Case T-25/04: Action brought on 22 January 2004 by González y Díez S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-03-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, State aid, action for annulment (EU), coal industry, control of State aid

C 71/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated

the 17 November 2003;

— direct that the applicant’s application for a declaration of

invalidity fails;

— order the Office to pay the appellant’s costs here and
below or order the Office to pay the appellant’s costs
here and direct that the applicant pay the appellant’s costs
below.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark Word Mark ‘FUSION’ — Appli-
cation No 1061050 for products
sought:
within class 9 (Audio, video and
security equipment for vehicles).

Proprietor of mark or
sign whose cancellation
is sought:

The Applicant.

Applicant
lation:

for

cancel-

Ford Motor Company, in relation
to Community trade mark regis-
tration No 747121 of the word
mark ‘FUSION’ for goods in class-
es 12 (Motor land vehicles and
parts and fittings therefore) and
37 (Motor vehicles maintenance
and repair services).

Action brought on 22 January 2004 by González y Díez
S.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-25/04)

(2004/C 71/70)

(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 22 January 2004 by González y
Díez S.A., whose registered office is at Villabona-Llanera
(Asturias, Spain), represented by J. Díez-Hochleitner and
A. Martínez Sánchez, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the
in their entirety Articles 1, 3 and 4 of
Commission decision of 5 November 2003 on aid for
González y Díez S.A. to cover exceptional expenses. (aid
for 2001 and misuse of aid for 1998 and 2000), and in
so far as that decision amends Decision 2002/827/ECSC;
and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Decision of the Cancel-
lation Division:

Application upheld.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Appeal dismissed.

The Decision challenged in the present proceedings abrogates
Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Decision 2002/827/ECSC of 2 July 2002
on the granting by Spain of aid to the undertaking González y
Díez S.A. in 1998, 2000 and 2001. That decision has already
been the subject of a previous action, brought by the same
company (1).

Pleas in law:

— The notion of similarity of
customers as set out in the
contested decision is wrong.

— The

conclusion that
the
goods set out in the respect-
ive registrations are at least
similar is wrong.

The Decision challenged:

— states in Article 1 that certain aid for the coal industry
granted to the applicant to cover exceptional restructur-
ing costs totalling EUR 3131726,47 constitutes an abuse
of Commission Decisions 98/637/ECSC (2) and 2001/
162/ECSC (3) of 3 June 1998 and 13 December 2000
respectively on the granting by Spain of aid to the
coal
industry in 1998 and 2000 and are, therefore,
incompatible with the common market;

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/41

— declares, in Article 3, that certain aid that Spain intends
to grant to the applicant to cover exceptional restructur-
ing costs in 2001 are incompatible with Article 7 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002
on State aid to the coal industry (4);

— requires Spain,

in Article 4, to recover, among other

amounts, the aid mentioned in Article 1.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul

the decision of

the appointing authority of
20 December 2002 confirming the applicant’s initial
classification in Grade A 7;

— Annul,

to the extent necessary,

the
appointing authority of 9 October 2003 rejecting the
applicant’s complaint;

the decision of

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

— Order the defendant to pay all of the costs of the

— lack of competence on the part of the Commission to
adopt the decision challenged, following the expiry of the
ECSC Treaty;

— the inappropriateness of

the procedure followed in
adopting the decision challenged, the Commission having
failed to previously to revoke Articles 1, 2 and 5 of
Decision 2002/827/ECSC;

— infringement of

the principle of

legal certainty and
cumulative procedural errors, inasmuch as Article 1 of
the decision challenged treats as unlawful and incompat-
ible with the common market certain aid authorised by
Decision 98/637/ECSC, even though that aid had already
been held to be justified in Decision 2002/827/ECSC.

— a manifest error of assessment of the facts, inasmuch as
the Commission failed to take the view that certain aid
granted to the applicant to cover exceptional restructur-
ing costs was justified.

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

in Case T-17/95 (1),

the
Following the Court’s judgment
Commission adopted an amendment of the rules on the
criteria applicable to appointment in grade and classification
in step on recruitment. By the contested decision, it confirmed
the applicant’s classification in Grade A 7 at the date of his
recruitment and for that reason rejected his request to be
reclassified.

In support of his action, the applicant invokes the lack of
reasoning in the contested decision, a manifest error of
appraisal and alleged discrimination between the applicant
himself, whose request to be reclassified was rejected, and
other officials who, having professional experience as long as
his own, were able to secure reclassification.

(1) T-291/02 González y Díez v Commission (OJ 2002 C 289, p. 33).
(2) OJ 1998 L 303, p. 57
(3) OJ 2001 L 58, p. 24
(4) OJ 2002 L 205, p. 1.

(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties of 5 October 1995; published in OJ 1995 C 315 of
25.11.1995, p. 14.

Action brought on 20 January 2004 by Jacques Verborgh
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 27 January 2004 by the El Corte Inglés
S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market

(Case T-26/04)

(2004/C 71/71)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-27/04)

(2004/C 71/72)

(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 20 January 2004 by Jacques
Verborgh, residing in Aalter (Belgium), represented by Nicolas
Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 27 January 2004 by El Corte
Inglés, established in Madrid, represented by lawyers J.-L. Rivas
Zurdo and E. López Leiva, members of the Ilustre Colegio de
Madrid.