Case T- 397/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of  13 December 2005  — Arla Foods and Others v Commission (Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 — Registration of a designation of origin  Feta  — Action for annulment — Capacity to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), cheese, designation of origin, location of production, product designation

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/39

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2005
— Arla Foods and Others v Commission

Action brought on 25 November 2005 — Olympic
Airlines S.A. v Commission

(Case T- 397/02) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 — Registration of a desig-
nation of origin ‘Feta’ — Action for annulment — Capacity
to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

(Case T-416/05)

(2006/C 60/77)

Language of the case: Greek

(2006/C 60/76)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Arla Foods AMBA (Viby, Denmark), Løgismose A/S
(Broby, Denmark), Nordex Food A/S (Dronninglund, Denmark),
Sinai Landmejeri
(Hobro,
(Horsens, Denmark), Steensgaard
Denmark), Søvind Mejeri
Herregårdsmejeri (Millinge, Denmark), Mejeriet Grambogård I/S
(Tommerup, Denmark) and Kirkeby Cheese Export (Svendborg,
Denmark), (represented by G. Lett, lawyer)

(Broby), Andelsmejeriet Sædager

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by H. Støvlbæk,
and A.-M.
Rouchaud-Joët, Agents)

Iglesias Buhigues

J.

Interveners in support of the applicants: United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by P. Ormond,
Agent)

Intervener: in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (repre-
sented by V. Kontolaimos, I. Chalkias and M. Tassopoulou,
Agents) and Syndesmos Ellinikon Viomichanion Galaktoko-
mikon Proïonton (SEV-GAP) (represented by N. Korogiannakis,
lawyer)

Application for

annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of
14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No
1107/96 with regard to the name ‘Feta’ (OJ 2002 L 277 p. 10)

Operative part of the Order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those of the

Commission.

3. The Hellenic Republic, the United Kingdom of Geat Britain and
Northern Ireland and Syndesmos Ellinikon Viomichanion Galak-
tokomikon Proïonton (SEV-GAP) shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.

Applicant: Olympic Airlines S.A. (Athens, Greece) (represented
by: V. Christianos)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1(1) and (4) and Article 2 of Decision C

11/2004 in so far as they concern the applicant;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the context of the privatisation of the Greek State airline
company, Olympic Airways, the applicant was put into opera-
tion. It constitutes a new company, and undertook flight opera-
tions, while Olympic Airways — Services S.A. (‘OA’), as the old
company was renamed, retained all the other activities, princi-
pally ground handling, maintenance and repair of aircraft. By
the contested decision, the Commission found that State aid
had been paid by Greece to the applicant and OA, that aid
being incompatible with the Treaty inter alia on the ground of:

payment on the part of the applicant for the subleasing of
aircraft of rental lower than the lease payment under the prin-
cipal leasing agreement, at the expense of the Hellenic Republic
and OA;

— overvaluing of the applicant's assets at the time that it was

set up;

— the Hellenic Republic's display of unceasing tolerance
towards OA as regards tax debts and social security contri-
butions.

— In its application, the applicant challenges, first, the part of
the decision relating to the aircraft rental which it pays. It
maintains that there is no State aid and that consequently
the contested decision infringes Article 87(1) EC. According
to the applicant, the Commission did not examine OA's
choice to sublease aircraft on the basis of the criterion of a
private businessman, nor did it examine whether the appli-
cant obtained any benefit which it would not have obtained
on the basis of market conditions. Moreover, it committed
a manifest error of assessment in comparing the rental paid
by the applicant with that paid by OA under the principal
leasing agreement, rather than with that which the appli-
cant would have to pay if it turned to another lessor.