Case T-85/02: Action brought on 23 March 2002 by Pedro Diaz S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cheese

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/51

The pleas and arguments invoked in the present case are
largely similar to those raised in case T-45/02, DOW Agro-
Sciences and DOW AgroSciences -v- European Parliament and
Council of the European Union (not yet published in the OJ).

written reprimands within the meaning of Article 43(i) of the
Conditions of Employment by a valid decision of the Executive
Board.

(1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for
Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327,
22.12.2000, p. 1)

Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Stephan-Harald
Voigt against the European Central Bank

(Case T-78/02)

(2002/C 144/102)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 19 March 2002 by Stephan-Harald Voigt, residing in
Langenselbold (Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the written reprimand issued to the applicant by
the defendant pursuant to Article 43(i) of the Conditions
of Employment by letter of 1 March 2002;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant claims that the
written reprimand is invalid on the ground that general
procedural principles were not respected. The reprimand is
based on incorrect assumptions and the applicant was, inter
alia, not granted an adequate hearing in the procedure.
Moreover, the defendant’s conduct infringes European data-
protection rules.

The applicant also disputes that the Vice-President of the
defendant had been granted the general authority to decide on

Action brought on 23 March 2002 by Pedro Diaz S.A.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market

(Case T-85/02)

(2002/C 144/103)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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 March 2002 by Pedro Diaz S.A.
of Carretera de Cartagena-La Palma, Km 2,4, Cartagena (Spain),
represented by Patricia Koch Moreno.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 16 January 2002 of the Third Board
of Appeal rejecting application number 199 265 for
registration of a Community trade mark CASTILLO to
describe ‘cheeses’ falling within Class 29;

— declare that application number 199 265 for registration
of a Community trade mark CASTILLO to describe
‘cheeses’ falling within Class 29 should be allowed;

— order the defendant and, where appropriate, the inter-

vener, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark

Pedro Diaz S.A.

Community trade mark
applied for Word mark:

CASTILLO — application no 199
265 for products falling within
Classes 29 and 30

Proprietor of the trade
mark or sign invoked in
the
pro-
opposition
cedure:

Granja Castello S.A.

Trade mark or sign being Word mark with graphic elements
‘EL CASTILLO’
registered for
opposed:
products in Class 29 and word
mark with graphic elements ‘EL
CASTILLO NADO 1’ for products
in Class 30

C 144/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

Decision of
sition division:

the oppo-

Refusal of registration in respect
of certain products

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Partial annulment of the decision
of the Opposition Division and
refusal of registration in respect
of an additional product (‘cheeses’)

Pleas in law:

— Infringement

Arti-
cle 8(1)(b) of Regulation
No 40/94

of

1993 of 5 July 1993 on urgent fiscal provisions to promote
investment and economic activity (Boletı´n Oficial del Territorio
Histo´ rico de Alava No 79 of 16 July 1993), which provides
for exemption from company tax for undertakings created
between the entry into force of that Law and 31 December
1994, provided that they invest more than PTA 80 million
(EUR 480 810), create more than 10 new jobs and have
disbursed capital amounting to more than PTA 20 million
(EUR 120 202).

— Incorrect

interpretation of
the concept of risk of con-
fusion

The applicants put forward essentially 5 pleas in law:

Action brought on 26 March 2002 by Territorio Histo´ rico
de Alava — Diputacio´ n Foral de Alava against Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case T-86/02)

(2002/C 144/104)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 March 2002 by the Territorio
Histo´ rico de Alava — Diputacio´ n Foral de Alava, Alava (Spain),
represented by Ignacio Saenz-Cortabarria and Marta Morales
Isasi.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Decision of 20 December 2001
on the system of aid implemented by Spain in 1993 in
favour of a number of newly-created undertakings in
Alava;

— in the alternative, annul Article 3 of that decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001) 4475
final of 20 December 2001 declaring State aid incompatible
with the common market the exemption from company tax
arising from Article 14 of Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 18/

a.

b.

c.

d.

infringement of the first paragraph of Article 87 EC
inasmuch as the Commission committed a manifest error
of assessment by considering that the fiscal measure at
issue is prima facie State aid within the meaning of the
aforementioned article. In the applicant’s view, the pre-
sent case does not involve selective advantage, which is
typical of State aid within the meaning of that provision,
since it is a measure which is established on the basis of
objective criteria and affects all economic operators (both
natural and legal persons) in the same way.

in the alternative, with regard to the first plea in law,
misinterpretation by the Commission of the concept of
‘State aid’. The applicants state that, should the Court take
the view that the measure at issue is indeed State aid, it
would in any event be as an existing aid scheme either
within the meaning of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation (EC)
No 659/1999 since, when it was implemented,
the
measure was not ‘aid’, or within the meaning of 1(b)(ii) as
aid which, at the time, was impliedly authorised by the
Commission.

in the further alternative to the first plea in law, failure to
observe the procedures laid down by law. According to
Article 88(1) EC and Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the
proper procedure for the review of systems of existing
aid is as provided for in Articles 17 to 19 of that
regulation, not that followed by the Commission in the
present case, which is the procedure to be applied to
unlawful aid.

in the alternative with regard to the first three pleas in
law, abuse by the Commission of its power to authorise
aid under Article 87(3)(c) EC by considering the disputed
fiscal measure to be operating aid and to declare, as a
consequence, that it is aid incompatible with the common
market. The Commission improperly equates what is
nothing more than a means of assessing the element of
aid with the genuine concept of aid to investment or for
job creation. The fact that the amount of the aid as a