Case T-243/07: Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Republic of Poland v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-07-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Poland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, agricultural surplus, free circulation, surplus stock

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/45

— Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in the
the Commission's decision
the United

light of
approving the national allocation plan of
Kingdom.

the provisions of

Action brought on 6 July 2007 — Weiler v OHIM — CISQ
(Q2WEB)

(Case T-242/07)

(2007/C 211/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dieter Weiler (Pulheim, Germany) (represented by: V.
von Bomhard, T. Dolde and A. Renck, 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:
CISQ Federazione Certificazione Italiana Sistemi di Qualità
Aziendali

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of the invalidity
of the trade mark concerned

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the
opposing trade marks are not visually, phonetically or concep-
tually similar and the differences between the marks are suffi-
cient to rule out the risk of confusion on the part of relevant
consumers.

(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 July 2007 — Republic of Poland v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-243/07)

(2007/C 211/84)

Language of the case: Polish

Form of order sought

Parties

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 29 March 2007 in Case R 893/2005-1, and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, but
with regard to the intervention of the other party before the
Board of Appeal, the defendant and the intervener should be
ordered to pay the costs.

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: E. Ośniecka-
Tamecka, Agent)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of
invalidity has been sought:
‘Q2WEB’ for goods and services in
classes 9, 35, 38 and 42 (Community trade mark No 2 418 150)

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: CISQ Federazione Certifi-
cazione Italiana Sistemi di Qualità Aziendali

— declare invalid Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May
2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural
products other than sugar and the financial consequences of
their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta,
Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (notified under document
number C(2007)1979) (1)
in so far as it relates to the
Republic of Poland;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

for

services

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: the word mark
‘QWEB’
in class 42 (Community trade mark
No 1 772 078), the figurative mark ‘QWEB’ for services in
classes 35, 38 and 42 (Community trade mark No 1 871 201),
and the word mark ‘QWEBMARK’ for services in classes 35, 38
and 42 (Community trade mark No 1 771 963)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision determined the amounts of agricultural
products in free circulation within Polish territory on the date of
Polish accession to the European Union which, in the view of

C 211/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2007

the Commission, exceeded the level of normal stocks of those
products and imposed on Poland for that reason ‘the amounts
to be charged … in consequence of the expense of elimination
of those quantities [of surplus stocks]’.

Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Campo de Cartagena v
Council and Commission

(Case T-244/07)

(2007/C 211/85)

Language of the proceedings: Spanish

The applicant requests that the decision be declared invalid and
bases its charge on two pleas in law: the plea that the Commis-
sion was not competent to adopt the contested decision and
that it breached Point 4 of Section 4 of Annex IV to the Act of
Accession (2); and the plea that the Commission infringed the
principle of proportionality.

Parties

As the basis for its first plea in law, the applicant submits that,
in adopting the contested decision, the Commission exceeded
the competence deriving from Point 4 of Section 4 of Annex IV
to the Act of Accession inasmuch as that decision alters the
agreements entered into in the Act of Accession by reason of
the introduction of financial sanctions not provided for in that
Act. The applicant further submits that the contested decision is
at variance with the principle defined in the Act of Accession
which provides that the Member States must effect the actual
elimination of surplus stocks of agricultural products in free
circulation within their territory at the time of accession.

the same time that

the applicant submits that

As the basis for its plea in law concerning infringement of the
principle of proportionality,
the
objectives of the contested decision are mutually incompatible
and for that reason have no legal justification. Moreover, in the
applicant's view, the contested decision is not an appropriate
means by which to calculate the costs of eliminating surplus
supplies. The applicant submits at
the
contested decision is critically flawed in its determination of the
quantities of surplus stocks in free circulation within Polish
territory and that it failed to take account of the quantities of
stocks which Poland eliminated at its own expense following the
date of accession. The applicant contends that
the decision
imposed on Poland the costs of eliminating stocks which in
actual fact were not borne by the Community, and that this
resulted in unjust enrichment of the Community to the detri-
ment of Poland. The applicant also submits that the adoption of
the contested decision was not a necessary act in view of the
lack of disturbances on the agricultural markets following Polish
accession to the European Union and in view of the lengthy
period of time which has elapsed since the date of accession.
According to the applicant's assertions, the contested decision,
notwithstanding the fact that it was adopted on the basis of the
Act of Accession, does not realise any of the objectives defined
in that Act within the agricultural sector.

(1) OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14.
(2) Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic,
the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of
the
Latvia,
Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia
and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on
which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33).

the Republic of Lithuania,

the Republic of Hungary,

Applicant: S.A.T.,
sented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

‘Campo de Cartagena’ (Murcia, Spain) (repre-

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

Forms of order sought

— to uphold the present action for damages,

in accordance
with Article 228 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to
be financially compensated by the Council and the Commis-
sion jointly and severally in the sum total of two hundred
and eighty-eight
thousand two hundred and thirty-eight
euros (EUR 288 238);

— to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those already put
forward in the Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and
Commission.

Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Virsa v Council and
Commission

(Case T-245/07)

(2007/C 211/86)

Language of the proceedings: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Virsa, S. Coop. L.
L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

(Murcia, Spain)

(represented by:

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