Case T-17/02: Action brought on 29 January 2002 by Fred Olsen S.A. against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-04-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, maritime transport, transport company

C 97/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2002

The applicant asserts that the decision refusing his application
is contrary to Article 5(2) of Annex VII, since the conditions
for granting an installation allowance are fulfilled, and that the
European Parliament cannot validly rely on the ground of
exclusion laid down in Article 5(4) of Annex VII.

Grounds of claim:

— incorrect application of the
provisions
of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1) and of
Regulation (EC) No 2868/
95 (2);

— incorrect

application

of
and (c) of

Article 7(1)(b)
Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

— incorrect

application

of
Article 7(3) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94.

Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Audi AG against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-16/02)

(2002/C 97/25)

(Language of the case: German)

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
30 January 2002 by Audi AG, of
(Germany),
represented by L. von Zumbusch, lawyer.

Ingolstadt

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 8 November 2001 by the
First Board of Appeal in appeal No R 0652/2000-1;

— order the defendant Office to pay the costs.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1003 on the Com-

munity trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

Action brought on 29 January 2002 by Fred Olsen S.A.
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-17/02)

(2002/C 97/26)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The trade mark con-
cerned:

the verbal mark ‘TDI’ — appli-
cation No 19752

Goods or services:

goods and services in Classes 12
and 37 (vehicles and constructive
parts thereof; repair and mainten-
ance of vehicles)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 January 2002 by Fred Olsen
S.A., whose registered office is in Santa Cruz de Tenerife
(Spain), represented by Rafael Marı´n Correa, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 25 July 2001

Decision
before
Appeal:

contested
the Board of

refusal of
examiner

registration by the

— order the Commission of the European Communities
to initiate the procedure for verifying whether aid is
compatible with the EC Treaty in accordance with its
judgment;

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

rejection of the appeal

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

20.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 97/13

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Spanish maritime company which, although
the majority of its shares are held in the Netherlands, has for a
long time been operating a number of sea routes between
is challenging the
the islands of the Canaries archipelago,
Commission decision

(a)

not to contest the payment to Transmediterra´nea S.A. of
PTA 15 560 625 000 intended to make up for the losses
arising from the provision of cabotage services during
1997 and, secondly, to settle the rights and obligations
of the State directly linked to the public service contract
entered into in 1977 between Transmediterra´nea and the
Spanish State and,

(b) not to raise any objection whatever to the aid valued at
PTA 1 650 000 000 paid to Transmediterra´nea in the
form of public service compensation for the maritime
cabotage services provided by that company in the
Canaries archipelago during 1998.

As regards the first aspect, that is to say the amounts paid to
Transmediterra´nea in the form of settling accounts for 1997
and final settlement of the contract which the Commission
accepts because it deems such payments existing aid — prior
to the accession of Spain — in that they arise directly from the
implementation of the contract entered into in 1977, the
applicant claims that the contested decision is vitiated by an
error of assessment inasmuch as it allows:

— certain expenditure relating to staff reduction to be
charged to the accounts for 1997 and for final settlement;
and

— infringes Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty and general
communications on services in the general interest and
those specifically concerning aid to maritime transport
by considering, in blatant contradiction to those pro-
visions, that the aid is compatible with Article 86(2). The
applicant would point out in that respect that:

(a)

there is no act emanating from the public authorities
defining the content of services in the general
interest and recommending Transmediterra´nea to
provide them;

(b)

it was not necessary to declare Canary routes as
being in the general interest; and

(c)

the routes were not awarded by means of an open
tender procedure.

Action brought on 8 February 2002 by Daiichi Pharma-
ceutical Co. Ltd. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-26/02)

(2002/C 97/27)

(Language of the case: English)

— payment of the entire amount by way of final settlement
without charging the debts to the financial years in which
they may have arisen and without offsetting them with
any surpluses.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8th February 2002 by Daiichi
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., represented by Mr Jacques Buhart and
Mr Pierre-M. Louis of Coudert Brothers LLP, Brussels (Belgium).

As regards the second aspect, that is to say the aid granted in
the form of compensation for the routes provided in the
Canaries during 1998, which the Commission classifies as new
aid, the applicant alleges that the contested decision:

— infringes Article 88 of the EC Treaty, since the competent
Spanish authority, by granting the aid, has failed to fulfil
its obligations under the recommendation, drawn up by
the Commission pursuant to the aforementioned article,
on the upkeep and maintenance of the system of aid
applicable to Transmediterra´nea.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 3 (f) of

the Commission Decision of
21 November 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
Agreement (Case No. COMP/E-1/37,512 — Vitamins);

— alternatively, substantially decrease the fine levied on the

applicant; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.