Case T-94/07: Action brought on 26 March 2007 — EREF v Commission
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, credit insurance, nuclear power station

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/31

Appeal brought on 28 March 2007 by Jacques Frankin and
Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal
delivered on 16 January 2007 in Case F-3/06 Jacques
Frankin and Others v Commission

(Case T-92/07 P)

(2007/C 117/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants:
appellants (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Jacques Frankin (Sorée, Belgium) and 482 other

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside the judgment of

the Civil Service Tribunal of
16 January 2007 in Case F-3/06 principally concerning an
action for annulment of an express decision of 10 June
2005 by which the Commission refused to grant the appel-
lants assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

— make an order as to the costs, fees and expenses and order

the Commission to pay them.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Memorandum No 175 of 11.1.2007 of the European
for Regional Policy —
Commission, Directorate General
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: Programma POR Sicilia (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 011);

— annul Memorandum No 234 of 12.1.2007 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: Programma POR Sicilia (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 011);

— annul all connected and prior acts and, consequently, order
the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied
upon in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004, p. 55.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 26 March 2007 — EREF v Commission

their action,

the appellants assert

In support of
that by
the Civil Service
first
dismissing their action at
Tribunal erred in law when examining the pleas in law relied on
at first instance, alleging, first, infringement of Article 24 of the
Staff Regulations and from the duty to have regard to the welfare
of officials and, second, breach of the principle of non-discrimi-
nation.

instance,

(Case T-94/07)

(2007/C 117/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) ASBL
(Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Italy v Commission

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-93/07)

(2007/C 117/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Form of order sought

— The decision K(2006) 4963 final of the European Commis-
is declared null and

sion, dating from 24 October 2006,
void;

— the Financial Vehicle in question in its present shape and

structure is declared unlawful state aid.

— Alternatively, the Commission is ordered to open a formal
investigation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC for
Case NN 62/B/2006.

— The European Commission is ordered to pay all procedural

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

costs, including the costs of the claimant.

C 117/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.5.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 2004 the applicant filed a complaint with the Commission
claiming among others that different aspects of the financement
of a new nuclear power plant under construction in Finland was
state aid that had not been notified. In 2006, the Commission
split
the file into two cases numbered NN 62/A/2006 and
NN 62/B/2006.

the applicant seeks the annulment of
In the present case,
Commission Decision C(2006) 4963 final, which concerns state
aid Case NN 62/B/2006, by which the Commission found that a
credit facility granted by a consortium of five banks and a loan
granted by AB Svensk Exportkredit (‘SEK’) did not constitute aid
within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.

The applicant submits that the Commission's split of the file
into two separate cases is unlawful from a procedural as well as
a substantive point of view. According to the applicant, it was
only possible to give the credit facility and the loan at such a
low interest
rate because of a guarantee from the French
export credit insurance agency COFACE. However, the state aid
aspects of COFACE's
involvement were dealt with under
Case NN 62/A/2006. The applicant therefore claims that the
splitting up of the file into two separate cases thus taking the
guarantee element out of Case NN 62/B/2006 lead the Commis-
sion to the misunderstanding that the granting of the credit
facility and the SEK loan at such a low interest rate could not
constitute state aid simply because the participating banks were,
according to the Commission, privately owned.

Moreover, the applicant submits that even disregarding the guar-
antee from COFACE the credit
facility as well as the loan
granted by SEK constitutes state aid since:

— the credit facility was granted at a low interest rate with the
participation of the banks BLB and BNP Paribas, which the
applicant alleges are both public banks; and

— the loan from SEK was given by a 100 % state owned bank

at an interest rate below market conditions.

Finally, the applicant invokes a lack of reasoning and a manifest
error of assessment.

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Altana
Pharma AG (Konstanz, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal OHIM
dated 8 February 2007 Case R 302/2005-4 and confirm the
decision of the Opposition Division of 26 January 2005;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to

bear the costs of the appellant in the present instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Altana Pharma AG

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PRAZOL’ for
goods in class 5 — application No 1 154 269

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

Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘PREZAL’ for goods
in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition
Division's decision and rejection of the opposition

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal failed to compare the marks
globally taking all relevant factors into account.

Action brought on 23 March 2007 — Telecom Italia Media
v Commission

Action brought on 30 March 2007 — Aventis Pharma v
OHIM — Altana Pharma (PRAZOL)

(Case T-95/07)

(2007/C 117/51)

(Case T-96/07)

(2007/C 117/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Telecom Italia Media S.p.A. (Rome, Italy) (represented
by: F. Bassan and S. Venturini, avvocati)

Applicant: Aventis Pharma SA (Antony, France) (represented by:
R. Gilbey, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities