Case T-279/07: Action brought on 23 July 2007 — France v Commission
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, banking, credit institution, right of establishment, services of general interest

C 211/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2007

Forms of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— lastly, the appellant maintains that the order under appeal is
vitiated by a complete failure to state reasons, as well as by
the incorrect and misconceived application of the notion of
a decision adversely affecting the applicant's interests.

— in any event, set aside the order under appeal in its entirety;

— uphold the forms of order sought by the applicant at first

instance;

— order

the Commission to reimburse all costs,

fees and
charges incurred by the appellant for the purposes of these
proceedings;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service

Tribunal for judgment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 23 July 2007 — France v Commission

(Case T-279/07)

(2007/C 211/104)

Language of the case: French

By the present appeal, it is sought to have set aside the order of
the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 May 2007 in Case F-2/06
Marcuccio v Commission, dismissing as inadmissible the action
brought by the applicant.

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de
Bergues, L. Butel and S. Ramet, acting as Agents)

Parties

The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

first

instance. On that point,

— the Civil Service Tribunal distorted the clear sense of the
facts and of the statements made by the applicant in his
written pleadings at
is
emphasised in particular that the physical existence of the
decision at issue in the proceedings at first instance is clear
without a shadow of a doubt from the text of the Commis-
sion's note of 29 July 2005, which provides for the possibi-
lity of reopening at any given moment a file that had been
shelved. The reference to that possibility leaves no doubt,
not only that the decision at issue had actually been taken,
but also that it had actually been carried out;

it

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— it is an error in law for a court to make an order ruling that
an action is manifestly inadmissible — a fortiori on grounds
of public policy such as the absence of any act adversely
affecting the interests of the applicant in the case of an
action for annulment — following an attempt to reach an
amicable settlement, and all the more so when no specific
grounds, directly related to the facts of the case, are stated
for so doing;

— the appellant's rights of defence were irreparably damaged in
that, not having been informed of the progress of the case,
he was unable to do anything to strengthen his defence of
his own reasons. On that point, it is maintained that the
note by which the Civil Service Tribunal informed the appel-
lant of the implementation of the attempt at settlement was
not
in
followed by any other communication, whether
writing or in any other form, concerning the progress of the
case, far less concerning the outcome of the attempt to
reach an amicable settlement. Furthermore, the Civil Service
Tribunal made the order under appeal more than six
months after that attempt. As if that were not enough, there
is no mention in the order under appeal of the attempt to
reach an amicable settlement;

the applicant

By the present action,
seeks annulment of
Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 Final of 10 May 2007
declaring incompatible with Article 86(1) EC, read together with
Articles 43 and 49 EC, the provisions of the French Code Moné-
taire et Financier, which provides for special rights for three
credit
les Caisses
d'Épargne et de Prévoyance and the Crédit Mutuel, for the distri-
bution of the Livret A and Livret Bleu.

institutions, namely the Banque Postale,

It relies on five pleas in law in support of its action.

The first plea alleges breach of the rights of the defence and
disregard of the principle audi alteram partem.

Second, the applicant claims that the Commission made a mani-
fest error of assessment in finding that the special rights in ques-
tion constituted an obstacle to freedom of establishment and,
consequently, were incompatible with Article 43 EC, without
having demonstrated that those rights were not necessary and
proportionate having regard to the overriding reasons of public
interest, namely the objectives of access to housing and accessi-
bility of banking services.

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/57

economic

interest of

accessibility of banks

By its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission
made a manifest error of assessment in the application of the
third condition of Article 86(2) EC in finding that the service of
is
general
intended only for persons having particular difficulties with
access to basic banking services. It alleges that the Commission
exceeded its powers of control of the definition of a service of
general economic interest and, in any event, applied an overly
restrictive definition of the mission of accessibility to banking.
According to the applicant, the Commission also made a mani-
fest error of assessment in the application of the second condi-
tion of Article 86(2) EC relating to the obligation to award the
contract for a service by an act of State, and also in the applica-
tion of the third and fourth conditions of that article. It alleges
that the Commission made an error in the calculation of the
impact of the abolishment of the special rights for the public
finances and that it made a manifest error of assessment in the
application of the principle of proportionality in finding that
there are other, less restrictive means for the freedom of estab-
lishment than the granting of special rights in order to ensure
balanced financing of services of general economic interest such
as accessibility of banking and financing of social housing.

By its fourth plea, the applicant claims that the Commission
made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the special
rights in question were incompatible with Article 49 EC.

The fifth plea relied on by the applicant alleges a failure to state
reasons in the contested decision.

Appeal brought on 24 July 2007 by the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal
delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case F-97/06, López Teruel v
OHIM

(Case T-284/07 P)

(2007/C 211/105)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Form of order sought by the appellant

— annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 May

2007 delivered in Case F-97/06;

— make an appropriate order as to costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the judgment of 22 May 2007, the annulment of which is
sought in this appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled
the decision of OHIM of 6 October 2005 refusing the applica-
tion brought by Ms López Teruel for an Invalidity Committee to
be convened.

In support of the appeal for annulment of that judgment, OHIM
raises three pleas.

infringement of

The first plea alleges
statutory provisions
relating to the convening of an Invalidity Committee, in that the
CST equated the conditions for entitlement
to an invalidity
pension with the conditions for the convening of an Invalidity
Committee. The appellant also disputes that there is a manda-
tory duty on the part of the Appointing Authority as regards
convening such a committee and submits that the judgment of
the CST is therefore vitiated by an error of interpretation.

The second plea alleges infringement of Article 90 of the Staff
Regulations and an error of law as regards the assessment of
the contested decision, in that the CST considered the decision
of 6 October 2005 to be the only act adversely affecting an offi-
cial and treated as a confirmatory act the decision of OHIM
responding to the complaint made against that decision.

Thirdly, OHIM submits that the CST clearly distorted the facts
and the evidence in holding that the Office based its decision on
the results of the examination of the applicant by an indepen-
dent doctor on 18 October 2005.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2007 —
Total v OHIM — Peterson (Beverly Hills Formula TOTAL
PROTECTION)

(Case T-326/06) (1)

(2007/C 211/106)

Language of the case: English

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(represented by I. de Medrano Caballero and E.
(OHIM)
Maurage, Agents)

The President of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) has
ordered that the case be removed from the register.

Other party to the proceedings: Adelaida López Teruel (Guadalajara,
Spain)

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.