Case T-211/07: Action brought on 13 June 2007 — AWWW v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
Date: 2007-08-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Eurofound, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, invitation to tender, project evaluation

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/39

Action brought on 11 June 2007 — RSA Security Ireland v
Commission

(Case T-210/07)

(2007/C 183/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

The applicant claims that the decision as communicated in the
first instance to the Revenue Commissioners and hence to the
applicant itself failed to classify the applicant's product by refer-
ence to its objective characteristics and qualities and determined
the tariff classification in a manner which constitutes a funda-
mental error of law.

The applicant further submits that the correct tariff classification
of the product by reference to its essential characteristics should
be that of a unit of an automatic data processing machine
pursuant to Chapter 8471 of the Community Customs Code (1)
in that the product complies with the requirements of Note 5(B)
of Chapter 8471 for such classification, or is in itself an auto-
matic data processing machine.

Applicant: RSA Security Ireland Ltd (Shannon, Ireland) (repre-
sented by: S. Daly, Solicitor and B. Conway, Barrister)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

In the alternative, the applicant submits that the correct tariff
classification of the product by reference to its objective charac-
teristics is as a calculating machine or device pursuant
to
Chapter 8470 of the Community Customs Code.

Form of order sought

— to annul the decision of the Commission as conveyed to the
applicant by the Revenue Commissioners on 30 March
2007 as it fails to classify the applicant's product for tariff
classification purposes under the Combined Nomenclature
by reference to the objective characteristics and qualities of
the product;

— to declare that the customs classification of the product is to
be determined pursuant to the intrinsic characteristic of the
product which is that it is in the nature of an automatic data
processing machine and so falls to be classified within the
terms of Chapter 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature; or,
in the alternative

— to declare that the product is to be classified by reference to
its essential characteristic as a calculating machine or device
pursuant to Chapter 8470 of the Combined Nomenclature;

— to declare that in accordance with the accepted classification
rules of goods for Community customs purposes that the
essential characteristic of the product is not that of a security
device or a means of access to records whether stored on an
automatic data processing machine or otherwise;

— to order the repayment to the applicant of such customs
duty as has been paid by the applicant in respect of the
importation of the product into the Community since the
coming into force of the Commission's decision together
with the repayment of interest to the applicant.

Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission's actions in
dealing with its request for binding tariff information of the
product on the basis of the product's attributes as a unit of an
automatic data processing machine amount to a lack of due
process and abuse of power.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establi-

shing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992, L 302, p. 1).

Action brought on 13 June 2007 — AWWW v European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions

(Case T-211/07)

(2007/C 183/75)

Language of the case: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

By means of its application the applicant seeks annulment of a
Commission decision of which the applicant was informed by e-
mail correspondence served on it on 30 March 2007 by the
in response to an application for
Revenue Commissioners,
binding tariff information submitted by the applicant in respect
of a security device connectible to an automatic data processing
machine referred to as the ‘SID 800 Product’.

Applicant: AWWW GmbH ArbeitsWelt — Working World
(Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: B. Schreier, M. Kappuhne,
lawyers)

Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living
and Working Conditions

C 183/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.8.2007

Form of order sought

— the lifting of procurement procedure: fast track restricted
tender No 2007/S 13-014125 published in the OJ S 13 on
19 January 2007 relating to information and analysis on
quality of work and employments, industrial relations and
restructuring covering the European level of the European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the method of execution of the above
mentioned procurement procedure was not conducted fairly by
the defendant.

The applicant submits, first, that the grounds for rejecting its
bid are not sufficiently motivated. In particular, the extracts of
the evaluation sheet which have been forwarded to the applicant
to explain adequately why the contract was
allegedly fail
awarded to another tenderer.

the applicant

Secondly,
the defendant's
letter dated 15 May 2007 contains formal defects since the
annex B to the evaluation report was allegedly not signed by
persons entrusted with the tenders' assessment.

further submits that

Action brought on 15 June 2007 — Harman International
Industries v OHIM — Becker (Barbara Becker)

(Case T-212/07)

(2007/C 183/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Industries,
Applicant: Harman International
USA) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, Barrister)

Inc.

(Northridge,

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Barbara
Becker (Miami, USA)

— an order

that

the Community trade mark application

No 2 939 072 be refused in its entirety;

— an order that the defendant pays the applicant its costs
incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Court of First
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Barbara Becker

Community trade mark concerned: The Community work mark
‘Barbara Becker’
in Class 9 — application
No 2 939 072

goods

for

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Harman International Industries, Inc

Mark or sign cited: The Community word marks ‘BECKER’ and
‘BECKER ONLINE PRO’ for goods in Class 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its
entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and rejected
the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council
Regulation 40/94 (‘CTMR’).

The applicant claims that the Board erred in its application of
Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in finding that there was no conceptual
similarity between the applicant's mark ‘BECKER’ and the sign
applied for by ‘Barbara Becker’, and hence no likelihood of
confusion. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Board
erred in law in its application of Article 8(5) CTMR in finding
that there was no link between the sign applied for by ‘Barbara
Becker’ and the Community trade mark of its own.

Action brought on 22 June 2007 — Donnici v Parliament

(Case T-215/07)

(2007/C 183/77)

Language of the case: Italian

Form of order sought

Parties

— Annulment of paragraph 1 of the First Board of Appeal's
decision of 7 March 2007 (Case R 502/2006-1), by which
the decision of
the Opposition Division of 15 February
2005 was annulled;

Applicant: Beniamino Donnici
Roberti, I. Perego and P. Salvatore, lawyers)

(represented by: M. Sanino, G.

Defendant: European Parliament