Case T-146/03: Action brought on 15 April 2003 by the Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-07-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), agricultural cooperative, distributive trades, motor fuel, tax relief

C 171/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the explicit rejection of the Commission of 11 July
2002 BSS01 MS CDL/GS/MSG D (02) No 6779 in reply
to the request registered under No D/256/02 submitted
by the applicant pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff
Regulations;

— annul, in so far as necessary, the refusal to register the

applicant’s fresh complaint;

— order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an official working for the defendant. She is
bringing her action against the rejection of a request concern-
ing the inclusion of certain documents in her personnel file
and to be informed of alleged written defamatory statements
made in her regard. In support of her action, she alleges breach
of the protection of dignity and equality between men and
women at work, enshrined in Article 31 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as a result of the
fact that the defendant failed to take the necessary measures to
ensure the protection of the applicant against the alleged
denigration by other officials of the defendant institution,
which amounts, in her view, to harassment. She also alleges
infringement of Articles 25, 26 and 45 of the Staff Regulations,
of the obligation to provide reasons and of the rights of
defence.

Action brought on 15 April 2003 by the Asociación de
Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad
Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de
Estaciones de Servicio against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-146/03)

(2003/C 171/58)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

— annul the Commission Decision of 11 December 2002
which found that measures to support agricultural coop-
eratives, by virtue of which only such cooperatives are
able to distribute unlimited amounts of fuel to non-
member third parties whilst enjoying preferential tax
treatment and which are contained in Royal Decree
Law 10/2000 of 6 October on emergency support for
agriculture, fisheries and transport do not constitute State
aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in the present action, who have also brought
Case T-95/03 (Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de
Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and the
Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio) (1), are challeng-
to regard as State aid the
ing the Commission’s refusal
measures in Royal Decree Law 10/2000, which allow only
agricultural cooperatives, and not other cooperatives which
also benefit from special protection, to sell B diesel to non-
to any limit
member third parties without being subject
and without losing the tax advantages granted to specially
protected cooperatives. The contested decision concludes that
the measures at issue do not constitute State aid, since they are
justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system.

In support of their claims, the applicants maintain that the
defendant has made various errors of fact and law:

— in exempting the Spanish Government from its duty to
provide an explanation for the measures at issue on the
basis of the nature of the tax system. The contested
decision is at odds with the arguments put forward by
the Government (need for further liberalisation in the fuel
sector as a structural measure responding to the increase
in the price of crude oil and the depreciation of the euro
against the dollar).

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 April 2003 by the Asociación
de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad
Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de Estacion-
es de Servicio, established in Madrid and Barcelona respectively,
represented by Raimundo Ortega Bueno, lawyer.

— in concluding that Royal Decree Law 10/2000 is consist-
ent with the nature of the tax system and in basing that
finding on an incomplete and incorrect analysis of the
tax system applicable to cooperatives.

— in finding that the contested measures do not constitute

State aid.

19.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/35

The applicants assert, in particular, that there is no special tax
system applying specifically to agricultural cooperatives and
giving rise to certain tax obligations which the contested
measures are specifically intended to offset. However, the fact
that the measures do not consist in the grant ex novo of a tax
advantage but entail an exemption from obligations with
which cooperatives have hitherto had to comply when selling
fuel to third parties or members, an exemption which allows
them not to lose their pre-existing preferential tax treatment,
does not negate the existence of a new advantage within the
meaning of Article 87(1) EC.

( 1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003, p. 43.

Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Devinlec Developpe-
ment Innovation Leclerc against the Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM)

(Case T-147/03)

(2003/C 171/59)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
30 April 2003 by Devinlec Developpement Innovation Leclerc,
established in Toulouse (France), represented by Jean-Pierre
Simon, lawyer.

T.I.M.E.ART ULUSLARARASI SAAT TICARETI VE DI– TICAR-
ET A.–. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, delivered by the Third
Board of the defendant on 30 January 2003 in Case R
109/2002-3, and the refusal to register the Community
figurative trade mark ‘QUANTUM’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs and the applicant for
the Community trade mark to pay the costs incurred in
proceedings before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

T.I.M.E.ART
ULUSLARARASI
SAAT TICARETI VE DI– TICAR-
ET A.–.

Community trade mark
sought:

figurative mark QUANTUM —
Application No 625 913 for
goods in Class 14 (watches and
jewellery)

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:

the applicant

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

French figurative mark QUANTI-
EME, No 1555274, registered for
goods
in Classes 14 and 18
(including watches, clocks and
watchstraps)

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Registration refused

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division and dis-
missal of the opposition

Pleas in law:

(EC) No

Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
40/
of Regulation
94 (1)
(likelihood of confusion)
and disregard for Rule 50 of the
Regulation
2868/
95 (2)
implementing the Com-
munity trade mark

(EC) No

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

Community 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).