Case T-162/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Kronoply v Commission
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, investment project, regional aid

C 212/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.9.2006

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Reservation of rights to bring a claim for damages;

— Suspension, as a matter of priority, of implementation of
the procedure with regard to the subject-matter of
the
present proceedings;

— Annulment of the procedure of 23 December 2005 with
the number MK/KS/DELTUR/(2005)/SecE/D/1614 which is
the subject-matter of the present proceedings;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

claims

claimant

The
compensation from the European
Commission under Article 288 EC for the damage it claims to
have suffered from the wrongful withholding of assistance. It
bases its claim on two contracts for assistance concluded in
2000 in 2002 and each containing an arbitration clause in the
annex.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Kronoply v Commis-
sion

The applicants are contesting the decision of the European
Commission Delegation in Turkey of 23 December 2005
which was addressed to the applicants with regard to the call
for tenders in respect of the construction of educational estab-
lishments in the provinces of Diyarbakir and Siirt.

The applicants submit,
inter alia, that their tender was the
lowest and that the file in respect thereof was complete and
therefore the contract should have been awarded to them.
Furthermore, they submit that the contested decision infringes
European Union law.

Action brought on 23 June 2006 — ARBOS v Commission

(Case T-161/06)

(2006/C 212/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant(s): ARBOS, Gesellschaft
(Klagenfurt, Austria) (represented by: H. Karl, lawyer)

für Musik und Theater

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Order that the defendant pay the claimant EUR 38 545,42
plus 12 % interest since 1.1.2001 and EUR 27 618,91 plus
12 % interest since 1.3.2003;

(Case T-162/06)

(2006/C 212/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kronoply GmbH & Co KG (Heiligengrabe, Germany)
(represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's decision of 21 September 2005
regarding State aid No C 5/2004 (ex N 609/2003) by
which the Commission declares the aid Germany wishes to
grant the applicant to be incompatible with the common
market;

— Order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay

those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant
is contesting Commission Decision C(2005)
3497 of 21 September 2005 in which the Commission decided
that the investment grant which Germany intended to give
Kronoply GmbH in the context of the multisectoral framework
on regional aid for large investment projects (1) constitutes
State aid which is incompatible with the common market.

The applicant submits four pleas in law in support of its appli-
cation.

First, it complains that the Commission clearly erred as regards
the findings of fact. In that respect it submits, inter alia, that the
defendant did not ascertain the date on which the applicant
applied for grants although it is of decisive importance with
regard to an examination of the facts. Furthermore, it submits
that the Commission overlooked the fact that the national
administrative procedure has not yet been brought to an end.

— Order that the defendant pay the claimant EUR 26 459,38
in pre-litigation costs and bear the costs of the proceedings

Secondly, the applicant submits in support of its application
the plea that the contested decision is not adequately reasoned.

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/31

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has
infringed Article 87(3)(a) and (c) EC and Article 88 EC, Regu-
lation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) and the Guidelines on national
regional aid (3).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Charlott SARL

Lastly, the applicant complains of manifest errors of assessment
and misuse of powers on the part of the defendant.

trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Charlott
Community
France Entre Luxe et Tradition’ for goods in Class 25 — Appli-
cation No 001853274

(1) OJ 1998 C 107, p. 7.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty.

(3) OJ 1998 C 74, p. 9, amended by OJ 2000 C 258, p. 5.

Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Charlott SARL v
OHIM — Charlot (figurative mark ‘Charlott France Entre
Luxe et Tradition’)

(Case T-169/06)

(2006/C 212/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Charlott SARL (Chapanost, France) (represented by:
L. Conrad, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Charlot — Conferecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã o Outros
SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Charlot –Conferecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã o Outros
SA

Mark or
‘Charlot’ for goods in Class 25

sign cited in opposition: National

figurative mark

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Divi-
sion annulled.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 and of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95
on the grounds that, according to the applicant, the opposing
party has not proven genuine use of its mark during the five
preceding years and has not furnished proof of the extent of
the use allegedly made of that mark.

Action brought on 29 June 2006 — Alrosa v Commission

(Case T-170/06)

(2006/C 212/57)

Language of the case: English

Forms of order sought

Parties

— annul the decision of 24 April 2006 of the Second Board

of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 223/2005-2);

Applicant: Alrosa Company Ltd. (Mirny, Russia) (represented by:
R. Subiotto, S. Mobley, K. Jones, Solicitors)

— rule that

the company Charlot — Conferecções para
Homens, Artigos de Lã o Outros SA does not fulfil the obli-
gations laid down in Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— order OHIM to proceed with registration of

the mark

lodged by Charlott SARL;

Form of order sought

— order OHIM or any unsuccessful party to pay the costs of
the present proceedings, especially the recoverable costs
under Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of this Court
of 2 May 1991.

— Annul the decision in its entirety;

— order the Commission to pay Alrosa's legal and other costs

and expenses in relation to this matter.