Case T-109/01: Action brought on 18 May 2001 by Fleuren Compost N.V v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid to undertakings, organic fertiliser

11.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/25

Action brought on 10 May 2001 by Free Trade Foods N.V.
v Commission of the European Communities

17 December 1997 (2) whose provisions the contested
regulation also declares applicable.

(Case T-108/01)

(2001/C 227/48)

(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 10 May 2001 by Free Trade Foods
N.V., whose registered office is at Curaça˜o (Dutch Antilles),
represented by M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder, Lawyers, Rot-
terdam.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1) Annul Regulation No 396/2001 of 27 February 2001
[providing for the continued application of safeguard
measures for imports from the overseas countries and
territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-
lation of origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001];

2)

declare that the Community is liable for the damage
suffered by Free Trade Foods N.V. as a result of Regulation
No 396/2001 of 27 February 2001;

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2001 providing for the
continued application of safeguard measures for imports from the
overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products with
EC/OCT cumulation of origin for the period 1 March to 30 June
2001, OJ L 058 of 28.2.2001, pp. 13 to 15.

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2553/97 of 17 December 1997
on rules for issuing the import licences for certain products
covered by CN codes 1701, 1702, 1703and 1704 and qualifying
as CP/OCT originating products, OJ 349 of 19.12.1997, pp. 26
to 30.

Action brought on 18 May 2001 by Fleuren Compost N.V
v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-109/01)

(2001/C 227/49)

3)

order the Commission to pay the costs.

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Free Trade Foods N.V. owns a sugar factory on Curaça˜o which
is geared to the processing of C-sugar originating in the
Community and which acquires OCT origin pursuant
to
EC/OCT cumulation. That sugar can then be imported into the
Community free of duty.

However, pursuant to the Fourth Safeguard Measure (Com-
mission Regulation No 396/2001 of 27 February 2001 (1)) a
quota of 3 878 tons applies.

In support of
following pleas:

its application the applicant submits the

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 May 2001 by Fleuren Compost
N.V., whose registered office is at Middelharnis (Netherlands),
represented by Jules Stuyck, Lawyer, Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission Decision of 13 December 2000
concerning the aid scheme which the Kingdom of the
Netherlands has established in favour of six manure
processing undertakings, at least in so far as it relates to
the applicant;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings.

— infringement of Article 109 of the OCT Decision;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— infringement of the precedence established in the EC

Treaty in favour of OCT goods;

— infringement of Article 7(5) of the agreement on safe-
guard measures concluded in the context of the WTO,
and of Article 300(7) EC;

— unlawfulness of Commission Regulation No 2553/97 of

The applicant has received, as a manure processing factory,
subsidies from the Netherlands authorities in the framework,
according to the applicant, of the Bijdrageregeling Proefprojec-
ten Mestverwerking (BPM) [contribution scheme for manure
processing pilot projects]. However, in Decision C(2000)4070
of 13 December 2000 addressed to the Netherlands authorities,
the Commission requested recovery of the subsidy paid to the
applicant and a number of other undertakings.

C 227/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

the Commission,

in its assessment of

In support of its claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
Article 87(1) and (3)(c) of the EC Treaty. According to the
the aid
applicant,
awarded, did not take account of the specific, more expensive
production methods of the applicant required by the Nether-
lands authorities whereby the smell is reduced. According to
the applicant, this method of production is not obligatory in
the other Member States, as a result of which production is
cheaper. Furthermore, the applicant pleads infringement of
the Commission Decision of 6 July 1989 approving the
Bijdrageregeling
and of
Article 88 of the EC Treaty. Finally, the applicant alleges
infringement of the duty to state reasons, the principle of
legitimate expectations and the right to a fair hearing.

Proefprojecten Mestverwerking

Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A. against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Case T-110/01)

(2001/C 227/50)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A.,
established at Ludres (France), represented by Thierry van Innis
and Geert Glas, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 9 March 2001 in pro-

cedure R-127/2000-1;

— order the Office to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

France Distribution

The Community trade
mark concerned:

the semi-figurative mark ‘Hubert’
— application No 108530

Goods or service con-
cerned:

various food products including
milk, other dairy products, vin-
together with
egar and sauces,
hotel
services
catering
and
(Classes 29, 30 and 42)

Trade marks objected to
in the opposition pro-
cedure:

Verbal mark ‘Saint-Hubert 41’ —
Decision of 9 March 2001 in
procedure R-127/2000-1

Proprietor of the marks
objected to:

the applicant

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
sition to the application for regis-
tration of the mark ‘Hubert’

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

rejection of the appeal lodged by
the applicant

Grounds of claim:

violation of the notion of ‘likeli-
hood of confusion’ referred to in
Article 8(1)(b) of the Community
Trade Mark Regulation (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelmetalle
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-111/01)

(2001/C 227/51)

(Language of the Case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelme-
talle GmbH, of Halsbrücke (Germany), represented by Dr Peter
von Woedtke, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 28 March 2001 (Decision C(2001)
1028) on the State aid granted by Germany in favour of
EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. Management KG (now
Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, together with Zeitzer
Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte GmbH, LandTechnik Schlüter
GmbH, ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik GmbH, SKL Motoren-
und Systembautechnik GmbH, SKL Spezialapparatebau
GmbH, Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH, Saxonia Edel-
metalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) —
State aid No C41/99 (EXN 49/95) Germany.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.