Case T-58/06: Action brought on  22 February 2006  — H.A.L.T.E. v Commission
Date: 2006-04-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for failure to act, aid for restructuring, carriage of goods

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/23

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international word mark
‘TOPIX’ for goods in Classes 3 and 4

Pleas in law and main arguments

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in respect
of all the disputed goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94 in that there is a visual and conceptual
difference between the conflicting trade marks and a very great
difference between the goods to which the two trade marks
relate.

By this action, an association of companies operating in the
parcel service, transport and logistics sector seeks a declaration
by the Court that the Commission has failed to act in that the
latter refrained from initiating formal investigation proceedings
as provided for under Article 88 EC and from ordering interim
measures suspending the payment of the aid disputed in a
complaint by the applicant relating to restructuring aid granted
by the SNCF, a public company wholly owned by the French
State, to the goods transport company SCS SERNAM.

In support of its action for a declaration of failure to act, the
applicant relies on arguments that can be grouped together as
two pleas as regards their substance.

The first plea alleges an infringement of Article 88(2) of the EC
Treaty. The applicant submits that the fact that a period of
over six months elapsed following its first complaint, although
the Commission was familiar with the case, because it had
previous given decisions the infringement of which formed the
subject-matter of the complaint, constitutes an indication of the
serious difficulties encountered by the Commission in assessing
whether the aid in question was compatible with the common
market. The Commission is accordingly obliged, according to
the applicant, to initiate the formal
investigation proceeding
into the aid referred to in the complaint. The applicant further-
more claims that even if the French authorities failed to give
notice of the aid this cannot release the Commission from its
obligations of due diligence, and that it is obliged to employ its
powers of investigation as soon as it comes into possession of
information on State measures which could be contrary to the
principles of the common market, especially in the context of a
complaint directed at an infringement of its previous decision
fixing the conditions of compatibility of State aid with the
common market (1).

The second plea alleges an infringement of Article 11 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed
rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 88) (2). The applicant claims that
the Commission
should have ordered interim measures suspending the payment
of the aid in that, according to the applicant, one condition of
objective urgency was met.

Action brought on 22 February 2006 — H.A.L.T.E. v
Commission

(Case T-58/06)

(2006/C 96/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Honorable Association de Logisticiens et de Trans-
porteurs Européens — H.A.L.T.E.
(Neuilly-sur-Seine, France)
(represented by: J.-L. Lesquins, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare, in accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty,
that the Commission has failed in its obligation to act by
failing to define its position after having been called upon
to do so in accordance with Articles 87 and 88 of that
Treaty;

(1) The decision in question is the Commission Decision of 20 October
2004 relating to State aid put into effect by France in part in favour
of the Sernam company, C (2004) 3940 final

(2) OJ 2004 L, p. 1, most recently amended by Commission Regulation

No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L 182, p. 2)

— order the Commission to take all measures necessary to

comply with the judgment in its entirety;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.