Case T-374/07: Action brought on 22 September 2007 — Pachtitis v Commission of the European Communities and EPSO
Date: 2007-09-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EPSO, European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), disclosure of information

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/37

— in the event of doubt, order an on-the-spot inspection in the
project area and to seek independent technical opinions to
corroborate the applicant's arguments;

Action brought on 27 September 2007 — EOS v OHIM
(PrimeCast)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards its locus standi on the basis of Article 230 EC, the
applicant considers that the contested decision, concerning the
creation of a Hygienic Landfill Site on an area which is not
within the district of the Municipality of Keratea, is of direct and
individual concern to it insofar as it is a public body responsible
for the protection of public health and the environment in the
area of the subsidised project.

The applicant claims that the contested decision — the content
of which it maintains came to its notice on 13 August 2007 —
infringes a number of provisions of primary Community law
for the protection of health and the environment as well as
provisions of secondary Community law laying down the rele-
vant detailed provisions.

the financing of

the applicant claims that

Specifically,
the
project contravenes the aims of maintaining, protecting and
improving the quality of the environment, the protection of
public health and the prudent and rational use of physical
resources.
in the applicant's view, the contested
Commission decision infringes first and foremost Articles 3, 4
and 6 of Directive 75/442 (1) and Articles 3 and 4 of Directive
91/156 (2), which lay down specific obligations in the areas of
prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmful-
ness.

In addition,

Lastly, according the applicant, it is clear that the creation of a
waste management and disposal facility within a protected area
cannot in any circumstances be regarded as a project eligible for
financing by a financial instrument such as the Cohesion Fund,
which by definition should finance only works complying with
the requirements of protection of the environment.

(1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975

L 194, p. 39).

(2) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Direc-

tive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).

(Case T-373/07)

(2007/C 283/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EOS GmbH Electro Optical Systems
Germany) (represented by M. Mentjes, lawyer)

(Krailling,

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 20 July
2007 in Case R 333/2005-4, notified to the applicant by
facsimile on 27 July 2007;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs in accordance with

Article 87(2) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the verbal mark ‘PrimeCast’ for
goods and services in Classes 1, 19, 40 and 42 (Application
No 2854677).

Decision of the Examiner: refusal in part of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 22 September 2007 — Pachtitis v
Commission of the European Communities and EPSO

(Case T-374/07)

(2007/C 283/68)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Demetrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece) (represented by:
P. Giatagantzidis, B. Niangou, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities and the
European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

C 283/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

Form of order sought

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— annul the decision by EPSO of 27 June 2007 and its implied
decision to reject the applicant's confirmatory application of
10 July 2007, relating to his right to access to EPSO docu-
ments;

— order EPSO to send to him (i) a true copy of the questions
put to him and his answers at the two preliminary tests (a)
and (b) when he took part
in the Open Competition
EPSO/AD/77/06 (OJ C 277 A, p. 1) to constitute a reserve
list for recruitment by the European institutions of adminis-
trator linguists (AD 5) having Greek as main language, in
the field of translation and (ii) a true copy of the list of
correct answers to those two preliminary tests taken by him;

— order the Commission of the European Communities and

EPSO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the refusal of the European Personnel
Selection Office (EPSO) to provide to him a true copy of the
questions put to him and his answers at the two preliminary
tests (a) and (b) when he took part in the Open Competition
EPSO/AD/77/06 (OJ C 277 A, p. 1) and a true copy of the list
of the correct answers to those preliminary tests taken by him,
is a decision which is unlawful and insufficiently justified, given
that it infringes his right to access to the documents of the
European institutions under Article 255 EC and Articles 2 and
4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), and that the statement
of its reasons is very vague and infringes Article 253 EC. At the
same time, according to the applicant, the refusal of EPSO to
produce the above documents is contrary to the principles of
legal certainty and the
transparency, proper administration,
protection of the legitimate expectations of citizens.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145,p. 43).

Action brought on 3 October 2007 — Poland v
Commission

(Case T-379/07)

(2007/C 283/69)

Language of the case: Polish

Form of order sought

— declare invalid Commission Regulation (EC) No 804/2007
of 9 July 2007 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod
in the Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 25-32, EC Waters) by vessels
flying the flag of Poland (1);

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks a declaration that Commission Regulation
(EC) No 804/2007 of 9 July 2007 establishing a prohibition of
fishing for cod in the Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 25-32, EC Waters)
by vessels flying the flag of Poland is invalid. The contested
regulation provides that, as from 11 July 2007, the part of the
catch quota for cod allocated to the applicant for 2007 in the
Baltic Sea is deemed to have been exhausted and prohibits, for
the period from 11 July 2007 to 31 December 2007, further
fishing for cod in that area by vessels flying the Polish flag and
the retention on board, transhipment or landing of cod caught
by such vessels.

In support of its contention, the applicant accuses the Commis-
sion of committing flagrant mistakes in calculating the quanti-
ties of cod landed by Polish fishing vessels and alleges a breach
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1941/2006 of 11 December
2006 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions
for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in
the Baltic Sea for 2007 (2). In the context of the present head of
complaint the applicant submits that the Commission based its
findings in respect of the amounts of cod caught by Polish
fishing vessels on data which,
in the applicant's opinion, are
arbitrary and unrepresentative, derived from inspections carried
out by the Commission's own inspectors and in disregard of
data from the Polish Sea Fishing Information System.

further submits that

the contested regulation
The applicant
infringes the principle of proportionality inasmuch as,
in its
view, the prohibition of catches which it introduces gives rise to
fundamental unfavourable socio-economic effects which are
than the hypothetical advantages with
significantly greater
regard to the conservation of cod stocks. The applicant accuses
those effects
the Commission of
before it adopted the contested regulation and of
failing to
consider the possibility of attaining the objectives pursued by
using means which would be less detrimental to the society and
economy of maritime areas.

foregoing an appraisal of

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: T. Nowakowski,
Agent)

In the grounds of its action the applicant also argues that the
contested regulation is inadequately reasoned and that this, in
its opinion, makes it impossible to verify the expediency and
legality of the prohibition which it introduces.