Case T-267/06: Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission
Date: 2006-09-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing, European Commission, Italy, action for annulment (EU), agricultural expenditure, closing of accounts, common organisation of markets, fruit, vegetable

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/41

Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Greece v
Commission

Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Italian Republic
v Commission

(Case T-263/06)

(2006/C 281/72)

Language of the case: Greek

(Case T-267/06)

(2006/C 281/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by:
Kanellopoulos)

I. Khalkias, G.

Parties

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the Commission Decision of 27 July 2006 excluding
from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by
the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
European Agricultural Guidance
Fund
(EAGGF), notified under document number C(2006) 3331
final and published under number 2006/554/EC (1);

and Guarantee

— in the alternative, alter it as set out more specifically below;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the Commission, clearing accounts
under Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (2), excluded from Com-
munity financing inter alia certain expenditure which had been
incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the area of measures
accompanying rural development and had been declared under
the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF.

The applicant advances as a general ground for annulment of
Commission Decision C(2006) 3331 final the infringement of
an essential requirement of the procedure for clearing accounts
laid down in subparagraph (a) of the third subparagraph of
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 (3). Specifically,
it
submits that the Commission failed to engage in a bilateral
discussion with the Greek authorities on an evaluation of the
gravity of the infringements attributed to them and the finan-
cial
in the alternative it raises the
Commission's lack of power ratione temporis to impose the
financial corrections at issue.

loss to the Community;

(1) OJ L 218, 9.8.2006, p. 12.
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on
the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English Special
Edition 1970 (I), p. 218).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of
the
accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158, 8.7.1995,
p. 6).

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, Avvocato
dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C (2006) 3331 of 27 July
2006, notified on 28 July 2006, in so far as it excludes
from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by
the Italian Republic under the Guarantee Section of the
European Agricultural Guidance
Fund
(EAGGF);

and Guarantee

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Decision C
(2006) 3331 of 27 July 2006 in so far as it excludes from
Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the
Italian Republic under the Guarantee Section of the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).

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

— Paragraph 4(iv) of the Annex to Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules
for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70
regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts
of
the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L 158 of
8.7.1995, p. 6);

— Article 4(3), Article 17(2), Article 23, Article 24 and Article
30(1) and (2) 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 21.11.1996, p. 1);

— Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
659/97 of 16 April 1997 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (OJ 1997 L 100
of 17.4.1997, p. 22);

C 281/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

— Article 4(3), Article 8 and Article 24(3) of, and Paragraph
2(a) of Annex III
to, Commission Regulation (EC) No
562/2000 of 15 March 2000 laying down detailed rules for
the application of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the
common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ
2000 L 68 of 16.3.2000, p. 22).

21
brought
Rautaruukki v OHIM (RAUTARUUKKI)

September

on

2006 —

(Case T-269/06)

(2006/C 281/74)

Language of the case: English

Action

Parties

Applicant: Rautaruukki Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by:
P. Hagman, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant requests that the Court of First Instance:

— annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of July
21, 2006 and establishes that
the applied Community
Trademark application No 3 608 081 RAUTARUUKKI shall
be considered distinctive and registrable, and remits the
case to OHIM for registration purposes;

— orders the defendant OHIM to pay the applicant's costs in

these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘RAUTARUUKKI’
for goods
in among others class 6 — application No
3 608 081

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application for the goods
applied for in class 6

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 since the trade mark ‘RAUTARUUKKI’ has become
distinctive in respect of the goods applied for in class 6 after an
extensive long-term use of the mark.

Action brought on 9 October 2006– Sun Chemical Group
and others v Commission

(Case T-282/06)

(2006/C 281/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sun Chemical Group BV (Weesp, The Netherlands),
Siegwerk Druckfarben AG (Siegburg, Germany), Flint Group
Germany GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)
(represented by: N.
Dodoo, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Commission Decision COMP/M.4071 —

Apollo/Akzo Nobel IAR of 29 May 2006;

— order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application at stake is made pursuant to Article 230 EC for
the annulment of Commission Decision COMP/M.4071—
Apollo/Akzo Nobel IAR of 29 May 2006, declaring a notified
concentration compatible with the common market.

the

The applicants claim that the Commission cleared the concen-
tration unconditionally, without affording it
careful,
detailed and consistent review that it warranted, considering
the serious competition concerns it allegedly raised. According
to the applicants, a review of the decision, an assessment of the
applicants' respective responses to the Commission's market
investigation, and an examination of the salient features of the
industry demonstrate that the Commission failed to consider
or, where it purports to do so, ignored evidence that was vital
for a complete and accurate assessment of the notified concen-
tration.

Moreover, the applicants submit that the Commission has not
merely ignored its own guidelines on the assessment of hori-
zontal mergers (1), but also the complaints expressed and the
evidence supplied by them. In fact, the Commission apparently
relied in several respects, solely on information provided by the
merging parties without verifying its accuracy, resulting in a
decision tainted with errors of law, fact and appreciation.