Case T-150/05: 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 European Communities
Date: 2005-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Finland, action for annulment (EU), environmental law, protected area

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.

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/43

Finland's stage 1 proposal of sites, from which the sites of
Community importance were chosen by the Commission deci-
sion in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2)
of the directive, is contrary to the nature directive's mandatory
selection criteria for the choice of sites.

The Commission is obliged to ensure that the sites included in
satisfy the biogeographical
the Member State's proposal
requirements required for the inclusion of sites in the decision
to be made after stage 2. The Commission thus may not,
without a proper examination of
the biogeographical data,
approve a proposed site for entry in the list of sites of Com-
munity importance.

(1) Commission Decision 2005/101/EC of 13 January 2005 adopting,
pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Com-
munity importance for the Boreal biogeographical region, OJ L 40,
11.2.2005, p. 1.

Action brought on 18 April 2005 by John Arthur Slater
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against

Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-152/05)

(2005/C 143/79)

(Language in which the application was lodged: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18
April 2005 by John Arthur Slater, residing in London (United
Kingdom), represented by M. J. Gilbert, Solicitor.

Inc., established in Mississanga,
Prime Restaurant Holdings,
Ontario (Canada) was also a party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated 13

December 2004 in Case R 582/2003-4;

— dismiss Prime Restaurant Holdings,

for a
invalidity in respect of Community trade

Inc's request

declaration of
mark registration No 447730;

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community
trade mark subject of
the application for a
declaration of invalidity:

EAST SIDE
The word mark
MARIO'S for goods and services in
classes 25, 26 and 42 — Com-
munity trade mark No 447730

Proprietor of the Com-
munity trade mark:

John Arthur Slater

the
requesting
Party
declaration of invalidity
of the Community trade
mark:

Rights of the applicant
for
declaration of
a
invalidity:

Prime Restaurant Holdings, Inc.

The national word and figurative
marks EAST SIDE MARIO'S

Decision of the Cancel-
lation Division:

Invalidity of the Community trade
mark

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal

Violation of Article 51(1)(b) of
Council Regulation No 40/94.
the
According to the applicant,
the
Board erred in finding that
applicant acted for a third person
who should be considered to be
the applicant for the trade mark,
that this third person acted in bad
faith and that there is unfair prac-
tice.

Removal from the Register of Case T-176/00 (1)

(2005/C 143/80)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

the Court of First

the Fourth
By order of 11 March 2005,
Chamber of
the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Case T-176/00, Cargill B.V. v Commission of the European
Communities.

the President of
Instance of

— order the Office and other parties to bear their own costs
and pay those of the applicant in this application, in appeal
No R582/2003-4 and in cancellation proceedings No
232C000447730/1.

(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.