Case T-368/07: Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Lithuania v Commission
Date: 2007-09-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Lithuania, action for annulment (EU), infringement of EU law, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/35

Form of order sought

2. Breach of European Community law.

— Order

the

annulment

of

Commission

Decision

2007/437/EC;

— declare the illegality and inapplicability vis-à-vis the first
its Haloxyfop-R dossier of

applicant and the review of
Article 20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002;

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants
are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-326/07
Cheminova and Others v Commission.

Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Lithuania v
Commission

(Case T-368/07)

(2007/C 283/64)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas,
Agent)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare Commission Decision C(2007) 3407 final of 13 July

2007 (1) to be invalid;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to pay

the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested decision, of which it
was notified on 16 July 2007,
is unlawful and sets out the
following grounds in law:

1. The Commission exceeded its powers.

The applicant submits that, in taking a unilateral decision in
regard to the definitive content of Lithuania's national alloca-
tion plan, the Commission exceeded the powers conferred
on it by Directive 2003/87/EC inasmuch as, while the provi-
sions of that directive empower the Commission to assess
the national allocation plans prepared by the Member States,
they do not confer powers on it to determine total quantities
of pollution emission allowances while overlooking entirely
the national allocation plans prepared and submitted by the
Member States.

2.1. Failure

to have

regard for

the objectives of Directive
2003/87/EC: by deciding, in the contested decision, on
a national level for emissions over the period 2008 to
2012 which is lower than that required in the light of
the obligations assumed by Lithuania pursuant to the
Kyoto Protocol
to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, the Commission failed
to have regard for the actual objectives of Directive
2003/87 as an effective instrument, from the economic
point of view,
to the obligations
assumed by the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in respect
of greenhouse gas emissions.

for giving effect

2.2. Infringement of the principles of sound administration and
genuine cooperation: the contested decision infringes the
principles of sound administration and genuine coop-
eration inasmuch as the Commission, having disre-
garded the assessment made when the national Lithua-
nian allocation plan was being prepared and having
essentially failed to consult with Lithuania, carried out a
separate assessment based on its own selected metho-
dology for the purpose of determining the maximum
quantity of pollution emission allowances.

2.3. Breach of

in disregard of

the provisions of Directive 2003/87/EC and
infringement of the principle of legal certainty: the contested
decision breaches Articles 9(1) and 11(2) of Directive
2003/87 inasmuch as,
the figures
submitted in the Lithuanian national allocation plan,
and rejecting the method of calculation applied by
Lithuania as being inappropriate, the Commission relied
exclusively and solely on the figures obtained through
application of the method which it itself had selected
for the purpose of determining the maximum quantity
of pollution emission allowances to be allocated. More-
over, in applying that methodology, of which Lithuania
knew nothing in advance, the Commission infringed
the principle of legal certainty.

2.4. Infringement of

the principle of non-discrimination:

the
contested decision infringes the principle of non-discri-
mination inasmuch as the Commission, having applied
its own selected method for determining the maximum
quantity of pollution emission allowances,
failed to
have regard to the specific situation of Lithuania. The
decision has also resulted in situations which are essen-
tially different being treated in the same way.

2.5. Non-compliance with Article 9(1) and (3) of Directive
2003/87/EC and with the fourth criterion in Annex III to
that directive: the contested decision is in breach of the
obligation contained in Article 9 of Directive 2003/87
and based on the criteria listed in Annex III thereto,
inasmuch as it fails, without reason, to take account of
the fourth criterion in that annex and of the need in
Lithuania to increase electricity generation in plants
burning fossil fuel as a result of the undertaking given
to shut down the Ignalina atomic power station by
2009.

C 283/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

3. Breach of essential procedural requirements under European

Community legislation.

Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) on 26 July 2007
in case R1447/2005-2 be annulled;

that

submits

in the contested decision,

the contested decision was
The applicant
adopted in a manner which infringed essential procedural
requirements inasmuch as, first, the Commission breached
the provisions of Directive 2003/87/EC by essentially
refusing,
to review Decision
C(2006) 5613 final, and second, the contested decision is
inappropriately and inadequately reasoned and consequently
the requirements set out in Article 253 EC and Article 9(3)
of Directive 2003/87 have been breached. Furthermore, the
Commission failed to comply with the procedural require-
ment in that directive relating to the duration of the assess-
ment.

4. Manifest misappraisal.

the Commission,

In the opinion of the applicant, when it examined Lithuania's
amended national allocation plan,
first,
failed to take account of the specific and objective circum-
stances which were stressed by Lithuania and which led to
the level of pollution emissions which arose, and, second,
applied an inappropriate method of calculation and based
itself on inaccurate data, which led to the fixing of an incor-
rect maximum quantity of pollution emission allowances
granted to Lithuania.

(1) Commission Decision of 13 July 2007 on the amendment of the
national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allow-
ances notified by Lithuania under Article 3(3) of Commission Deci-
sion C(2006) 5613 (final) on the national plan for the allocation of
greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Lithuania under
Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and the Council.

— that the defendant is ordered to register the contested trade-

mark;

— that the defendant pays the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Patrick Holding ApS

Community trade mark concerned: The Community figurative mark
‘PATRICK EXCLUSIVE’
for goods in class 25 — application
No 2 946 424

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Cassera SpA

Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘G. Patrick’ for
goods in class and 25 and the national and international word
mark ‘G. Patrick’ for goods in classes 24 and 25

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94.

Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Dimos Kerateas
(Municipality of Keratea) v Commission of the European
Communities

Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Patrick Holding
v OHIM — Cassera (Patrick Exclusive)

(Case T-370/07)

(2007/C 283/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

(Case T-372/07)

(2007/C 283/66)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Holding ApS (Fredensborg, Denmark) (repre-
sented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cassera
SpA. (Milan, Italy)

Form of order sought

— The applicant requests that the decision taken by the Second
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the

Applicant: Municipality of Keratea (Attiki, Greece) (represented
by: A. Papakonstantinou and M. Khaidarlis)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— annul Commission Decision E(2004) 5611 of 22 December
2004 concerning the grant of assistance from the Cohesion
Fund for the ‘Solid Waste Management Project of the First
Attiki District Management Unit in South East Attiki and the
Second District Management Unit in Trizinia, 1. Hygienic
Landfill Site in the integrated waste management facility at
“Vragoni”, Keratea-Lavreotiki, in South East Attiki, 2. Waste
transport depot of the Second Attiki District Management
Unit in Trizinia’;