Case T-81/04: Actionbrought on 21 February 2004 by Bouygues SA andBouygues Télécom against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to act, control of State aid, telecommunications industry

C 106/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

— order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the
provisional amount of 1 Euro for damages suffered as a
result of the adoption and entry into force of the contested
measure, as well as any applicable interest, pending the
exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The pleas in law and arguments invoked by the applicant are
the same as those invoked in Case T-75/04.

— declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the
applicant of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the
programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive
98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on
biocidal products;

— order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the
provisional amount of 1 euro for damages suffered as a
result of the adoption and entry into force of the contested
measure, as well as any applicable interest, pending the
exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The pleas in law and arguments invoked by the applicant are
the same as those invoked in Case T-75/04.

Action brought on 17 February 2004 by Troy Chemical
Company BV against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-79/04)

(2004/C 106/149)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 February 2004 by Troy
Chemical Company BV, Maassluis,
(Netherlands), represented
by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the annulment of Article 3 (and annex II), Article
4(2), Article 5(3), Article 10(2), second paragraph, Article
11(3), Article 13 and Article 14(2) of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the
second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to
in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of
biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation
(EC) No 1896/2000;

— declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the
applicant of Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of Directive
98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal
products on the market;

Action brought on 21 February 2004 by Bouygues SA and
Bouygues Télécom against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-81/04)

(2004/C 106/150)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 February 2004 by Bouygues SA,
having its registered office in Paris, and Bouygues Télécom,
having its registered office in Boulogne Billancourt (France),
represented by Bernard Amory and Alexandre Verheyden,
lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to define its position within the
period of two months commencing on the date of the letter
of formal notice of 12 November 2003, the Commission
has failed to act;

— in the alternative, declare the Commission's definition of its

position of 11 December 2003 to be void;

— order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/77

Pleas in law and main arguments:

— breach of the duty to state reasons;

The subject-matter of this action is the complaint lodged by the
applicants with the defendant concerning inter alia the aid
granted by the French State to ORANGE FRANCE and SFR by
way of a retroactive reduction in the royalty payments of
EUR 4 955 000 000 which each of those operators had under-
taken to pay in exchange for the Universal Mobile Telecommu-
nications System (‘UMTS’) licence awarded to them on 15 June
2001. The other complaints raised by the applicants related to:

— a manifest error of assessment under Article 87 EC et seq.,
in that the retroactive reduction in the amount of UMTS
royalties which ORANGE FRANCE and SFR had originally
undertaken to pay met all the requirements of a measure
constituting State aid;

— a breach of the procedural rules laid down in Article 88(3)
EC, in that the Commission wrongly decided, having regard
to the circumstances of the case, not to initiate the formal
investigation procedure laid down under that provision.

— the making available on an exclusive basis of FRANCE
TELECOM outlets for the benefit of ORANGE FRANCE;

— the exceptional arrangements for commercial tax applying

to FRANCE TELECOM;

— the reduction in liability for pension charges and the
contributions

exemption from unemployment benefit
granted to FRANCE TELECOM;

— the French rules relating to universal service;

— the treatment of dividends paid by FRANCE TELECOM;

— the measures of

financial support granted to FRANCE

TELECOM.

Action brought on 20 February 2004 by Axiom Medical,
Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market

(Case T-84/04)

(2004/C 106/151)

(Language of the case: German)

As regards the action for a declaration of failure to act, the
applicants claim that the Commission has still not defined its
position in relation to the UMTS complaint, which was none
the less the subject of the letter of formal notice, and that the
letter of 11 December 2003 sent to them by the Commission
in response to their letter of formal notice cannot amount to a
definition of its position in terms of Article 232 EC. That letter
simply noted that the consideration of measures potentially
amounting to State aid for the benefit of FRANCE TELECOM
was one of the Commission's priorities, without stating an
opinion on the merits of the complaint in question. Accord-
ingly, having regard to the omissions in its reasoning, that
letter could not be treated as having remedied the failure to act.

As regards the application brought in the alternative for a
declaration of
invalidity relating to the decision of 11
December 2003 which dismissed the complaint, the applicants
rely on three pleas in law based on:

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2004 by Axiom
Medical,
Inc., Rancho Dominguez (USA), represented by R.
Köbbing, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision R 193/2002-1 of the First Board of Appeal

of 17 December 2003;

— in the alternative, annul Decision R 193/2002-1 in respect

of the goods in Class 10;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.