Case T-297/02: Action brought on 30 September 2002 by ACEA S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-11-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), public service, tax exemption

23.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/37

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 30 September 2002 by ACEA S.p.A.
against the Commission of the European Communities

— declare void and annul the decision adopted on 17 July
2002 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market, concerning appeal
No R 0036/2002-3 relating to registration of the Com-
munity trade mark ‘Lindenhof’ (application No 629741);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

REWE-Zentral AG

The Community trade
mark applied for:

Proprietor of the trade-
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-
ings:

the word mark ‘Lindenhof’, inter
alia for goods in Class 32 (mineral
waters and aerated waters and
other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit
drinks and fruit juices) — appli-
cation No 629741

the applicant in these proceedings

Trade-mark
opposed:

right

the German pictorial mark ‘LIND-
ERHOF’ for goods in Class 33
(champagne-like wines)

partial rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Grounds of claim:

of

confusion
— likelihood
within
of
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1);

the meaning

— the competing marks are

extremely similar;

— the goods of the trade-mark
applicant are not sufficiently
dissimilar to those of the
applicant in these proceed-
ings.

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

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(Case T-297/02)

(2002/C 289/67)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 September 2002 by ACEA
S.p.A., represented by Andrea Giardina, Luca G. Radicati di
Brozolo and Vincenzo Puca, avvocati.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 5 June 2002 (State
Aid No C.27/99) in so far as it declares unlawful and
incompatible with the common market the three-year
exemption from tax on profits granted by Italy to local
public service undertakings the majority of the shares
in which are publicly owned within the meaning of
Article 3(70) of Law No 549/1995, and loans granted on
preferential terms pursuant to Article 9a of Decree-Law
No 488/1986, and in so far as it requires Italy to recover
the aid in question from the recipients thereof, including
the applicant (Articles 2 and 3 of the decision);

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-292/02 Confederazione Nazionale dei
Servizi v Commission.

In particular, the applicant pleads that the measures at issue
cannot constitute State aid,
inasmuch as the companies
benefitting from the system in question do not operate within
a framework of competition. Furthermore, even if the measures
at issue were to be regarded as State aid and were not classified
as existing aid, they should be regarded as compatible aid
within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) EC.

rejection of the applicant’s appeal

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

C 289/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.11.2002

In addition, the contested act infringes the principles of the
protection of legitimate expectations and of proportionality,
in so far as the Italian State has been ordered by the defendant
to recover the alleged aid.

— infringement of

the principle of non-discrimination,
inasmuch as the case involves a difference in treatment
between personal situations which are substantially the
same, since no account has been taken, for the purposes
of calculating the reference period, of the periods of work
completed, prior to their engagement, by certain officials
employed in Brussels in offices of German Länder or of
United Kingdom federations.

Action brought on 1 October 2002 by Anna Romero
Romeu against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

The applicant also pleads failure to comply with the obligation
to provide a statement of reasons.

(Case T-298/02)

(2002/C 289/68)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Action brought on 30 September 2002 by Carles Dedeu i
Fontcuberta against the Commission of the European
Communities

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 October 2002 by Anna Romero
Romeu, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-
Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillem-Carrau, lawyers.

(Case T-299/02)

(2002/C 289/69)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: Spanish)

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 June
2002 in so far as it does not recognise the applicant’s
entitlement to the expatriate allowance and, consequently,
her entitlement to the other associated allowances in
accordance with the decision in Lozano;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 September 2002 by Carles
Dedeu i Fontcuberta, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represent-
ed by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and J. Guillem-Carrau,
lawyers.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

By the present action, the applicant, an official of the defendant
institution, is contesting the appointing authority’s decision
to the expatriation
refusing to recognise her entitlement
allowance (Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations); in
the applicant’s view, that allowance is due to her inasmuch as
her habitual residence and centre of interests during the
relevant period under the Staff Regulations was Barcelona and
not Brussels.

— annul the decision of 23 September 2002, implicit in the
Commission’s silence, rejecting complaint 275/02, and
refusing to acknowledge his right to the expatriation
allowance and, therefore, other associated benefits, in
accordance with the judgment in Lozano;

— order the Commission to pay the full costs.

In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:

— commission of a manifest error of assessment of the facts,
inasmuch as, first, the contested decision did not treat the
work done for the representative office of a Spanish
Autonomous Community in Brussels as ‘work done for
another State’ and, second, it failed to take account of the
applicant’s personal situation as regards lasting links with
the country of employment;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments have already been put
forward in Case T-298/02 Ana Herrero Romeu v Commission.