Case T-351/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Schneider Electric v Commission (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Loss sustained by an undertaking as a result of a sufficiently serious breach of Community law vitiating the control procedure relating to a merger's compatibility with the common market)
Date: 2007-08-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition, economic concentration, electrical energy

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/29

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 —
CB v Commission

Defendant: Council of
M. Bishop and S. Marquardt, Agents)

the European Union (represented by:

(Case T-266/03) (1)

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
— Bankcards — Decision ordering an investigation —
Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 — Statement of reasons —
Proportionality)

(2007/C 199/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) (Paris, France)
(represented by: A. Georges and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: initially T. Christoforou and O. Beynet and then by
T. Christoforou and F. Arbault, Agents)

Re:

Firstly, action for
the annulment of Commission Decision
C(2003) 1524/9 of 7 May 2003 in Case COMP/D1/38.606
ordering Groupement des cartes bancaires and its subsidiaries to
submit to an investigation under Article 14(3) of Council Regu-
lation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and
[82] of
I
Chapter 1959-1962, p. 87), as amended, and, secondly, action
from the file of all documents and other
for the removal
evidence brought to the knowledge of the Commission during
the investigation and for their return to the applicant

the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition, Series

Re:

Annulment in part, first, of Council Decision 2003/480/EC of
27 June 2003 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC)
No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against
certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism
and repealing Decision 2002/974/EC (OJ 2003 L 160, p. 81),
and, second, of Council Decision 2003/646/EC of 12 September
2003 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001
and repealing Decision 2003/1480 (OJ 2003 L 229, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2006/379/EC of 29 May 2006 imple-
menting Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on
specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision
2005/930 in so far as it concerns Stichting Al-Aqsa;

2. Declares that there is no need to rule on the claim for a declaration,
that Council Regulation

pursuant
No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 is unlawful;

to Article 241 EC,

3. Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of

Stichting Al-Aqsa:

Operative part of the judgment

4. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay its own costs.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.

(1) OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 —
Stichting Al-Aqsa v Council

(Case T-327/03) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures
against certain persons and entities with a view to combating
terrorism — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment —
Statement of reasons)

(2007/C 199/54)

Language of the case: English

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 —
Schneider Electric v Commission

(Case T-351/03) (1)

(Non-contractual liability of the Community — Loss sustained
by an undertaking as a result of a sufficiently serious breach
of Community law vitiating the control procedure relating to a
merger's compatibility with the common market)

(2007/C 199/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Al-Aqsa (Heerlen — Netherlands)
sented by: V. Koppe and L. Janssen, lawyer)

(repre-

Applicant: Schneider Electric SA (Rueil-Malmaison — France)
(represented by: A. Winckler and M. Pittie, lawyers)

C 199/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.8.2007

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by:
initially by P. Oliver, É. Gippini Fournier and
C. Ingen-Housz, and subsequently by P. Oliver, O. Beynet and
R. Lyal, then by P. Oliver, R. Lyal and F. Arbault, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented
by: G. de Bergues, Agent)

in support of

Intervener
the defendant: Federal Republic of
Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma,
Agents)

Re:

Action seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by
the applicant as a result of illegality vitiating the control proce-
dure relating to compatibility with the common market of the
merger between Schneider Electric SA and Legrand SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the European Community to make good, first, the expenses
incurred by Schneider Electric SA in respect of its participation in
the resumed merger control procedure which followed delivery of
the judgments of
the Court of First Instance on 22 October
2002 in Cases T-310/01 and T-77/02 Schneider Electric v
Commission and, second,
the loss sustained by
Schneider Electric as a result of the reduction in the price of dives-
titure of Legrand SA which Schneider Electric had to concede to
the transferee in exchange for the postponement of the effective
date of sale of Legrand until 10 December 2002;

two thirds of

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the parties to communicate to the Court, within the period
of three months from 11 July 2007, the amount representing the
first head of loss, jointly agreed in accordance with the procedure
set out in paragraph 320 of this judgment;

4. Failing such agreement, orders the parties to submit to the Court,

within the same period, their proposed figures;

5. Orders that the amount of the second head of loss of Schneider
Electric referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be assessed by an
expert;

6. Invites Schneider Electric and the Commission to nominate the
expert or to propose to the Court a list of experts so that one may
be appointed by the Court from that list;

7. Instructs the Registrar of the Court to transmit to the expert for
the purposes of his examination a certified copy of Annexes 8
and 29 to the application;

8. Declares that the expert shall be invited to submit his report

within a period of time to be determined;

9. Instructs the Registrar of the Court to serve the report on the

parties;

10. Declares that the compensation shall be re-assessed and increased
to take account of interest in accordance with the criteria defined
in paragraphs 345 and 346 of this judgement;

11. Reserves the decision on costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 —
Mülhens v OHIM — Cara (TOSKA LEATHER)

(Case T-28/04) (1)

figurative Community

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for
trade mark TOSKA
LEATHER — Earlier national word mark TOSCA — Relative
grounds for refusal — Well-known trade mark within the
the Paris Convention —
meaning of Article 6 bis of
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(5)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2007/C 199/56)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (repre-
sented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially M. Capos-
tagno and then by O. Montalto, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Mirco Cara (Vigevano,
Italy) (represented by: G. Cimolino, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 20 November 2003 (Case R 10/2003-1)
concerning opposition proceedings between Mülhens GmbH &
Co. KG and Mirco Cara

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.