Case T-289/06: Action brought on 11 October 2006 — CESD-Communautaire v Commission
Date: 2006-12-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Eurostat, Luxembourg, action for annulment (EU), audit, contract, exchange of information, judicial proceedings, statistics, technical cooperation

C 310/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
The applicant.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
The applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word marks TORRES,
international word mark TORRES, and international word
mark LAS TORRES in respect of goods in Class 33.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: A number of Community figura-
tive and word marks and national figurative marks for goods in
Class 33.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1) because the word TORRE is a dominant compo-
nent in the overall impression produced by the mark applied
for,
similarities between the
conflicting marks and there is a likelihood of confusion making
it impossible for them to coexist on the market.

there are aural and visual

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

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

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and appli-
cation for registration of the mark dismissed in part.

the Board of Appeal: Application upheld and
Decision of
contested decision refusing registration of the mark applied for
annulled in respect of goods in Class 33.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1) since the word TORRE is the dominant compo-
nent in the overall impression produced by the mark applied
similarities between the
for,
conflicting marks, and a likelihood of confusion exists between
the marks which makes it impossible for them to coexist on
the market.

there are aural and visual

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

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

Action brought on 11 October 2006 — TORRES v OHIM
— Bodegas Peñalba Lόpez (Torre Albéniz)

(Case T-287/06)

(2006/C 310/40)

Action brought on 11 October 2006 — CESD-Communau-
taire v Commission

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Miguel Torres S.A.
(represented
by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. A. Baz de San Ceferino and A.
Castán Pérez-Gόmez, lawyers)

(Barcelona, Spain)

Parties

(Case T-289/06)

(2006/C 310/41)

Language of the case: French

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
OHIM: Bodegas Peñalba Lόpez S.L.

Applicant: Centre Européen pour la Statistique et le Développe-
ment ASBL — CESD-Communautaire ASBL (Luxembourg,
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: D. Grisay and
D. Piccininno, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM
of 27 July 2006 in Case R 597/2004-2 and order OHIM to
pay the costs.

Form of order sought

— Admit this application for annulment based on Article 230
EC, lodged against the Commission decision of 11 August
2006,

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Declare the application admissible,

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bodegas Peñalba Lόpez
S.L.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark Torre Albéniz,
in respect of goods in Classes 32, 33 and 39 — Application
No 1 191 683.

— Principally, declare the application well-founded and rule
that the Commission decision of 11 August 2006 is void
since it is the consequence of a misuse of powers, and/or is
affected by defects in its reasoning and by a manifest error
of assessment,

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/21

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Italian Republic v
Commission

By its decision of 11 August 2006, the Commission found the
applicant, under Article 93(1)(f) of the Financial Regulation (1),
to be in serious breach of three contracts concluded with Euro-
stat relating to technical cooperation in the sphere of statistics
(PHARE programme), which was the result of its refusal to
make available to the Commission information allowing an
audit of the performance of the contracts in issue. Furthermore,
the contested decision states that the Commission reserves the
right to seek the enforcement of the contractual provisions
which have not been applied, by all appropriate means,
including by way of legal proceedings, and,
if necessary, to
recover the sums which are established as being payable.

In support of its application for the annulment of the contested
decision, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

The first plea relates to an alleged misuse of powers, analysed
from the perspective of a misuse of procedure, to the extent
that the contested decision is not subject to the particular
procedures for dispute resolution laid down by each contract
concluded by the applicant with the Commission and based on
the application of Article 57 of Financial Regulation No
1605/2002, and substitutes for those procedures the unilateral
method of a decision based on Article 93(1)(f) of that regu-
lation. The applicant maintains that the Commission misuses
the procedure laid down in Article 93(1)(f) given the article's
to
primary objective which is, according to the applicant,
exclude tenderers who are declared to be in serious breach of
contract
in an earlier procurement procedure from partici-
pating in a later procedure, and terminates contracts which
each lay down different methods of dispute resolution by deter-
mining the competent courts and the law which applies to
those contracts.

The second plea relied on by the applicant is based on defects
in reasoning. The applicant claims that the reasons for the
contested decision are not properly stated either in law, in that
the decision contains inadequate reasoning to the extent that it
applies, in the contractual domain, a provision relating to the
sound management of Community public procurement, or in
the applicant made by the
fact,
Commission are without
the applicant having
shown a willingness to cooperate with the audit services of the
Commission.

the criticisms of

foundation,

in that

In its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission
made a manifest error of assessment to the extent that the
contested decision states the facts alleged against the applicant
without first characterising them as a serious breach of contract
by following the contractual procedures under Article 57(2) of
Regulation No 1605/2002.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

(Case T-290/06)

(2006/C 310/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato
di Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Memorandum No 06863 of 27 July 2006 of the
European Commission, Directorate-General
for Regional
Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning
payments made by the Commission which differ from the
amount requested. Ref. Programme POR Puglia (No CCI
1999 IT 161 PO 009)

— annul Memorandum No 07231 of 3 August 2003 of the
European Commission, Directorate-General
for Regional
Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning
payments made by the Commission which differ from the
amount requested. Ref. DOCUP Toscana Ob. 2 (No CCI
2000 IT 162 DO 001)

— annul Memorandum No 07248 of 3 August 2006 of the
European Commission, Directorate-General
for Regional
Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning
certification and the intermediate statement of expenses and
the claim for payment. Ref. DOCUP Veneto Ob. 2 2000-
2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 162 DO 005)

— annul Memorandum No 07473 of 10 August 2006 of the
European Commission, Directorate-General
for Regional
Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning
payments made by the Commission which differ from the
amount
requested. Ref. PON Sviluppo Imprenditoriale
Locale 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 002)

— annul Memorandum No 07755 of 22 August 2006 of the
European Commission, Directorate-General
for Regional
Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning
payments made by the Commission which differ from the
amount requested. Ref. POR Campania 2000-2006 (No CCI
1999 IT 161 PO 007)