Case T-404/07: Action brought on 8 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2007-11-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), air transport, complaint to the Commission, restriction on competition, transport company

C 8/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.1.2008

In support of their action for annulment, the applicants are
putting forward three pleas.

First of all, they submit that the contested directive was adopted
in breach of the procedural rules which, the applicants claim,
the Commission was required to comply with. In the applicants'
submission, even if the Commission may have been authorised
by the Council to adopt, by means of a directive, the imple-
menting measures necessary to apply Directive 91/414/EEC, it
does not have the authority to amend that latter directive, in
particular with regard to the obligations on the Member States.
The applicants submit that the contested directive is not a mere
implementing directive but a directive amending Directive
91/414/EEC and, as such, should have been adopted pursuant
to the procedure requiring prior consultation of the European
Parliament. In the absence of such consultation, it is vitiated by
a procedural defect.

In addition, the applicants allege that, under the cloak of amend-
ments to the national authorisation procedures for the placing
of plant products on the market, the contested directive in fact
infringes the uniform rules of assessment laid down by the basic
directive 91/414/EEC with regard to the inclusion of an active
substance in Annex I thereto.

(1) OJ L 214, p. 3.

EC Treaty by not having defined a position with respect to
the applicant's complaint lodged with the Commission on
8 May 2006 followed by a letter of formal notice of 31 July
2007;

— order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the
costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings even if,
following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes
action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need
to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application
as inadmissible; and

— take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Commission has failed to act by
not having defined its position, after having been invited to do
so under Article 232 EC, on the applicant's complaint lodged
with the Commission on 8 May 2006 regarding i) unlawful
state aid allegedly granted to Air France by France in form of
differentiated airport charges charged by the French airports
depending on the destination of the flights, or ii) in the alterna-
tive, anti-competitive discrimination in violation of Article 82 EC
in favour of Air France, should the French airports be consid-
ered to have acted autonomously.

Action brought on 8 November 2007 — Ryanair v
Commission

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Commission was under an obligation to conduct a diligent and
impartial examination of the complaint received in order to:

(Case T-404/07)

(2008/C 8/36)

Language of the case: English

— adopt a decision either declaring that the measures in ques-
tion did not amount to state aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) EC, or declaring that the measures were to be
considered state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC,
but compatible with the common market under Article 87(2)
and (3) EC, or

— to initiate a procedure under Article 88(2) EC.

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin,
Vahida, lawyer)

Ireland)

(represented by: E.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

required, upon receipt of

In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission
was
subsidiary
complaint that competition law had been infringed, either to
initiate a procedure regarding the subject of the complaint or to
adopt a definitive decision rejecting the complaint, after having
given the applicant the opportunity to comment.

applicant's

the

Form of order sought

— Declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the Commis-
sion has failed to act pursuant to its obligations under the

The applicant further alleges that under the circumstances and
in view of the Commission's familiarity with the issues involved,
applicant's
the period of
complaint and its letter of formal notice was unreasonably long,
and the inaction of the Commission during that period consti-
tutes failure to act within the meaning of Article 232 EC.

fourteen months between the

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/21

Finally, the applicant contends that Article 232 EC entitles an
undertaking to bring an action against the Commission's failure
to adopt measures which would have been of direct and indivi-
dual concern to it, and that the measures which the Commis-
sion failed to adopt in the present case were of direct and indivi-
dual concern to the applicant as a competitor of Air France.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council
Regulation No 40/94 (1) in that, according to the applicant and
contrary to the findings in the contested decision, the term
‘P@YWEB CARD’ is not descriptive but, on the contrary, distinc-
tive in relation to the goods and services designated.

(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 14 November 2007 — Caisse Fédérale
du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe v OHIM (P@YWEB
CARD)

(Case T-405/07)

(2008/C 8/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe
(Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and J. Schouman,
lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 10 July 2007, notified on 14 September 2007,
Case R 119/2007-1 refusing its application for registration
of Community trade mark P@YWEB CARD, application
No 3 861 044, for all the goods and services designated in
classes 9, 36 and 38;

— Registration of Community trade mark application P@YWEB
CARD No 3 861 044, for all the goods and services desig-
nated.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Caisse Fédérale
du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe v OHIM (PAYWEB
CARD)

(Case T-406/07)

(2008/C 8/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe
(Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and J. Schouman,
lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 12 September 2007, notified on 17 September
2007, Case R 120/2007-1 refusing its application for regis-
tration of Community trade mark PAYWEB CARD, applica-
tion No 3 861 051, for all the goods and services designated
in classes 9, 36 and 38;

— Registration of Community trade mark application PAYWEB
CARD No 3 861 051, for all the goods and services desig-
nated.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘P@YWEB CARD’
for goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 38 (Application
No 3 861 044)

Decision of the Examiner: Application for registration refused

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PAYWEB CARD’ for
goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 38 (Application
No 3 861 051)

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Examiner: Application for registration refused