Case T-348/04: Action brought on 20 August 2004 by Société Internationale de Diffusion et d'Édition against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-10-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for annulment (EU), book trade, commission agent, control of State aid, export

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/57

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant.

discrimination, since it was taken without considering the
option of allowing him additional seniority in his grade on
account of his training and professional experience prior to his
recruitment.

Community trade mark
sought:

Three-dimensional mark ‘ARTHUR
ET
FELICIE’ — Application
No 0373787.

Goods or services:

Goods in Classes 16, 24 and 25.

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in opposition:

L.T.J. Diffusion.

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

National trade mark ‘ARTHUR’ for
Class 25 (clothing).

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Rejection of the opposition.

Action brought on 20 August 2004 by Société Internatio-
nale de Diffusion et d'Édition against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-348/04)

(2004/C 262/105)

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division.

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law:

Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 August 2004 by Société Interna-
tionale de Diffusion et d'Édition (SIDE), established in Vitry-sur-
Seine (France), represented by Nicole Coutrelis and Valérie
Giacobbo, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

Action brought on 17 August 2004 by Pascal Millot
against the Commission of the European Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case T-347/04)

(2004/C 262/104)

(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 17 August 2004 by Pascal Millot,
resident in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1, last sentence, of the Commission decision
of 20 April 2004 concerning the implementation by France
of aid in favour of the Coopérative d'Exportation du livre
français (CELF);

— in the alternative, annul Article 1, last sentence, of the deci-
sion insofar as it declares the aid compatible before 1994
or, alternatively, 1997 or 1999;

— in the further alternative, annul Article 1, last sentence, of
the decision insofar as it declares the aid compatible before
1 November 1993;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— annul the Commission's decision of 11 September 2003
definitively setting the applicant's grading at the first step in
Grade A6;

Pleas in law and main arguments:

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant argues that the contested
decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 32 of the
Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment and non-

The applicant is an export agency for French-language books.
In 1992, it lodged a complaint with the Commission relating
to aid paid since 1977 by the French Government to the
(CELF). The
Coopérative d'Exportation du Livre Français
Commission adopted decisions pursuant
to that complaint.
Those decisions were annulled by judgments of 18 September
1995 in Case T-49/93 and of 28 February 2002 in Case T-
155/98. Further to the second judgment,
the Commission
adopted a third decision which is challenged in this action.

C 262/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.10.2004

The applicant submits first that the market in export agency
has many particular features of which the contested decision
fails to take account. The applicant also notes that the descrip-
tion of the aid in the decision is erroneous in that, according to
the applicant, this is individual aid and not an aid scheme, the
aid is given on a discriminatory basis and the criterion for
payment, namely handling small orders, is artificial.

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the decision
has no legal basis in that it declares the aid compatible, as an
aid to culture, pursuant to Article 87(3)(d) EC in respect of the
period prior to 1 November 1993. According to the applicant,
that provision was introduced by the Treaty on European
Union and thus could not form the legal basis for declaring aid
compatible before that Treaty entered into force, namely on 1
November 1993.

The applicant further claims breach of Article 88(3) EC in that
the Commission based its decision on information dated later
than the entry into force of the aid. According to the applicant,
the decision results in a Member State being permitted to
supply evaluation criteria which fluctuate over a period of
more than 10 years, thereby favouring the situation of a State
which has not complied with the obligation to notify,
in
breach of Article 88(3) EC.

Finally,
the applicant claims breach of Article 87(3)(d) EC.
According to the applicant, the Commission declared the aid
compatible on the basis of assessment criteria which form part
of assessment of an aid scheme open to all whilst the aid at
issue is individual aid paid to a single operator. The applicant
also claims that examination of CELF's accounting data shows
that the aid has no link with the handling of small orders.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in the present case, who was engaged on the
basis of the notice for the recruitment of temporary agents in
as IT and management assistants in technical research and
development, category B, COM/R/B/02/1999, contests the deci-
sion of
the authority empowered to conclude contracts of
employment definitively classifying him in Grade B 5, step 3.

The applicant took part in the selection procedure on the
presumption that he would be engaged as a member of the
temporary staff on the basis of his professional experience and,
therefore,
in Grade B3 or B4, step 3, relying on the second
paragraph of Title VIII of the notice.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges error of assess-
ment of his own professional merits.

He further alleges breach of the principle of legitimate expecta-
tions and of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons
for acts of the administration.

Action brought on 27 August 2004 by Co-Frutta Soc.
the European
coop. arl against

the Commission of

Communities

(Case T-355/04)

(2004/C 262/107)

Action brought on 25 August 2004 by Gaetano Petralia
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Case T-354/04)

(2004/C 262/106)

(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 25 August 2004 by Gaetano
Petralia, represented by Carlo Forte, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the authority empowered to conclude
contracts of employment of 7 October 2003 to classify him
in Grade B 5, step 3;

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 August 2004 by Co-Frutta Soc.
coop. arl, represented by Wilma Viscardini and Gabriele Donà,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty the decision of
the Commission of the European Communities in the letter
of the Director General of DG Agriculture dated 28 April
2004 (AGRI/11451/28.04.2004) rejecting Co-Frutta's initial
application for access to documents containing information
on traders registered in the Community as importers of
bananas (OCM bananas)
for the years 1998, 1999 and
2000, together with the implied rejection of Co-Frutta's
confirmatory application submitted by letter of 3 May
2004;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.