Case T-136/05: Action brought on 30 March 2005 by EARL Salvat Père et Fils and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-05-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for annulment (EU), advertising, control of State aid, set-aside, viticulture

C 132/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.5.2005

In support of his application, the applicant invokes, fundamen-
tally, an objection of illegality, on the basis of Article 241 of
the Treaty, on the ground that the application of Article 20 of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful in this case.

He claims, in that regard:

— breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, owing to
the assurances which in his submission were given by the
administration to the effect that the new Staff Regulations
would have no negative impact on his situation,

— failure to respect the principles of equal treatment and non-
discrimination, owing to the differentiation established
according to the place of residence of officials in service
and in receipt of a pension,

— failure to respect his acquired rights, owing to the amend-
ment of his fundamental conditions of employment, consid-
ered as at the date of his retirement,

— breach of the principle of sound administration.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision the Commission concluded that the
set-aside premium per hectare financed by an inter-trade contri-
bution in the context of the ‘Plan Rivesaltes’ and the promo-
tional and operational activities of the controlled designations
‘Muscat de Rivesaltes’
‘Grand Rousillon’,
of origin ‘Rivesaltes’,
and ‘Banyuls’ financed by inter-trade contributions constituted
State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC.

The applicants seek for that decision to be annulled, submitting
first that its statement of reasons is inadequate, in breach of
Article 253 EC, and does not enable the applicants to under-
stand the Commission's reasons for considering that the criteria
relating to State aid defined in the case-law of the Court of
Justice were satisfied in this case. The applicants also submit
that the contested decision resulted from a breach of Article 87
EC, since the Commission did not show either
the
measures in question were financed by means made available
to the national authorities or that the inter-trade contributions,
intended to finance the promotional and operational activities
of the controlled designations of origin, were attributable to the
State.

that

Action brought on 30 March 2005 by EARL Salvat Père et
Fils and Others against the Commission of the European
Communities

Action brought on 1 April 2005 by LA PERLA S.p.A.
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against

Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-136/05)

(2005/C 132/61)

(Case T-137/05)

(2005/C 132/62)

(Language of the case: French)

(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 30 March 2005 by EARL Salvat
Père et Fils, established in Saint-Paul de Fenouillet (France),
Comité interprofessionnel des vins doux naturels et vins de
(CIVDN), established in
liqueur à appellations contrôlées
Perpignan (France), and Comité national des interprofessionnels
des vins à appellation d'origine, established in Paris (France),
represented by Hugues Calvet and Olivier Billard, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Articles 1.1 and 1.3 of the Commission's decision of
19 January 2005 concerning the ‘Plan Rivesaltes’ and the
CIVDN parafiscal levies implemented by France;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 1
April 2004 by LA PERLA S.p.A., represented by Renzo Maria
Morresi and Alberto Dal Ferro, lawyers.

Cielo Brands — Gestao e Investimentos Lda. was also a party
to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in full the contested decision reinstating the decision
of the Cancellation Division and therefore declaring the
contested trade mark invalid;

— order Cielo Brands — Gestao e Investimentos Lda to pay
including the previous two

the costs of the proceedings,
sets of proceedings before OHIM.