Case T-341/07: Action brought on 10 September 2007 — Sison v Council
Date: 2007-09-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Philippines, action for annulment (EU), economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, terrorism

C 269/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

Form of order sought

Defendant: Council of the European Union

— Order the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of
EUR 172 588,62 which constitute unpaid eligible costs
incurred by the applicant
in the framework of contract
No EDC-53007 EEBO/27873;

— order the Commission to pay the symbolic amount of
EUR 1 000 corresponding to the damage suffered at its
fame and goodwill;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other
costs and expenses incurred in connection with this applica-
tion.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application, pursuant to Articles 238 EC and 235 EC, seeks
compensation for damages caused by the decision of
the
Commission of 16 May 2003 to terminate the contract
No EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 signed with the Commission,
concerning the project
‘e-Content Exposure and Business
Opportunities’ (‘EEBO’) to be carried out in the framework of
the multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the devel-
opment and use of European digital content on the global
networks and to promote linguistic diversity in the information
society
and M.
Marthinsen in the implementation of the project as external
consultants.

and involving M.

(2001-2005)

Fischer

In support of its claims the applicant argues that the contracting
authority (DG INFSO) decision to terminate the contract
contains evident errors of assessment resulting in failure to fulfil
it is submitted that the
its contractual obligations. Moreover,
contested decision was taken in violation of the principles of
good administration and transparency and that on several occa-
sions, specific Commission agents failed to eliminate alleged
conflicts of interest. In light of the above, the applicant claims
to be entitled to compensation for the services rendered as well
as to eligible costs incurred in the framework of the execution
of the contract including interest from the date these amounts
became due.

Action brought on 10 September 2007 — Sison v Council

(Case T-341/07)

(2007/C 269/105)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: J. M. Sison (Utrecht, The Netherlands) (represented by:
J. Fermon, A. Comte, H. Schultz, D.Gürses, W. Kaleck, lawyers)

Form of order sought

— Partially annul as

specified hereafter, on the basis of
Article 230 EC, Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June
2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC)
No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed
against
and entities with a view to
combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC
and 2006/1008/EC and more specifically:

certain persons

— annul Article 1 point 1.33 of the said decision which reads:
‘Sison,
in
Jose Maria (a.k.a. Armando Liwanag, a.k.a.
charge of the Communist Party of the Philippines including NPA)
born 8.2.1939 in Cabugao, Phippines’;

Joma,

— annul partially Article 1 point 2.7 of said decision insofar as
it mentions the name of the applicant: Communist Party of
the Philippines,
including New Peoples Army (NPA),
Philippines, linked to Sison Jose Maria C. (a.k.a. Armando
Liwanag, a.k.a. Joma, in charge of the Communist Party of
the Philippines including NPA);

— declare illegal, on the basis of Article 241 EC, Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on
specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons
and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ, L 344,
p. 70);

— order the Community to compensate the applicant on the
basis of Article 235 and 288 EC in an amount to be fixed at
EUR 291 427,97 plus EUR 200,87 every month until
pronouncement of the judgment of the Court,
including
interests from October 2002 until the payment in full;

— require the Council to bear the costs of suit.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annul-
ment, pursuant
to Article 230 EC, of Council Decision
2007/445/EC (1), of 28 June 2007, implementing Article 2(3)
of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) on specific restrictive
measures directed against certain persons and entities with a
repealing Decisions
view to
terrorism and
combating
2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC,
this decision
includes Professor Jose Maria Sison. In addition, the applicant
seeks a declaration on the basis of Article 241 EC that Council
Regulation No 2580/2001 is illegal, as well as a request for
compensation, pursuant to Article 235 EC and 288 EC, for the
damages allegedly incurred.

insofar as

In support of
following grounds:

its claims,

the applicant puts

forward the

that

the Council allegedly infringed
The applicant claims
Article 253 EC with regards to its statement of reasons moti-
vating its decision. In this regard, the applicant submits that the
Council committed a manifest error of assessment when

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/59

reaching the contested decision, since the later was based on
unsubstantiated facts and allegations. In addition, according to
the applicant, the decision at stake violates the principle of
sound administration. Moreover, the applicant submits that the
decision violates Article 2(3) of Regulation 2580/2001 EC and
Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and contra-
venes the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the appli-
cant contends that the decision is contrary to the freedom of
circulation of capital, enshrined in Article 56 EC. Finally, the
applicant alleges that the decision was taken in violation of the
general principles of Community law deriving from the prin-
ciple of due process, the right to an impartial Court, the prin-
ciple of presumption of innocence, the rights of defense and the
right to be heard, the principle of
legality, the right to the
freedom of expression, the right of association as well as the
right of ownership, provided in the European Convention of
Human Rights. Lastly, the applicant contends that the Council
misused its power by including the applicant on the list annexed
to the contested decision.

(1) OJ L 169, p. 58.
(2) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 70.

market and the functioning of
COMP/M.4439 — Ryanair/Aer Lingus).

the EEA Agreement

(Case

The applicant's main contention is that the Commission alleg-
edly erred in finding, and failed to demonstrate to the requisite
legal standard, that the merger would lead to a significant impe-
diment to effective competition in the common market. In the
alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in
finding, and failed to show to the requisite legal standard, that
the merger as modified by the various commitments offered by
the applicant during the investigation would lead to a significant
impediment to effective competition.

In support of its claims, the applicant pleads that the Commis-
sion made manifest errors of assessment with regards to (a) the
competitive relationship between the two carriers;
the
its route-by-route analysis, as
(c)
barriers to entry/expansion;
well as fundamental and manifest errors in its appreciation of
the efficiencies which would flow from the merger and the
treatment of the commitments offered by the applicant.

(b)

Action brought on 10 September 2007 — Ryanair v
Commission

(Case T-342/07)

(2007/C 269/106)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 12 September 2007 — allsafe Jungfalk v
OHIM (ALLSAFE)

(Case T-343/07)

(2007/C 269/107)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: allsafe Jungfalk GmbH & Co. KG (Engen, Germany)
(represented by D. Jestaedt and J. Bühling, lawyers)

Applicant: Ryanair Holdings Plc (County Dublin, Ireland) (repre-
sented by: J. Swift, QC, V. Power, Solicitor, A. McCarthy, Soli-
citor, G. Berrish, lawyer, D. Hull, Solicitor)

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision;

— order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application, the applicant seeks annulment of
Commission Decision C(2007) 3104, of 27 June 2007,
declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common

— Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
(Trade

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Marks and Designs) of 11 July 2007 (R 454/2006-4);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALLSAFE’ for
goods and services in Classes 6, 12, 22, 35, 39 and 42 (appli-
cation No 2 940 534).

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application.