Case T-181/06: Action brought on 6 July 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing, European Commission, Italy, action for annulment (EU), agricultural expenditure, closing of accounts

C 212/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.9.2006

In support of their forms of order the applicants allege:

— infringement of several of the ESA 95 rules on the classifi-
cation of institutional units in the ‘public administration’ or
‘non-financial corporation’ sectors.

— infringement of the general principles that administrative
acts must state the principles on which they are based and
that the person concerned must be given a hearing.

Pleas in law: The mark applied for is capable of being protected
as it has the necessary distinctive character within the meaning
of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 64 of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1). Furthermore, the contested decision infringes
the principle of equal treatment.

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

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

(1) OJ 1996 L 310, p. 1.

Action brought on 7 July 2006 — Fränkischer Weinbau-
verband v OHIM (three-dimensional mark ‘Bocksbeutel’)

(Case T-180/06)

(2006/C 212/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Würzburg,
Applicant:
Germany) (represented by N. Hetzelt and A. Weigand, lawyers)

Fränkischer Weinbauverband

e.V.

Action brought on 6 July 2006 — Italian Republic v
Commission

(Case T-181/06)

(2006/C 212/62)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant:
avvocato dello stato)

Italian Republic (represented by: Giacomo Aiello,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade
Marks and Designs) of 25 April 2006 (Case No R 0479/
2004-1);

— order the defendant to publish Community trade mark No
002323301 in accordance with Article 40 of the Com-
munity trade mark regulation and;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The three-dimensional collec-
tive mark ‘Bocksbeutel’ for goods and services in Classes 32, 33
and 42 (Registration No 2 323 301).

Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.

— Annul Commission Decision 2006/334/EC of 28 April
2006 (C (2006) 1702) in so far as it excludes from Com-
munity financing certain expenditure incurred by the Italian
the European
Republic under the Guarantee Section of
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian Republic has brought an action before the Court of
First Instance challenging Commission Decision C (2006) 1702
of 28 April 2006 in so far as it excludes from Community
financing certain expenditure incurred by the applicant under
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF).

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement and
misapplication of:

— Article 11(1)(c)(4), Article 13(2), Article 15(4)(a), Article
30(1) and (2), and Article 51 of Council Regulation (EC) No
2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation
of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297 of
2.11.1996, p. 19);

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/35

— the third subparagraph of Article 17(2) of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 659/97 of 16 April 1997 laying down
detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2200/96 as regards intervention arrangements in the
fruit and vegetables sector (OJ 1997 L 100 of 17.4.1997, p.
22);

— Article 8(2)(c) and (d), Article 8(4)(b) and Article 16(1) of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 609/2001 of 28 March
2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards operational
programmes, operational funds and Community financial
assistance, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 411/97 (OJ
2001 L 90 of 30.3.2001, p. 4);

— Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 412/97 of 3
March 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application
of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards the
recognition of producer organisations (OJ 1997 L 62 of
4.3.1997, p. 16);

— Articles 6 and 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules
for applying the integrated administration and control
system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391
of 31.12.1992. p. 36).

Action brought on 12 July 2006 — Kingdom of the Neth-
erlands v Commission

(Case T-182/06)

(2006/C 212/63)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G.
Sevenster and D.J.M. de Grave, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision 2006/372/EC of 3 May 2006
concerning draft national provisions notified by the
Kingdom of the Netherlands under Article 95(5) of the EC
Treaty laying down limits on the emissions of particulate
matter by diesel-powered vehicles;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant informed the Commission, in accordance with
Article 95(5) EC, of its intention to establish national rules for
limiting emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehi-
cles,
in derogation from the provisions of Directive
98/69/EC (1). Under those notified rules, a limit value of 5 milli-
grams per kilometre for the emission of fine particulate matter
was to be set with effect from 1 January 2007 for new diesel-
powered passenger cars and diesel-powered commercial vehi-
cles. The present limit value in Directive 98/69 is 25 milligrams
per kilometre. In view of specific problems in the Netherlands
concerning air quality, the Netherlands Government considers
that it is necessary to introduce a more stringent rule. The
Commission rejected the proposed national
in the
contested Decision 2006/372/EC (2).

rule

In support of its application, the applicant first claims infringe-
ment by the Commission of the appraisal criteria of Article
95(5) EC by reason of its view that the Netherlands had not
indicated that there was a specific problem in regard to air
quality and, more particularly, with the obligations under
Directive 99/30 (3).

Second, the applicant submits that there has been an infringe-
ment of the duty of care and the duty to state reasons under
Article 253 EC by virtue of the Commission's failure to take
into account, without detailed reasons, more recent and rele-
vant data which the Netherlands Government provided in good
time prior to the contested decision.

Third, the applicant submits that the Commission breached the
EC Treaty by failing,
in its appraisal of alternative measures
pursuant to Article 95(6) EC, to proceed on the basis of the
specifically pursued objective of
the national provision in
respect of which approval was sought.

there has been a
The applicant accordingly contends that
failure to comply with the obligation under Article 253 EC to
state reasons in the appraisal of the conditions under Article
95(6) EC.

The applicant concludes by alleging a breach of Article 95(5)
and (6) EC and the requirement under Article 253 EC to state
reasons by virtue of the fact that the Commission treated the
international context of the planned measure as being relevant
in its appraisal of the request made by the Netherlands Govern-
ment.

(1) Directive 98/69/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 13 October 1998 relating to measures to be taken against air
pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and amending Council
Directive 70/220/EEC (OJ 1998 L 350, p. 1).

(2) Commission Decision 2006/372/EC of 3 May 2006 concerning
draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the Nether-
lands under Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty laying down limits on
the emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehicles [noti-
fication made under no C(2000) 1791] (OJ 2006 L 142, p. 16).
(3) Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit
values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen,
particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41).