Case T-177/07: Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Mediaset v Commission
Date: 2007-07-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), audiovisual equipment, control of State aid, high-definition television, pay television, purchase

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/31

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the contested decision is
vitiated by an essential procedural requirement in respect of
Article 74 CTMR and the burden of proof. According to the
in revocation proceedings, the burden of proof in
applicant,
respect of genuine use lies with the proprietor of the trade
mark. Moreover, the applicant submits that the Office cannot
examine the facts on its own motion but its examination should
be confined to the assessment of the facts, evidence and argu-
ments provided by the parties and the relief sought. Thus, the
applicant claims that the Board's communication of 18 October
2006 on the basis of which the trade mark proprietor was
invited to submit the originals of specific statutory declarations
should be declared inadmissible, in particular since the Board
had previously found the initial evidence submitted by the trade
mark proprietor to be insufficient to establish genuine use.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the said originals were
in accordance to
not submitted within the required deadline,
Article 74(2) CTMR and therefore should not be admitted.

In addition, the applicant submits that the Board erred in its
interpretation of the concept of genuine use infringing thereby
Article 15 CTMR.

Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Mediaset v
Commission

(Case T-177/07)

(2007/C 170/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mediaset SpA (Milan,
O'Keeffe, Solicitor, K. Adamantopoulos and G. Rossi, lawyers)

(represented by: D.

Italy)

favour of digital terrestrial broadcasters offering Pay-TV services
and cable Pay-TV operators constitutes State aid which is incom-
patible with the common market.

The applicant, who is a beneficiary of the State aid in question,
invokes the following pleas in law.

that

submits

the applicant

the Commission
First of all,
committed an error of law in the application and interpretation
of Article 87(1) EC insofar as i) the Commission considered aid
granted directly to the consumers to fall within the ambit of
Article 87(1) EC;
the
measure conferred a selective ‘economic advantage’ on the appli-
cant; iii) the Commission concluded that the measure is selective
because it allegedly is discriminatory, and iv) the Commission
considered the measure to distort competition in the common
market.

the Commission concluded that

ii)

applicant

furthermore

The
the Commission
committed a manifest error of appraisal and a manifest error of
law by concluding that the measure was not compatible with
the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) EC.

claims

that

Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission infringed
an essential procedural requirement by giving contradictory and
insufficient reasoning contrary to Article 253 EC.

the applicant argues that

Finally,
the Commission infringed
Article 14 of Council Regulation No 659/1999 (2) in ordering
recovery of the measure, because it failed to see that i) the appli-
cant had legitimate expectations to assume the alleged aid was
lawful and ii) because it is impossible to establish the amount of
the aid and identify the potential indirect beneficiaries.

(1) C 52/2005 (ex NN 88/2005, ex CP 101/2004).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
(OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 21 May 2007 — Euro-Information v
OHIM

Form of order sought

— Annul, on the basis of Article 230 of the EC Treaty, (ex
Article 173), the Commission's decision of 24 January 2007
on the State aid C 52/2005 which the Republic of Italy has
implemented in relation to the subsidy of digital decoders in
Italy, in particular Articles 1 to 3 thereof;

— order that all the costs occasioned by the applicant in the
course of the present proceedings be borne by the defen-
dant.

Parties

(Case T-178/07)

(2007/C 170/61)

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Société Européenne de traitement de l'Information
SAS (Strasbourg, France)
(represented by P. Greffe and J.
Schouman, laywers)

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
C(2006) 6634 final (1) of 24 January 2007 by which the
Commission found that the scheme put in place by Italy in

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