Case T-162/07: Action brought on 8 May 2007 — Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia v Council and Commission
Date: 2007-07-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Tunisia, carriage of goods, customs transit, fishery product, fishing area, fishing rights

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/37

Form of order sought

— annulment, pursuant

to Article 230 EC, of Commission
Decision D(2004) 24253 of 9 November 2004, reducing
the amount of the financial assistance granted by the Euro-
pean Social Fund (‘the ESF’) to the applicant by Decision
C(87) 0860 of 30 April 1987 (file No 880707 P1);

— an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put
forward in Case T-158/07.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘COYOTE
UGLY’ for goods in Classes 14, 16, 21, 25, 32 and 34, and
earlier well-known unregistered word and figurative marks
‘COYOTE UGLY’ for goods and services in Classes 14, 16, 21,
25, 32, 33, 34, 41 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part, in
so far as the Community trade mark application was refused in
relation to services in Class 42.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested deci-
sion, in so far as it rejected the opposition to ‘entertainment
services, services for discos, night clubs’ applied for in Class 41,
and rejection of the application for such services.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Action brought on 9 May 2007 — Group Lottuss v OHIM
— Ugly (COYOTE UGLY)

(Case T-161/07)

(2007/C 155/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Group Lottuss Corporation, SL (Barcelona, Spain)
(represented by: J. Grau Mora, A. Angulo Lafora, M. Ferrándiz
Avendaño and J Arribas García, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
UGLY, INC

Form of order sought

— annul (in part) the decision of the Second Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 2 March 2007 in so far as that relates to the
application
refusal
No 2.428.795 ‘COYOTE UGLY’ by Group Lottuss Corpora-
tion, SL

the Community

trade mark

of

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Group Lottuss Corporation,
SL.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘COYOTE UGLY’
(application No 2.428.795) for goods and services in Classes 9,
41 and 42.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Ugly, Inc.

Action brought on 8 May 2007 — Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki
Etairia v Council and Commission

(Case T-162/07)

(2007/C 155/68)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia (Moskhato, Greece)
(represented by: N. Skandamis, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of
the European Communities

Form of order sought

— a declaration that, by a series of unlawful acts and omis-
sions, the Council of the European Union and the Commis-
sion of the European Communities have infringed the funda-
mental Community law principles of freedom of movement,
economic freedom, proportionality, protection of legitimate
expectations and provision of effective legal protection in
connection with fishing activities in a zone contiguous to a
third country (Tunisia) and the transport of fishing catches
made in the Community customs territory through the terri-
tory of that third country, which is associated to the Com-
munity, under customs supervision (in transit);

— an order that the Community institutions pay the applicant
company an amount of 23 608,551 dinars and an amount
(EUR 188 583,18 + 10 806 323,44 + 1 000 000 =
EUR 11 994 906,62
to
Articles 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC.

compensation

pursuant

as

C 155/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.7.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant maintains that it has suffered economic damage
because it was unable to import into the customs territory of
the Community products of Community origin resulting from
its business activities because of a series of unlawful acts and
conduct on the part of the Community institutions, that is to
say, of:

(a) the European Commission, on the ground that it adopted
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1), which requires presenta-
tion of Community Customs Document T2M completed in
its entirety as the sole proof of origin of Community catches
substantiating the right to free movement;

(b) the European Commission, which conducted on behalf of
the Community the negotiations with Tunisia for setting up
the Association Agreement, and the Council of the Euro-
pean Union, which ratified that Agreement, on the ground
that they failed to ensure that catches of Community origin
resulting from Community fishing activities outside the
territorial waters of Tunisia would not be deprived of the
right to free movement;

In addition to the value of the compensation sought, the appli-
cant points out that the unusual and special character of the
harm it has sustained allows reparation of the above damage
and considers that the circumstances in this case warrant the
Community being held liable in the absence of fault.

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993
L 253, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Sundholm against the
the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
judgment of

1 March 2007 in Case F-30/05, Sundholm v Commission

(Case T-164/07 P)

(2007/C 155/69)

Language of the case: French

(c) the European Commission and the Council of the European
Union, on the ground that although they are members of
the body competent to amend the Agreement, they failed, in
the applicant's view, to ensure that provision was made for
the above-mentioned specific
regulating the question of
category of
the
problem that had arisen;

fish, even though they were aware of

Parties

(d) the European Commission, on the ground that it omitted to
exercise the necessary supervision over the Greek authorities
as requested by the company.

Applicant: Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium)
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

(represented by

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Furthermore, the applicant maintains that the above acts and
omissions infringe higher-ranking rules of law which have been
laid down for the protection of individuals as follows:

Forms of order sought

(a) the right to free movement of goods,

in the exercise of
which administrative formalities are of a procedural not
substantive nature;

(b) the right of commercial freedom, the essence of which is
affected by the prohibition on alternative proof of origin;

(c) the principle of proportionality, which is not compatible
with the exclusion of any means of proof of origin other
than the T2M;

(d) the principle of protection of legitimate expectations since,
although the company conducted itself as a prudent
observer of the market, it suffered serious damage by reason
of the fact that it availed itself of its rights under Com-
munity law:

(e) the principle of effective legal protection, which is contrary
to the ‘denial of justice’ which the company encountered on
the part of the Greek, Tunisian and Community authorities.

— Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second
Chamber) of 1 March 2007 in the Case F-30/05 (Sundholm v
Commission);

— Give judgment again, and annul the Commission decision
drawing up her Career Development Report for 2003 and
first
order
instance and on appeal.

to pay the costs incurred at

the defendant

Pleas in law and main arguments

By her appeal the applicant seeks to annul the judgment of the
Civil Service Tribunal dismissing the action in which she had
sought the annulment of her Career Development Report for
the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003.

In support of her appeal, the applicant claims that the Civil
Service Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the plea alleging infrin-
gement of the rights of the defence.