Case T-200/04: Action brought on 28 May 2004 by the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-08-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), animal disease, control of State aid, livestock farming, production aid, regional aid, sheep

C 217/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.8.2004

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Rejection of the appeal brought by
Flex Equipos de Descanso

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Rule 18(2) and
22(4) of Commission Regulation
No 2868/95 (1) and the oppo-
nent's right to be heard in accord-
ance with Rule 18 of the regu-
lation, as well as an infringement
of Article 8 of Council Regulation
No 40/94 (2).

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Com-
munity trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1)

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

Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)

Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textile
Mills Ltd against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-199/04)

(2004/C 217/44)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textil Mills Ltd,
represented by L. Ruessmann,
Landhi, Karachi
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Pakistan),

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 397/2004
of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Paki-
stan (1) to the extent it imposes anti-dumping duties on the
product of the applicant,

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant submits that the complaint, on the basis of
which the investigation was opened, was manifestly insuffi-
cient both with regard to what it presents as facts and with
regard to its reasoning in support of the opening of an
investigation,

— a manifest error of assessment, a breach of Articles 2, para-
graphs 3 and 5, and Article 18, paragraph 4, of Regulation
(EC) No. 384/96, and a breach of the World Trade Organi-
sation Anti-dumping Agreement, with regard to the calcula-
tion of the normal value,

— a breach of Article 2, paragraph 10, of Regulation (EC) No.
384/96,
the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping
Agreement and of the obligation to state adequate reasons
under Article 253 EC in connexion with the drawback
adjustment in the comparison of the normal value and
export price,

— a manifest error of assessment, a breach of Article 3 of
Regulation (EC) No. 384/96, and a breach of the World
Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement, as regards
the determination of the existence of material injury as well
as the establishment of a causal link between the allegedly
dumped imports and the alleged injury.

(1) OJ L66 4/3/2004 p. 1
(2) OJ L 56 , 06.03.1996 p. 1

Action brought on 28 May 2004 by the Regione
Autonoma della Sardegna against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-200/04)

(2004/C 217/45)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 May 2004 by the Regione
Autonoma della Sardegna, represented by Domenico Dodaro,
lawyer.

The applicant is a Pakistani company which produces bed linen
and exports it to the European Union. Its products are subject
to the anti-dumping duty imposed by the contested regulation.
In support of its application to annul that regulation, the appli-
cant invokes the following grounds:

— a breach of Article 5, paragraphs 7 and 9, of Regulation
(EC) No. 384/96 (2) and a breach of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of
the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement,
insofar as the initiation of the investigation is concerned.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare invalid that part of Commission Decision C(2004)
471of 16 March 2004 holding aid granted by Italy through
Article 5 of Law No 22 of the Region of Sardinia of 17
November 2000 to be incompatible with the common
market;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/25

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In the contested decision, the Commission initiated the proce-
dure under Article 88(2) of
the Treaty declaring that aid
granted by Article 5 of Regional Law 22/2000, providing for
‘interventions in favour of breeders to confront the epizootic
disease of blue tongue’, was incompatible with the common
interventions in
market. That
favour of breeders who had suffered the negative effects of blue
tongue.

law provided for a series of

In support of its claims the applicant pleads the following
grounds:

— infringement of essential procedural

requirements: The
Commission's preliminary investigations for assessing the
compatibility of the aid were insufficient in that they did
not take account of information available in the notification
report and subsequently supplemented by the Region of
Sardinia, and in particular of the following circumstances:

— the aid is not intended for processing undertakings but
is a necessary additional compensation for producers'
loss of
income resulting from higher fixed costs of
Cooperatives when distributing net proceeds;

— the causal relationship between the epizootic disease
and the reduction in grants cannot be proven in abstract
terms but is dependent on the practical implementation
of the aid rules, which are structured in such a way as
to exclude the allocation of aid on grounds other than
those dependent on blue tongue. The hypothetical
grounds referred to for the reduction in grants are insuf-
ficient and are contrary to facts known to the European
Commission.

— the cooperatives receiving the aid do not have any flex-

ibility to access alternative sources of supply.

— infringement of the provisions of the EC Treaty and the
principles of law relating to its application, in so far as:

— the Commission infringed the principle of effectiveness
by excluding the application of Article 87(2)(b), partly
because that provision was not invoked by the Italian
authorities. In accordance with that principle, the appli-
cant argues, the Commission should have given suffi-
cient reasons for not applying it, the Italian authorities'
failure to invoke it being insufficient.

— the Commission infringed Article 87(3)(c) by over-
looking the fact that the measure now alleged to be
incompatible with the common market is identical with
the measures approved by the Commission in Decision
SG(01) D/285817 of 2 February 2001, concerning
Article 3 of Regional Law 22/2000.

Action brought on 7 June 2004 by Indorata-Servicos e
Gestao Lda against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-204/04)

(2004/C 217/46)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 June
represented by
2004 by Indorata-Servicos e Gestao Lda,
T Wallentin, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested rejection of its application for a Com-
munity trade mark and order the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market to register the sign ‘HAIRTRANSFER’
as a Community trade mark for the remaining goods and
services which remain the subject of dispute also and to
publish that registration;

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Community trade mark
sought:

The word mark ‘HAIRTRANSFER’
— Application No 2 619 039.

Goods or services:

artificial

Goods and services in Classes 8,
22, 41 and 44 (inter alia, electric
and non-electric depilation appli-
and real hair,
ances,
provision of training, in particular
of
arranging
and
further-training
and
hygienic and beauty care, in par-
ticular hair care and treatment).

conducting
seminars

Decision
before
Appeal:

contested
the Board of

Refusal to register by the exam-
iner.

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal.

The mark sought
is distinctive
within the meaning of Article
7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
94;

The mark sought is not exclusively
descriptive within the meaning of
Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94.