Case T-452/04: Action brought on 8 November 2004 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-02-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition law, economic concentration, merger control, publisher

C 45/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.2.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

In support of his application the applicant relies on pleas alle-
ging a breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, a breach of
the general implementing provisions for Article 45, a breach of
the administrative guide to appraisal and promotion of officials
and a breach of the principle of non-discrimination. The appli-
cant also relies on the prohibition on arbitrary procedures and
alleges a breach of the duty to state reasons and misuse of
powers. He also alleges a breach of the principle of legitimate
expectations and of the ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ rule
and, finally, a breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare
of officials.

Pleas in law:

Annulment of the contested deci-
sion with regard to the services
financial
investment
analysis,
insurance affairs in Class
affairs,
36. Dismissal of the remainder of
the appeal.

Infringement of the first sentence
of Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94

Misinterpretation of Article 7(1)(b)

Action brought on 5 November 2004 by Eurohypo AG
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against

Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-439/04)

(2005/C 45/54)

(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 5
November 2004 by Eurohypo AG, Eschborn (Germany), repre-
sented by M. Kloth, Hamburg (Germany),
lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade
Marks and Designs) of 6 August 2004 (Case R-829/2002-
4), in so far as it dismisses the appeal;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Action brought on 8 November 2004 by Éditions Odile
the European
Jacob SAS against

the Commission of

Communities

(Case T-452/04)

(2005/C 45/55)

(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 8 November 2004 by Éditions
Odile Jacob SAS, established in Paris, represented by Wilko van
Weert and Olivier Fréget, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision on the ground that it repeated
the failure to comply with the conditions and undertakings
imposed on Lagardère in the decision of 7 January 2004;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark

The applicant

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The trade mark applied
for:

The word mark EUROHYPO for
services
in Class 36 (financial
affairs; monetary affairs; real estate
financial
affairs;
services;
financial
financing;
analysis; investment affairs; insur-
ance affairs)

provision

of

Decision of
iner:

the exam-

Rejection of
respect of all services

the application in

The applicant contests the Commission Decision of 30 July
2004 concerning the approval of Wendel Investissement as the
acquirer of the assets sold by Lagardère, in accordance with the
Commission Decision of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentra-
tion compatible with the common market and the functioning
of the EEA Agreement (1)
(‘the Compatibility Decision’). The
concentration was authorised subject to the sale by Lagardère
of certain assets, namely Editis. The applicant submitted an
offer to purchase Editis but was unsuccessful.

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/25

In support of its action the applicant claims, in the first place,
that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of the
report of a trustee who was not appointed in accordance with
the conditions laid down by paragraph 15 of Annex II to the
Compatibility Decision. The applicant argues that the trustee in
question was not independent, particularly of Editis, contrary
to the duty incumbent on Lagardère in consequence of the
Compatibility Decision.

Second, the applicant claims that the Commission failed in its
duty to supervise the sale of Editis, allowing a selection proce-
dure for purchasers to be put in place which was discrimina-
tory and anti-competitive. According to the applicant,
the
Commission should have required the organisation of a call for
prospective purchasers which was transparent, objective and
non-discriminatory. Furthermore, the Commission should not
the confidentiality agreement
have approved the terms of
between Lagardère
and the potential purchasers, which
included the applicant, preventing them from bringing an
action. The Commission should have taken steps to rectify the
procedure when the applicant drew its attention to the failures
to comply with the competition rules in the EC Treaty. Finally,
the Commission denied the applicant the minimum protection
to which it considered it was entitled as an interested third
party.

Third, the applicant relies on a manifest error by the Commis-
sion in its assessment of whether the conditions laid down in
respect of the purchaser by the Compatibility Decision were
complied with. The applicant argues that the purchaser is not
an operator capable of restoring a situation of effective compe-
tition.

Finally, the applicant relies on a breach of the duty to state
reasons.

(1) Case COMP/M.2978 – Lagardère/Natexis/VUP (OJ 2004 L 125, p.

54)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission's decision of 17 September 2004

and all its legal consequences.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant was carrying on a retail business in the terminal
at Paris/Charles de Gaulle airport. It lodged a complaint with
the Commission relating to abuse of a dominant position
within the meaning of Article 82 EC by the public undertaking,
Aéroports de Paris, on the commercial concessions market in
the public airport sector.

By the contested decision, the Commission notified the appli-
cant that there was no sufficient Community interest in the
complaint to justify the opening of a formal investigation.

In support of its action, the applicant relies, first, on error of
law and manifest error of assessment in the decision as to the
lack of a sufficient Community interest. According to the appli-
cant, the Commission was mistaken in finding the absence of a
sufficient interest to pursue the investigation of the case and in
deciding that there was sufficient protection of the applicant's
rights before the national courts.

the applicant pleads an insufficient statement of
Secondly,
reasons in breach of Article 253 EC because the Commission
did not deal with various elements of the applicant's argu-
ments.

Thirdly, the applicant pleads breach of Article 82 EC, because
the Commission refused to investigate the complaint whereas,
according to the applicant, there is abuse of a dominant posi-
tion.

Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Au Lys de
France against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Jorge Manuel
Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-458/04)

(2005/C 45/56)

(Case T-459/04)

(2005/C 45/57)

(Language of the case: French)

(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 22 November 2004 by Au Lys de
France, a company established in Le Raincy (France), repre-
sented by G. Lesourd, lawyer.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 November 2004 by Jorge
Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira, residing in Brussels, repre-
sented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.