Case T-351/05: Action brought on  7 September 2005  — Provincia di Imperia v Commission
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, European Commission, European Social Fund, Italy, action for annulment (EU)

C 296/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
OHIM of 6 July 2005 (Case R 1188/2004-1), which was
notified to P&G by letter of 11 July 2005, in so far as it
finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid
down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and

— order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three dimensional mark in
form of a square white tablet showing a blue six-petalled floral
design for goods in class 3 (washing and bleaching preparations
and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing,
scouring and abrasive preparations; preparations
the
washing, cleaning and care of dishes; soaps) — application No
1 683 119

for

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of
all the designated goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation
No 40/94.

Community trade mark concerned: Three dimensional mark in
form of a square white tablet showing a green five-petalled
floral design for goods in class 3 (washing and bleaching
preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning,
polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; preparations for
the washing, cleaning and care of dishes; soaps) — application
No 1 683 473

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of
all the designated goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation
No 40/94.

Action brought on 7 September 2005 — Provincia di
Imperia v Commission

(Case T-351/05)

(2005/C 296/66)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 12 September 2005 — Procter &
Gamble/OHIM

(Case T-347/05)

(2005/C 296/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Provincia di Imperia (Imperia, Italy) (represented
by: S. Rostagno, lawyer, K. Platteau, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant(s): The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, USA)
[represented by: G. Kuipers, lawyers]

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

— order the defendant to pay the costs

— annul the contested decision and any related act;

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
OHIM of 6 July 2005 (Case R 1182/2004-1), which was
notified to P&G by letter of 13 July 2005, in so far as it
finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid
down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and

— order the OHIM to pay the costs.

The present action seeks annulment of the Commission's deci-
sion of 30 June 2005 not to accept the proposal presented by
the applicant in response to the call for proposals launched by
the Commission in the context of Community co-financing in
the sphere of innovative measures under Article 6 of the Regu-
lation on the European Social Fund (1) for the planning period
2000-2006.

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/31

By the contested decision, the Commission informed the appli-
cant that its proposal did not satisfy the evaluation criteria in
the call for proposals. It based its decision on the fact that the
applicant's proposal did not succeed in explaining the way in
which it elaborates and takes into consideration the experience
previously acquired in that sphere in Liguria and claimed that
there are serious inconsistencies between the budget informa-
tion supplied in Annex 6 and that supplied in Annex 7.

The applicant challenges the decision on two main points:

— it maintains that, contrary to the findings of the contested
decision, there are no serious inconsistencies in the budget
information supplied in the annexes to its proposal, in that
it follows the model of a claim for subsidy published in the
Applicant's Guide and the annex thereto forming an inte-
gral part of the call for proposals. The applicant does not
dispute the existence of the difference between the budget
information supplied in Annex 6 and that supplied in
Annex 7, but maintains that that difference relates to the
structure and the different information requested in both
annexes; whereas Annex 6 provides only an indication of
the direct eligible expenditure, Annex 7b requires the appli-
cant to indicate both direct eligible expenditure and indirect
eligible expenditure. The applicant claims, first, that there is
no inconsistency between Annexes 6 and 7 to its proposal
and, second, that its proposal complies meticulously and on
all points with the model established by the Commission.

the applicant maintains that the Commission has made a mani-
fest error of assessment of the facts, has misused its powers
and has infringed the principle of legal certainty.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund OJ L 213,
13/08/1999, p. 5.

(2) Commission Notice of 12 January 2000 on the implementation of
innovation measures under Article 6 of the European Social Fund
Regulation for the planning period 2000-2006.

(3) Notice entitled ‘Budget heading 04.021000.00.11 – Innovative
measures under Article 6 of the European Social Fund Regulation:
“Innovative Approaches to the Management of Change” – Call for
proposals VP/2003/021’, OJ 2004 C 255, p. 11, and the ruler fixed
in the Applicant's Guide forming an integral part of that notice.

Action brought on 16 September 2005 — Hellenic
Republic v Commission

(Case T-352/05)

(2005/C 296/67)

Language of the case: Greek

— the applicant also contends that it demonstrated sufficiently
the way in which the proposal elaborates and takes into
consideration the experience previously acquired in the
sphere to which the innovative measure in question relates.
It claims that the alleged failure to explain the connection
between the proposal and the
experience previously
acquired is based on a reading of only one part of its
proposal. A reading of the proposal as a whole would show
the opposite.

Parties

Applicant(s): Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanello-
poulos and S. Kharitaki)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

The applicant further alleges that by the contested decision the
Commission infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it
does not follow the rules it has itself established on the manner
of establishing the innovative nature of the project. More speci-
fically, in the applicant's submission, in assessing the innovative
nature of its project, the confined itself to one of the evaluation
criteria, namely its method of constructing and developing the
new project on the basis of previous experience, whereas its
project was innovative from the aspect of a different evaluation
criterion, namely a departure from the ordinary activities of the
organisations concerned, a criterion also accepted in the Appli-
cant's Guide.

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— annul or amend the contested decision of the Commission
of 20 July 2005 refusing the request for Community finan-
cing of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, notified under No
C(2005) 2756 and published as Decision 2005/579/EC (1)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its claims, the applicant also alleges that the
contested decision infringes Article 53 of the EC Treaty, Article
6 of Regulation No 1784/1999, the rules laid down in Notice
No COM (2000) 894 final (2) and also the rules established by
the Commission in the context of its call for proposals (3). Last,

By the contested decision the Commission,
in clearing the
accounts under Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (2), disallowed
from Community financing various expenditure incurred by
the Hellenic Republic in the public storage, fruit and vegetables,
tobacco and livestock premiums sectors.