Case T-348/07: Action brought on 12 September 2007 — Al-Aqsa v Council of the European Union
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, terrorism

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/61

Third, the applicant claims that the contested decision is tainted
by errors of law and of appraisal in so far as the Commission
held that the current arrangements for distribution of the livret
A could not be justified under Article 86(2) EC. According to
the applicant, the Commission made an error of law and several
errors of appraisal in its definition of accessibility to banking
services connected with the livret A as a service of general
economic interest and in its analysis of whether the special right
the
was necessary and proportionate in order to carry out
service of general economic interest of accessibility to banking
services and of that relating to social housing.

According to its fourth plea in law, the applicant contends that
the reasons given for the contested decision are contradictory
and inadequate.

Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Duro
Sweden v OHIM (EASYCOVER)

(Case T-346/07)

(2007/C 269/110)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Duro Sweden AB (Gävle, Sweden) (represented by: R.
Bird, Solicitor)

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 dated

3 July 2007 in Case No R 1065/2005-4;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of this appeal, and

— order the grant of the application as a Community trade

mark in accordance with the regulation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EASYCOVER’
for goods in classes 19, 24 and 27 — application No 4 114 567

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

mark application infringed Article 7(1)(b) on the basis that the
trade mark application infringed Article 7(1)(c) without asserting
any independent grounds for infringement of Article 7(1)(b)

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of the regulation as the Board of
Appeal did not take all aspects of the trade mark applied for
into account.

Action brought on 12 September 2007 — Al-Aqsa v
Council of the European Union

(Case T-348/07)

(2007/C 269/111)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Al-Aqsa (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
sented by: J. Pauw, lawyer)

(repre-

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Decision 2007/445/EC in so far as it applies
that Regulation (EC)
and declare

to the
No 2580/2001 does not apply to the applicant;

applicant,

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that 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
certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism
is void in so far as it relates to it.

In support of its application, the applicant submits, first, that
the Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the
application of specific measures to combat terrorism (1) does
not apply to it.

Second, the applicant submits that no competent authority has
taken a decision with respect
to the applicant within the
meaning of Article 1(4) of the Council Common Position of
27 December 2001.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal held that the trade

Third, the applicant states that it has had no intention, culp-
ability or knowledge with regard to the support of terrorist
activities.

C 269/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

Fourth, according to the applicant, it is apparent from neither
the statement of grounds in the contested decision nor the
underlying national decision that it can still be regarded as facili-
tating terrorist acts.

Finally, the applicant complains of breach of the principle of
proportionality, of essential procedural requirements inasmuch
as the Council has not investigated the desirability of main-
taining the applicant on the list, of the right to unfettered enjoy-
ment of property, and of the requirement for a proper statement
of reasons.

Action brought on 14 September 2007 — Commission v
Rednap

(Case T-352/07)

(2007/C 269/113)

Language of the case: Swedish

(1) 2001/931/CFSP (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).

Parties

Action brought on 7 September 2007 — FMC Chemical
and Others v Commission

(Case T-349/07)

(2007/C 269/112)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium), Satec
Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Elmshorn, Germany), Belchim Crop
Protection NV (Londerzeel, Belgium), FMC Foret SA (Sant Cugat
(Bratislava,
del Valles, Spain), F&N Agro Slovensko s.r.o.
Slovakia), F&N Agro Ceská republika s.r.o.
(Prague, Czech
(Warsaw, Poland) and
Republic), F&N Agro Polska sp. z.o.o.
FMC Corp. (Philadelphia, United States of America) (represented
by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Triantafyllou and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Rednap (Malmö, Sweden)

Form of order sought

— Order the defendant to

— pay the claimant

the sum of EUR 516 329,63 (five
hundred and sixteen thousand three hundred and
twenty-nine euros and sixty-three cents), broken down
into EUR 334 375,49 in capital and EUR 181 954,14
in late payment interest for the period from the last
payment date for the capital sum in accordance with the
relevant debit note to 31 July 2007 inclusive;

— pay late payment interest, from 1 August 2007 to the
date on which the debt is paid in its entirety, with regard
to the debt under contract DE 3010 (DE) ‘RISE’, in the
daily amount of EUR 72,04 (seventy-two euros and four
cents) and, with regard to the debt under contract
HC 4007 (HC) ‘HEALTHLINE’, in the daily amount of
EUR 37,89 (thirty-seven euros and eighty-nine cents);

— pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Order the annulment of Decision 2007/415/EC;

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

applicants 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.

The applicant claims in the present case, which is based on an
arbitration clause, that the defendant is obliged to reimburse an
excess payment made by the Commission in connection with
the performance of contracts No DE 3010 (DE)
‘RISE’ and
No HC 4007 (HC) ‘HEALTHLINE’ concerning the information
technology project in which the Commission was involved with
the defendant in the latter's capacity as a member of a consor-
tium.

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.

After audits of the defendant's accounts for the contracts, the
Commission reached the conclusion that the defendant had not
used the entire amount paid for implementation of the project.
The applicant has
the
outstanding amount which gives rise to this action.

frequently requested repayment of