Case T-209/06: Action brought on 10 August 2006 — European Association of Im- and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and Others v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), animal disease, bird, health control, import restriction, infectious disease, protection of animals

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/11

Action brought on 10 August 2006 — European Associa-
tion of Im- and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and
Others v Commission of the European Communities

The measures are also discriminatory inasmuch as poultry is
excluded from their scope.

(Case T-209/06)

(2006/C 249/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

(1) 2006/522/EC: Commission Decision of 25 July 2006 amending
Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards certain protec-
tion measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and
movements of certain live birds into the Community (notified under
document number C(2006) 3303) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ
2006 L 205, p. 28).

Parties

Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Euro-Information v
OHIM (word mark ‘CYBERCREDIT’)

Applicants: European Association of Im- and Exporters of Birds
and live Animals, Vereniging van Im- en Exporteurs van Vogels
en Hobbydieren, Willem Plomp, trading as Plomps Vogelhandel
and Marinus Borgstein (represented by: J. Wouters, lawyer)

(Case T-211/06)

(2006/C 249/29)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Form of order sought

Parties

— Annul Commission Decision 2006/522/EC of 25 July

2006;

Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'information SAS
(Euro-Information)
(represented by: A.
(Strasbourg, France)
Jacquet, J. Schouman and P. Greffe, lawyers)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are (i) associations which promote the interests
of importers and exporters of birds and animals and (ii) impor-
ters and exporters of, inter alia, birds. They contest Commission
Decision 2006/522/EC (1).

The applicants contend that the contested decision is unneces-
sary, as the existing quarantine rules offer adequate protection.

They also submit that
the decision is in conflict with the
precautionary principle because the Commission has not based
it on the most complete possible scientific evaluation.

A complete ban on imports is also disproportionate in light of
the factual background to the decision, namely the infection of
birds from Taiwan with avian influenza.

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

Form of order sought

— annulment in its entirety of the decision of the First Board
of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2006, Case R 66/2006-1,
which refused to register ‘CYBERCREDIT’ as a Community
trade mark, under application No 4 114 336, in respect of
all the goods and services applied for in Classes 9, 36 and
38;

— registration of ‘CYBERCREDIT’ as a Community trade mark,
under application No 4 114 336, in respect of all the goods
and services applied for.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CYBERCREDIT’ in
respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (appli-
cation No 4 114 336)

The applicants also argue that the Commission has misused its
powers and that the real reason for the extension of the protec-
tive measures is the Commission's wish to await the outcome
of the report from the Animal Health and Welfare panel of the
European Food Safety Authority.

Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal