/01)

(2001/C 186/20)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: German)

The present action has been brought against the measures
adopted by the Commission on 12 February 2001 (INFSO-
3/dec0033FM/D(01)240047) and 21 February 2001 (INFO-
R2/feb0020RW/D(01)400027) respectively, with regard to
the eligibility of expenses incurred by IAMA International
Management Advisors S.r.l. and by the applicant in the context
of ESPRIT projects REGIS 22337 and REFIAG 23200, in so
far as the expenses incurred by the applicant in the periods
1 May 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REGIS 22337) and
1 November 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REFIAG
23200) are not recognised as eligible.

In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:

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
11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH, of Stuttgart (Germany),
represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 31 January 2001 by the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the
appeal
number
R 123/2000-1 concerning Community trade mark appli-
cation No 761 304;

proceedings

registered

under

— Infringement and misapplication of Articles 1362, 1366,
1368, 1370, 1374 and 1375 of the Italian Civil Code;

— order the defendant Office to pay the costs.

— Misuse of powers inasmuch as the facts were misassessed
and misrepresented. The applicant submits in this respect
that the Commission regards the applicant undertaking
as separate and autonomous from the other undertaking
mentioned above, whereas they form part of the IAMA
group, of which both are representative. Consequently,
the defendant appears to have accorded decisive import-
ance to the formal matter of IAMA Consulting S.r.l.
replacing IAMA International S.r.l., regarding it as suc-
cessor to the relationship originally entered into with
IAMA International S.r.l. only since 1 November 1997.

— Misuse of powers inasmuch as the measures are illogical,
contradictory and do not provide an adequate statement
of reasons. The applicant submits in this respect that, in
view of the fact that the two aforementioned undertakings
belong to the same group, of which the applicant is the
operational undertaking in relation to the group leader
IAMA International S.r.l., and that contracts were per-
formed in good time, it is difficult to see the objective
pursued by the Commission in penalising the IAMA
group by not finding eligible the expenses incurred by
the applicant in the performance of contracts which,
moreover, made it possible for the prescribed objectives
to be fully attained.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

the applicant

The trade mark con-
cerned:

Goods or service con-
cerned:

the verbal mark ‘Kit Super Pro’

goods and services in Class 12
(parts for repairing drum brakes
in land vehicles)

Decision
before
Appeal:

contested
the Board of

refusal of the application for regis-
tration of the mark

Grounds of claim:

— The mark is not descriptive
within
of
Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1).

the meaning

— There is no need to keep the

mark free.

— The mark possesses the mini-
mum level of distinctiveness
necessary for trade-mark pro-
tection.