Case T-289/07: Action brought on 30 July 2007 — Caisse Nationale des Caisses d'Épargne et de Prévoyance v Commission
Date: 2007-10-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for annulment (EU), banking, financial institution, right of establishment

C 235/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.10.2007

Action brought on 30 July 2007 — Caisse Nationale des
Caisses d'Épargne et de Prévoyance v Commission

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission erred by
evaluating the national measure at issue in the light of the prin-
ciple of the freedom to supply services.

(Case T-289/07)

(2007/C 235/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Caisse Nationale des Caisses d'Épargne
et de
Prévoyance (CNCEP) (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Sureau, D.
Théophile and É. Renaudeau, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 final of
10 May 2007 pursuant to Article 86(3) of the EC Treaty on
the special rights granted to La Banque Postale, Caisses
d'Épargne and Crédit Mutuel for the distribution of the livret
A and livret bleu;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

three

By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission
Decision C(2007) 2110 final of 10 May 2007 declaring the
provisions of the French Code Monétaire et Financier which
give
institutions, La Banque Postale, Caisses
d'Épargne et de Prévoyance and Crédit Mutuel, special rights for
the distribution of the livret A and livret bleu to be incompatible
with Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Articles 43 EC and
49 EC.

credit

In support of its action, the applicant raises six pleas in law.

The first plea alleges
infringement of essential procedural
requirements in that the Commission did not respect the appli-
cant's rights of the defence and in that the decision is vitiated by
a lack of reasoning.

On the substance, the applicant alleges that the Commission
erred in law in taking the view that the special rights for the
distribution of the livret A and livret bleu constituted, per se, a
restriction on the freedom of establishment. According to the
applicant, the Commission committed an error of assessment in
taking the view that those special rights, in practice, rendered
the exercise of Community freedoms in France less attractive.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the contested decision is
vitiated by errors of law and of assessment in that the Commis-
sion took the view that the special rights could not be justified
under Article 86(2) EC, and by a error of assessment in that it
took the view that they could not be justified on grounds of
compelling reasons in the public interest.

Action brought on 31 July 2007 — MIP Metro v OHIM —
Metronia (METRONIA)

(Case T-290/07)

(2007/C 235/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH &
Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)
J.-C. Plate,
lawyer)

(represented by:

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Metronia,
S. A. (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
OHIM of 29 May 2007 in Case R 1315/2006-2 as far as the
appeal has been dismissed on the ground that it does not
comply with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

— order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of

the opposition and appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Metronia, S.A.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade
mark ‘METRONIA’ for goods in class 9 and goods and services
in classes 20, 28 and 41 — application No 3 387 834

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MIP
Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited: The national figurative trade mark ‘METRO’
for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41, among
others

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and
rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the opposition and
allowed the application to proceed