Joined Cases T-314/04 and T-414/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Germany v Commission (European Regional Development Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Action for annulment — Act against which proceedings can be brought — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European Regional Development Fund, Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia, action for annulment (EU), financing plan

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/35

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of
29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain
expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35) in as far as it concerns
certain expenditure made by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs, the whole of the costs
relating to the procedural
issue concerning its substitution for
Ferrero OHG mbH, and half of the costs incurred by the inter-
vener;

3. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) to pay its own costs and half of those incurred
by the intervener.

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

(1) OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December
2006 — Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu (FERRO)

(Joined Cases T-314/04 and T-414/04) (1)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December
2006 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-310/04) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for the Community word mark FERRO — Earlier
national word mark FERRERO — Relative ground for refusal
— Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 — Similarity of goods)

(2006/C 331/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferrero Deutschland GmbH (Stadtallendorf, Germany),
allowed to replace Ferrero OHG mbH (represented by: M.
Schaeffer, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Rassat, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM,
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Cornu SA Fontain
(Fontain, France) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002-4),
relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero OHG and
Cornu SA Fontain.

(European Regional Development Fund — Reduction of finan-
cial assistance — Action for annulment — Act against which
proceedings can be brought — Preparatory act — Inadmissi-
bility)

(2006/C 331/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C.-D.
Quassowski, Agent, and C. von Donat, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Wilms and L. Flynn, Agents)

Re:

Actions for annulment of the decisions contained in two letters
of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy of the Commis-
sion of 17 May and 9 August 2004 sent to the applicant
the assistance from the European
concerning reduction of
Regional Development Fund granted for
the Objective 2
Programme 1997-1999 North Rhine-Westphalia and the Opera-
tional Programme Resider II North Rhine-Westphalia 1994-
1999, and the refusal in consequence to pay the applicant the
balances of EUR 5 488 569,24 and EUR 2 268 988,33 respec-
tively.

C 331/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Operative part of the judgment

2. Orders the parties each to bear their own costs.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions as inadmissible;

(1) OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and half of those
incurred by the applicant. The applicant is to bear half of its own
costs.

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November
2006 — J v Commission

(Case T-379/04) (1)

(Remuneration — Expatriation allowance and installation
allowance — Conditions laid down in Articles 4(1)(a) and 5
(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — ‘Work done for
another State’ — Recovery of sums paid but not due)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November
2006 — Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods v Commis-
sion

(Case T-382/04) (1)

(Customs union — Rice paper from Vietnam — Remission of
import duties — Equitable relief — Article 239 of Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 — Error of the customs authority — Defi-
nition of manifest negligence — Principle of equal treatment
— Principle of sound administration — Principle of propor-
tionality)

(2006/C 331/80)

Language of the case: Dutch

(2006/C 331/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV
(Landgraaf, Netherlands) (represented by: H. de Bie, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: X. Lewis, Agent, assisted by F. Tuytschaever, lawyer)

Applicant: J (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Forte, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and M. Velardo, Agents)

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 10
June 2004 expressly rejecting the applicant's complaints, and of
the Commission's decision of 31 October 2003 refusing her the
expatriation allowance and the installation allowance provided
for in Articles 4 and 5, respectively, of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations of the European Communities, and of the Commis-
sion's decision of 10 December 2003 demanding repayment of
the sums received in that respect.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application.

Application for annulment of Commission Decision REM
19/2002 of 17 June 2004 finding the remission of import
duties in a particular case to be unjustified

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application.

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those incurred

by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.