Case T-171/02: Action brought on 6 June 2002 by Regione Autonoma della Sardegna against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-08-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid for restructuring, floriculture, infringement of EU law, vegetable

10.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 191/29

The applicants claim that the contested regulation is unlawful
and infringes their rights. The Commission was not em-
powered to issue the regulation in its present form. In addition,
the required investigation procedure was not implemented
before, but at the same time as, or only after, the regulation
was issued.

The applicants further
the regulation, and
submit
Annexes 1.1 to 2.1 thereto, have a dubious factual basis. On
27 March 2002, the data listed in those annexes were, in fact,
not yet available to the Commission, because EUROSTAT had
not yet received all the information for 2001.

that

In addition, the applicants claim that the contested regulation
is also unlawful on substantive grounds as the measures it
lays down are disproportionate. The additional duties are
prohibitively high and, with the exception of developing
countries, the safeguard measures apply without distinction to
all countries.

Finally, the applicants claim that, given the circumstances, the
provisional safeguard measures are incompatible with the rules
laid down by the World Trade Organisation and GATT, and
infringe European Agreements concluded by the Council and
the Commission with certain non-member countries.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002
imports of

imposing provisional safeguard measures against
certain steel products (OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on
the common rules for imports and repealing Regulation (EC)
No 518/94 (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 53).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision 2002/229/EC of 13 Novem-
ber 2001 on the aid scheme which the Sardinia Region
(Italy) is planning to implement for the restructuring of
holdings in difficulty in the protected crops sector (OJ
2002 L 77, p. 29)

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision which is at issue in the present case concerns a
regional aid scheme for the restructuring of holdings in
difficulty in the protected crops sector (flowers and vegetables)
in Sardinia, adopted pursuant to Law No 4/98 of the Sardinian
Region, which specifically concerns action to be taken in
favour of small and medium-sized agricultural holdings in
difficulty.

In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:

— breach or misapplication of Article 88(3) of the Treaty,
the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and
restructuring firms in difficulty (1) and of the principle of
legitimate
spent
assessing whether the aid was compatible with the
common market was unreasonably long.

expectations. Moreover

time

the

— breach or misapplication of Article 87 of the Treaty and
lack of a proper

the abovementioned guidelines,

of
inquiry and inadequate statement of reasons.

Action brought on 6 June 2002 by Regione Autonoma
della Sardegna against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-171/02)

(2002/C 191/50)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In that regard, the applicant points out that, although the
the regional plan in
Commission first became aware of
question on 15 January 1998, the decision finding the aid
unlawful was not adopted until 13 November 2001. During
that time, there was an exchange of correspondence between
the defendant and the Italian authorities with the purpose of
clarifying the scope and effects of the notified aid project.
However, by the contested decision, the Commission has
firmly declared the project unlawful, furthermore, according
to the applicant, by reference to aspects which were perfectly
clear from the earliest exchanges.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 June 2002 by the Regione
Autonoma della Sardegna, represented by Giacomo Aiello of
the Avvocatura dello Stato.

The applicant further claims that the contested scheme is
compatible with the guidelines for rescuing and restructuring
firms in difficulties and that there was no basis in the inquiry

C 191/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.8.2002

for the conclusions concerning the impact of the scheme on
intra-Community trade.

(1) OJ 1997 C 283, p. 2.

Action brought on 11 June 2002 by Georgios Gouvras
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-180/02)

(2002/C 191/51)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 June 2002 by Georgios
Gouvras, residing in Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Albert Coolen, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

in the interests of

In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
of the first indent of Article 37(a) and Article 38 of the Staff
Regulations in that the contested decision changes the place of
employment of the applicant during the period in which he
was on secondment
the service. The
applicant further alleges infringement of Article 85 of the Staff
Regulations and breach of the principle prohibiting arbitrary
decisions, the principle that legitimate expectations are to be
protected and the duty to have regard for the welfare of
officials inasmuch as the applicant was unaware of the irregular
nature of the payments received. Finally, the applicant alleges
infringement of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations.

Action brought on 14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l.
against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-186/02)

(2002/C 191/52)

the case:

(Language of
to be determined in accordance with
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the
application was drafted: Italian)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 14 August 2001 of the Staff
Administration and Management Directorate Luxem-
bourg and Ispra of DG Admin:

An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l., whose registered office is
in Pianezze San Lorenzo (Italy), represented by Federico
Tedeschini, Maurizio Pinnaro` and Patrik Santer.

— fixing, with effect from 1 November 2000, the place
of employment as Athens, retrospectively removing
his right to the expatriation allowance, to the annual
travel expenses and applying to his salary the
weighting applicable to Greece;

— to withhold from his remuneration, pursuant to that

decision, any amount in general;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of 19 March 2002 of the Third Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
in the appeal against the decision of 28 February 2001 of the
Fifth Unit of
the Opposition Division and consequently
uphold the registration application submitted by the applicant
undertaking.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

The applicant

The applicant, whose place of employment was Luxembourg,
was seconded in the interests of the service to the Greek
Ministry of Health. The contested decision fixes, with retrospec-
tive effect as from 1 November 2000, his place of employment
as Athens, with all the implications of that decision. Further-
more, the Commission decided to withhold from his salary,
pursuant to the contested decision, any amount in general.

The Community trade
mark concerned:

Figurative mark ‘DIESELIT’ —
Registration
application
No 880211, registration sought
in respect of goods and services
within Classes 7, 11 and 21 (flat
irons, steam irons and ironing
boards)