Case T-134/01: Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Hans Fuchs Versandschlachterei KG against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Russia, appeal to the Court (EU), pigmeat, supply, transport document

1.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 245/25

Grounds of claim:

No risk of confusion within the
meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94
of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark,
since
there is neither a visual nor pho-
netic similarity between the trade
marks nor do they desgignate
goods which may be confused

Grounds of claim:

interpretation

Incorrect
of
article 7 (1) b) of Council Regu-
lation 40/94 (1).

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

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

Action brought on 11 June 2001 by Sykes Enterprises
Incorp. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market

(Case T-130/01)

(2001/C 245/40)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 June 2001 by Sykes Enterprises
Incorp., Florida, USA, represented by Eberhard Körner of
Lichtenstein Körner & Partners, Stuttgard, Germany.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision of 7 March 2001 in Case

No. R 0504/2000-3;

— order the Office to publish the trademark application

concerned;

Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Hans Fuchs Ver-
sandschlachterei KG against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case T-134/01)

(2001/C 245/41)

(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 18 June 2001 by Hans Fuchs
Versandschlachterei KG, Duisburg (Germany), represented by
Ulrich Schrömbergs and Lothar Harings, Rechtsanwälte.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order

the Commission

applicant
DEM 13 130,04 plus interest at 8 % per annum as from
1 March 2000;

pay

the

to

— in the alternative, order the Bundesanstalt für Landwirt-
schaft
applicant
DEM 13 130,04 plus interest at 8 % per annum as from
1 March 2000;

Ernährung

und

pay

the

to

— order the Office to pay the costs.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Sykes Enterprises Inc.

The Community trade Word mark:
mark concerned:

‘Real people, real
solutions’
Application
—
no 1040534 for certain services
in classes 35, 37 and 42

In connection with a programme to supply agricultural
products to the Russian Federation (1), two tendering pro-
cedures took place: one for procuring the products and the
other for their delivery to Russia. Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1135/1999 (2) was to constitute the basis for the
procurement of the products. Transport was dealt with by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1955/1999 (3).

Decision of the Exam-
iner:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Rejection of the Application

Rejection of the Appeal

The applicant submitted a tender for the procurement of pork
for subsequent delivery to Russia and obtained the contract
for the procurement of one lot. A third party obtained the
contract for delivery.

C 245/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.9.2001

The dispute between the parties concerns the question of the
costs which the applicant must bear,
in accordance with
Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1135/1999, in its capacity as
a party awarded a contract for the procurement of agricultural
products.

The applicant argues that Article 6 of Regulation (EC)
No 1135/1999 does not oblige the party awarded the procure-
ment contract to draw up the transport documents for the
delivery of the goods to Russia by the party awarded the
transport contract, or to bear the costs thereof. All costs arising
from the transport side of the tender were the responsibility of
the party awarded the transport contract. It was impossible for
the procurer to supply appropriate transport documents.

In the alternative, the applicant bases its claim on failure by
the Commission to fulfil its precontractual duty of providing
information. As the interpretation of the provision in dispute,
and thus the scope of the contractual obligation, was not
clearly formulated, the Commission should have informed the
applicant on the point. Failure to provide such information
caused loss to the applicant.

(1) In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of
17 December 1998 on a programme to supply agricultural
products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1998 L 349, p. 12) and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999
laying down general rules for the application of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural
products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3).

(2) OJ 1999 L 135, p. 85.
(3) OJ 1999 L 242, p. 13.

Action brought on 19 June 2001 by Stadtsportverband
Neuss e.V. against Commission of the European Com-
munities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the abovementioned recovery decision
of the Commission demanding partial repayment of a total
sum of EUR 20 000 transferred to the applicant
in the
context of
in the amount of
the Eurathlon programme,
DEM 31 911,11, on the ground of impermissible profit.

The applicant submits that the conditions for a demand for
repayment of the subsidy given, agreed between the parties
when the subsidy was granted, are not met. In particular, the
final accounts for the project do not show a profit, so that the
demand for repayment is unlawful. The defendant might at
most be entitled to a proportionate share of 18,4 % of the
surplus. It is, however, demanding payment of the entire
(incorrectly calculated) surplus.

Moreover, the applicant relies on limitation of the defendant’s
claims. It submits that the ISO 1994 event took place in 1994,
and any claims for repayment arose in that year. The notice to
pay dates from 9 April 2001, however, and was therefore
made at least six years in law after the alleged debt arose.

Action brought on 19 June 2001 by Comafrica SpA
and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd. & Co. against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-139/01)

(2001/C 245/43)

(Language of the case: English)

(Case T-137/01)

(2001/C 245/42)

(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 19 June 2001 by Comafrica SpA,
Genoa, Italy, and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd. & Co., Ham-
burg, Germany, represented by Bernard O’Connor and Philip
Bastos G. Martin of O’Connor and Company, Brussels
(Belgium).

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 June 2001 by Stadtsportver-
band Neuss e.V. of Neuss, Germany, represented by Heinz
Günther Hüsch, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the recovery decision of the European Commission

of 9 April 2001, account number 3240302372;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible;

— declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC,
Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 in so far as it
affects the applicants, or in the alternative to declare the
said regulation void erga omnes;

— declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC,
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 in so far as
it affects the applicants, alternatively, to declare the said
regulation void erga omnes;