Case T-98/06: Action brought on  28 March 2006  — Fédération nationale du Crédit agricole v Commission
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, post office financial services, subsidiary

C 131/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Appeal before the Board of Appeal lodged by: the applicant.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Application inadmissible (Case A
001/2005).

Pleas in law: Infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 (1)
the principle of sound administration consisting in
and of
failure to apply Article 49 of that regulation; error consisting in
the dismissal of the appeal without justification.

Pleas in law: The mark applied for has the necessary distinctive
character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 estab-
lishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation
(EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community
Plant Variety Office (OJ 1995 L 121, p. 37).

Action brought on 28 March 2006 — Fédération nationale
du Crédit agricole v Commission

(Case T-98/06)

(2006/C 131/83)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 29 March 2006 — Neoperl v OHIM

(Case T-97/06)

Parties

(2006/C 131/82)

Applicant: Fédération nationale du Crédit agricole (Paris, France)
(represented by: N. Lenoir and P.-A. Jeanneney, lawyers)

Language of the case: German

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Applicant: Neoperl GmbH (Müllheim, Germany) (represented by
H. Börjes-Pestalozza, lawyer)

— annul

the decision given by the Commission on 21
December 2005 in Case N 531/2005 France — Measures
relating to the creation and operation of Banque Postale;

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

— order the Commission to pay the entire costs of

the

proceeding.

Form of order sought

— annul contested Decision R 0612/2005-4 and order the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to publish
application No 3 636 206 for the purposes of its registra-
tion as a Community trade mark.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three dimensional mark ‘Sani-
tärschlauch’ — shape of a tube — for goods in Classes 11 and
17 — Application No 3 636 206.

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 25 January 2005 the French authorities informed the
Commission of their decision to transfer the banking and insur-
ance activities of La Poste to a subsidiary (Banque Postale), initi-
ally wholly owned by La Poste. On 21 July 2001, the applicant
in the present action submitted a formal complaint to the
Commission under Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No
659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Article 93 (now Article 88) of the EC Treaty (1),
alleging that
the State aid granted to Banque Postale was
incompatible with the common market and requesting that the
Commission initiate formal investigation proceedings.

In a decision of 21 December 2005, the Commission stated
that the transferring of financial activities to a subsidiary does
not confer an economic advantage on Banque Postale and that
the measures relating to the creation and operation of this
subsidiary do not constitute State aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) EC. That is the decision against which the present
action is brought.

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/45

In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in
law, the first alleging a breach of formal legality, i.e. breach of
Regulation No 659/1999 by the Commission in taking a deci-
sion to refer certain measures back for further consideration
and breach by the Commission of Article 88(2) EC in refusing
to initiate the formal investigation procedure.

In its second plea the applicant asserts that by holding that the
measures relating to the creation and operation of Banque
Postale did not constitute State aid, the Commission made
several errors of assessment regarding, inter alia, the economic
advantages alleged in the complaint and that therefore it had
misinterpreted Articles 87 and 88 EC.

In its third plea the applicant alleges that the Commission's
decision is vitiated by formal defects owing to the Commis-
sion's failure to give reasons for its refusal to deal with the
fundamental objections raised by the applicant in its complaint
and also contradictory reasoning and lack of
reasoning
regarding certain specific points dealt with in the decision.

In its fourth plea the applicant alleges that the Commission
breached Articles 43, 82 and 86 EC by failing to take account
in its decision of the interference with freedom of establishment
and free competition posed by the measures relating to the
purpose of the State aid as inferred from Livret A.

(1) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1

Action brought on 3 April 2006 — Société des plantations
the European
de Mbanga (S.P.M.) v Commission of

Communities

(Case T-104/06)

(2006/C 131/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société des plantations de Mbanga (S.P.M.) (Douala,
Cameroon) (represented by: B.-L. Doré, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Grant all of its claims;

— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 219/2006 of 8
February 2006 opening and providing for the administra-
tion of the tariff quota for bananas falling under CN code
0803 00 19 originating in ACP countries for the period 1
March to 31 December 2006;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

for the months of

In the context of the amendments to the specific regime for
the
trade quotas with non-Member States forming part of
measures of market organisation in the banana sector, Council
Regulation No 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 (1), among
other things, conferred on the Commission the power to enact
the measures necessary to implement that regulation, as well as
transitional measures relating to the management of the tariff
quota for bananas originating in ACP countries. In that context,
the Commission maintained in its Regulation No 2015/2005
of 9 December 2005 (2),
January and
February 2006, the system of granting import licences on the
basis of historic references (3). As that regulation was, by defini-
tion, transitional, on 8 February 2006 the Commission adopted
Regulation No 219/2006 opening and providing for
the
administration of the tariff quota for bananas falling under CN
code 0803 00 19 originating in ACP countries for the period 1
March to 31 December 2006 (4).
the
Commission adopted a method of administering the tariff
quota which provides that the quota is to be used by chronolo-
gical order of acceptance of the declarations for release for free
circulation (the ‘first come, first served’ method) and reserves,
as a transitional measure, part of the tariff quota for operators
who supplied the Community with ACP bananas under the
import arrangements previously in force. The annulment of
that regulation is sought in this action.

regulation,

In that

In the present action, the applicant claims that the contested
regulation is legally flawed in a number of respects in that the
effect of its provisions is that, whilst 60 % of the tariff quota is
administered according to the new method, 40 % is still admi-
nistered by granting licences on the basis of historic references.
In support of its claim, the applicant relies of the same pleas in
law and arguments as those put forward in its claim in Case T-
447/05 (5).

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 on the tariff

rate for bananas (OJ 2005 L 316, p. 1)

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 of 9 December 2005
on imports during January and February 2006 of bananas origin-
ating in ACP countries under the tariff quota opened by Council
Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 on the tariff rates for bananas (OJ
2005 L 324, p. 5)

(3) The applicant seeks annulment of that regulation in Case T-447/05
(4) OJ 2006 L 38, p. 22
(5) See notice in OJ 2006 C 74, p. 24