Case T-129/06: Action brought on 26 April 2006 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, building industry, educational institution

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/29

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 —
easyJet Airline v Commission

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2006 —
Volkswagen v OHIM (CLIMATIC)

(Case T-177/04) (1)

(Case T-306/03) (1)

(Competition — Concentrations — Regulation (EEC) No
4064/89 — Decision declaring a concentration compatible
with the common market — Action brought by a third party
— Admissibility — Air transport market — Commitments)

(2006/C 212/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom)
(represented by: initially by J. Cook, J. Parker and S. Dolan, Soli-
citors, and subsequently by M. Werner and M. Waha, avocats,
L. Mills, Solicitor, M. de Lasala Lobera and R. Malhotra,
avocats)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P. Oliver, A. Bouquet and A. Whelan, Agents)

Intervener in support of
sented by: G. de Bergues, Agent)

the defendant: French Republic (repre-

Re:

(Community trade mark — Partial refusal of registration —
Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to
adjudicate)

(2006/C 212/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented
by: S. Risthaus, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Müller and G.
Schneider, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2003 (Case R 1012/2001-2)
regarding an application for registration of a figurative mark
containing the word sign CLIMATIC as a Community trade
mark

Operative part of the judgment

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

Annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 February 2004
declaring compatible with the common market the concentra-
tion between Air France and KLM (Case No COMP/M.3280 —
Air France/KLM) (OJ 2004 C 60, p. 5), whereby Air France was
to acquire full control of KML

(1) OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the

Commission.

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

Parties

Action brought on 26 April 2006 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi
ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission

(Case T-129/06)

(2006/C 212/53)

Language of the case: German

(1) OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.

Applicants: Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi
(Cankaya/Ankara,
(Cankaya/Ankara, Turkey) and M. Akar
Turkey) (represented by: C. Sahin, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

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.