Case T-331/01: Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Huntstown Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation Services Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, State aid, action for annulment (EU), air transport, airport, control of State aid

C 109/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
T. Blanchet and G. Ramos Ruano) — application for annulment
of the Council’s decision of 13 August 1996 rejecting the
applicant’s request for a review of his classification in grade —
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
B. Vesterdorf, President; N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 December 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:

the defendant

No 01/2000 and that
is not empowered
unilaterally to introduce amendments to the terms and con-
ditions of employment or Staff Rules into the contracts
between the applicants and itself, nor to enforce such amend-
ments, — the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 11 December
2001, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.97.

1.

2.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ 2001 C 108.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 11 December 2001

in Case T-20/01 Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Others v
European Central Bank (1)

(Amendment of the Staff Rules of the European Central
Bank — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

(2002/C 109/92)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-20/01, Maria Concetta Cerafogli, residing in Frank-
furt (Federal Republic of Germany), Monika Esch-Leonhardt,
residing in Frankfurt, Marco Luigi Fassetta, residing in Wiesba-
den (Federal Republic of Germany), Tillmann Frommhold,
residing in Karben (Federal Republic of Germany), Johannes
Priesemann, residing in Frankfurt and Marc van de Velde,
residing in Usingen (Federal Republic of Germany), represented
by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer,
lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the
Organisation of Employees in European and International
Institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany (IPSO),
represented by B. Karthaus, M. Roth and C. Roth, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against European
Central Bank (Agents: C. Ziliolo, M. Lo´ pez Torres and B. Wäg-
enbaur) — application for the annulment and/or a declaration
of inapplicability of Articles 7.2.0 and 8.1.0 of the Staff Rules,
Administrative Circular 01/2000 concerning Travel Expenses,
the gateway clause inserted into the applicants’ employment
contracts and the decision of the President of the ECB of
27 November 2000 rejecting the applicants’ complaint, and
for a declaration that the ECB was required to consult the
personnel committee before adopting Administrative Circular

Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Huntstown
Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation Services Limited
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-331/01)

(2002/C 109/93)

(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 18 December 2001 by Huntstown
Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation Services Limited,
represented by Mr James O’Reilly, SC and Mr Charles A Kelly,
Solicitor of Douglas Kelly & Son, Swinford (Ireland).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the second indent of Part 6 of the Commission’s
Decision no C(2001)2967 of 5 October 2001 concerning
State Aid NN 86/2001 — AER RIANTA — IRELAND;

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

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/47

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are both part of the Omega group, which has a
substantial
interest in aviation and the provision of such
services both within and without the European Community.
The Omega group has the intention of constructing and
operating a second terminal at Dublin airport which will
provide direct competition to the present terminal operated by
Aer Rianta, the Irish state-owned company that owns and
operates Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports.

By letter dated 4 December 1998, the applicants lodged a
complaint with the Commission concerning alleged State aid
in favour of Aer Rianta. It was alleged that aid had been
granted, in particular, by a transfer of assets from the Minister
of Finance to Aer Rianta at a significant undervalue. On
5 October 2001, the Commission took a decision on the
complaint. In the second indent of Part 6 of this decision, the
Commission stated that the contested transfer of assets was
not a grant of aid.

The applicants challenge the legality of this decision on three
grounds:

— the Commission should have proceeded to open the
formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 4(4)
of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999;

— the Commission misdirected itself as a matter of law in
determining that the transfer of assets at an undervalue
did not constitute State aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) EC Treaty;

— the Commission gave an inadequate statement of reasons
contrary to the requirements of Article 253 EC Treaty.

European Communities on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation
AG, represented by Mr Axel Kockläuner of Meissner, Bolte &
Partner, Munich (Germany).

A further party to the proceedings before the Board of appeal
was Jesmar S.A.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
17 October 2001 in Case R 1123/2000-1 relating to
Opposition Proceedings no. B 68587 and Community
trade mark application no. 50252 ‘Colette Zapf Creation’

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Zapf Creation AG

The Community trade
mark concerned:

The figurative mark ‘Colette Zapf
Creation’
for certain goods in
class 28

Proprietor of the right to
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

Trade mark or
sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

Jesmar S.A.

The Spanish word mark ‘Colette’
for certain goods in class 28

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Rejection of the opposition by
Jesmar S.A.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Admission of the appeal lodged
by Jesmar S.A.

Action brought on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation AG
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market

Grounds of claim:

(Case T-7/02)

(2002/C 109/94)

(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

Violation of Article 43, section 2,
of Regulation 40/94 (1) since there
was no satisfactory proof of the
the opposing
genuine use of
of
violation
and
trademark
Article 8, Section 1 b) of Regu-
lation 40/94 since there is no
danger of confusion.

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

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