Case T-148/05: Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, Infraestructuras del Transporte (MINTRA) against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Community of Madrid, European Commission, European accounting system, action for annulment (EU), non-commercial sector, public institution

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/41

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Comunidad
Autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, Infraestructuras del
Transporte (MINTRA) against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Recticel N.V.

Community trade mark
concerned:

The word mark ‘RENOFLEX’
for
goods inter alia in classes 17 and
20 (filling materials
seats,
benches for vehicles, furniture ...)
— application No 1 278 175

for

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:

The applicant

Trade mark or
cited in opposition:

sign

The national
figurative marks
‘FLEX’ for goods in classes 17 and
20 respectively
beds,
mattresses, convertible furniture,
desks ...)

(rubber,

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Opposition upheld for
contested goods

all

the

(Case T-148/05)

(2005/C 143/77)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 April 2005 by the Comunidad
Autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, Infraestructuras del Trans-
porte (MINTRA), having its principal place of business in
Madrid, represented by C. Fernández Vicién, D. Ortega Peciña
and J. Sabater Marotias, lawyers.

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Annulment of
Division's decision

the Opposition

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law:

of

likelihood

The
confusion
between the Community trade
mark and the earlier trade marks
is evident because of the similarity
of the signs and the fact that the
goods covered by the trade marks
are partly identical, partly similar.

close

The Community trade mark bears
resemblance with the
a
earlier trade marks, due to the fact
that the word element and domi-
nant part of
trade
the
earlier
marks, FLEX,
is included in the
contested Community trade mark,
RENOFLEX. The addition of
the
word RENO does not alter the
overall impression.

The contested decision therefore
entails an infringement of Article
8(1)b of Council Regulation No
40/94.

The Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market has further
more infringed the principal of
legal certainty.

— annul the Commission's decision; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the defendant's decision
classifying MINTRA in the general sector ‘public administra-
tions’, in accordance with the ‘European system of accounts —
ESA 1995’ provided for in Annex A to Council Regulation (EC)
No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of
national and regional accounts in the Community. (1) The ESA
1995 consists of a series of definitions, nomenclatures and
rules of accounting methodology which the Member States
apply when drawing up their national accounts and economic
statistics. That accounting system is also used for the applica-
tion of the excessive deficit procedure.

MINTRA is a public-law entity of the Comunidad de Madrid
attached to the Consejería de Transportes e Infraestructuras. It
has legal personality and its own assets and also full capacity to
act. It also has the capacity to incur autonomous debts with
regard to the Comunidad de Madrid.

C 143/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.6.2005

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

— breach of various rules of the ESA 1995 on the classifica-
tion of institutional units as ‘market’ or ‘non-market’ enti-
ties;

— breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, in so far
as the contested decision presumes a radical change in the
position of Eurostat concerning the classification adopted
by that body vis-à-vis MINTRA by letter of 14 February
2003, a reclassification which resulted from a declaration of
Eurostat to the same effect in a very similar case, that of the
Austrian public entity Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft. Signif-
icant, in that regard, is the fact that the decision has extre-
mely serious financial consequences for the applicant and
for MINTRA, since the debt of that public entity will be
incorporated in the accounts of the Comunidad de Madrid.
Furthermore, MINTRA could be obliged to rescind the
contracts already entered into in connection with the plan
to expand the metropolitan railway network, which the
Comunidad de Madrid undertook on the basis of the classi-
fication of February 2003;

— breach of the obligation to state reasons, in that, among
other reasons, the contested decision lacks any reference to
its legal basis and to the specific factual elements on which
it is based.

(1) OJEC L 310 of 30.11.1996, p. 1.

Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Markku Sahlstedt,
Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa
Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena
Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo
K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK
ry and MTK:n säätiö against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case T-150/05)

(2005/C 143/78)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities on 18 April 2005 by Markku Sahlstedt,
Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner,
Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila
Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja
metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö,
represented by Kari Marttinen, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision (1) in its entirety;

— in the alternative,

if it does not regard that as possible,
annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns all the
sites in the Republic of Finland included in the decision;

— in the further alternative,

it does not regard that as
if
possible either, annul the decision as regards the sites speci-
fied in part 6.2.2.7;

— order the Commission to pay the costs in full with statutory

interest.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the applicants, the decision is contrary to Com-
munity law, in particular Article 4 of the Nature Directive and
Annex III referred to there. The argument that the decision is
contrary to Community law rests on three principal pleas in
law:

(a) Under Article 3 of the nature directive, the Natura 2000
network is a coherent European network of protected sites.
The coherence of the network is ensured and the objective
of a favourable level of protection attained by the fact that
Article 4 of and Annex III to the directive, concerning the
choice of sites, are binding on both the Member States and
the Commission. Sites may not be
chosen without
complying with those provisions and not by preliminary
decisions or partial decisions. The sites are to be chosen by
uniform criteria for all Member States;

(b) Stages 1 (the Member State stage) and 2 (the Commission
form a whole which consists of
stage) of Annex III
measures having legal effect. The procedure in stage 2 and
the decision on sites of Community importance are not in
accordance with the directive if the proposal
in stage 1
does not fulfil the requirements of the directive;

(c) The Commission must in connection with stage 2, together
with the Member States, coordinate the proposals of the
to the boundaries
Member States and make changes
concerning each biogeographical region, as a consequence
of a more extensive examination than the Member State's
as regards the favourable level of protection.