Case T-364/04: Action brought on 9 September 2004 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-12-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing, European Commission, Greece, action for annulment (EU), agricultural expenditure, animal production, fish, food processing, fruit vegetable

C 314/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.12.2004

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 22 September 2004

in Case T-44/03: Giorgio Lebedef and Others v Commis-
sion of the European Communities (1)

(Officials — Remuneration — Travelling expenses —
Amendment of the method of calculation — Second action
relating to different years — Res judicata — Absence of
material capable of calling in question the judgment delivered
— Application manifestly unfounded)

Action brought on 9 September 2004 by the Hellenic
the European
Republic

the Commission of

against

Communities

(Case T-364/04)

(2004/C 314/51)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 September 2004 by the Hellenic
Republic, represented by I. Khalkias and Eleni Evolopoulou,
members of the State Legal Service.

(2004/C 314/50)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: French)

— annul or modify the contested decision. E 2004/561/EC/

16.7.2004. (1)

J. Currall and V.

In Case T-44/03: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Commis-
sion of the European Communities, residing in Senningerberg
(Luxembourg), and the 49 other officials named in an annex to
the order, represented by G. Bounéou, lawyer, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-
Joris, with an
pean Communities (Agents:
address for service in Luxembourg) – application for annulment
of the Commission's decision amending, for the years 1993,
1994 and 1995, the method used in calculating the annual
expenses of travelling to Greece as regards the itinerary via
Brindisi and also annulment of the applicants' reimbursement
the Court of First
statements implementing that decision,
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
J. Azizi, President,
M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 22 September 2004, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.

Pleas in law and main arguments

in clearing the
In the contested decision the Commission,
accounts in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (2),
excluded from Community financing various
expenditure
incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the fruit and vegetables
sector and in the sector of animal premiums, with the result
that it is not recognised as legitimate Community expenditure
and is chargeable to the Hellenic Republic.

More specifically, certain of that expenditure relates to produc-
tion aid for processors of peaches, pursuant to Regulation No
2201/96 (3),
from which an amount was excluded on the
ground that the minimum price was not complied with. In
support of that limb of its action, the Hellenic Republic alleges
that the provisions of Regulation No 2201/96 and of Regu-
lation No 504/79 (4) were misinterpreted, that the principle of
proportionality was infringed and that
the factual circum-
stances were wrongly assessed.

Further, in the same decision expenditure relating to the sector
of production aid for processing tomatoes was also excluded,
on the ground that there were direct payments of the aid to
tomato producer organisations rather than to the processors. In
support of that limb of its action, the Hellenic Republic relies
on exceptional circumstances, that is to say, the bankruptcy of
processing undertakings and serious cash-flow difficulties,
maintaining that there was no ensuing economic harm to the
Community. It also alleges that the factual circumstances were
wrongly assessed, that
the principle of proportionality was
infringed and that Article 7 of Regulation No 1258/1999 (5)
and Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/1995 (6) were infringed.

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/21

Another part of the expenditure excluded concerns expenditure
for animal premiums. The Hellenic Republic asks that
the
contested decision be annulled and on that limb it is main-
tained that the Commission erred as to the facts, wrongly
assessed the factual circumstances, ignored crucial evidence and
gave erroneous reasons for its decision. It also alleges infringe-
ment of the principle of proportionality.

(1) Official Journal L 250 of 24.7.2004, p. 21.
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on
the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English Special
Edition 1970 (I), p. 218).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the
common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vege-
table products (OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 504/97 of 19 March 1997 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2201/96 as regards the system of production aid for products
processed from fruit and vegetables (OJ 1997 L 78, 20.03.1997, p.
14).

(5) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
the common agricultural policy (OJ L 160 of

financing of
26.06.1999, p. 103).

(6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of
the
accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158 of 8.7.1995,
p. 6).

Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Orsay GmbH
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-378/04)

(2004/C 314/52)

(Language of the case: German)

— declare that the Community trade mark ‘Orsay’ sought by
application No 1 042 605 is to be registered by OHIM for
the goods ‘clothing, boots, shoes and slippers; headgear’ in
Class 25;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant

Community trade mark
sought:

Figurative mark ‘Orsay’ for goods
in Class 23 (yarns and threads,
etc.), Class 24 (clothing etc.) and
Class 25 (headgear), application
No 1 042 605

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Refusal
applied for

to register

the mark

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal

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

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

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Erich Draz-
the Office for Harmonisation in the
dansky against

Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

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 22
September 2004 by Orsay GmbH, established in Willstätt
(Germany), represented by D. von Schultz, lawyer.

(Case T-383/04)

(2004/C 314/53)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: German)

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM
of 15 June 2004 – R 909/2002-4 – Orsay (word/figurative
mark)/D'ORSAY (word/figurative mark)
and Decision
2562/2002 of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28
the Community
August 2002 insofar as registration of
trade mark sought by application No 1 042 605 was
refused for the goods ‘clothing, boots, shoes and slippers;
headgear’, on the ground of Opposition No B 242 075;

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 22
September 2004 by Erich Drazdansky, resident
in Wiener
Neustadt (Austria), represented by M. Kadlicz, lawyer.