Case T-433/07: Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2007-11-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, Ireland, State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, air transport, complaint to the Commission, control of State aid

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/49

— rejection of Community trade mark No 2.666.386;

— order OHIM to pay the costs including those of the inter-

vener.

applied Article 11 of Council Regulation No 2200/96 (2)
in
finding that the French Government had failed to observe the
conditions laid down in that provision for the recognition of
producers' organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
company)

for a Community

trade mark: Montebello (limited

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘MONTEBELLO
Rhum Agricole’
in
(application No 2.266.386)
Class 33 (alcoholic beverages, except beers).

for goods

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the
applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘MONTE-
BELLO’ (No 1.148.196) for goods in Class 33.

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: decision of the Opposition Divi-
sion upheld and annulled.

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

(1) Notified under document number C(2007) 4477, OJ 2007 L 261,

p. 28.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the
common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996
L 297, p. 1)

Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Ryanair v
Commission

(Case T-433/07)

(2008/C 22/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin,
Vahida, lawyer)

Ireland)

(represented by: E.

Action brought on 29 November 2007 — France v
Commission

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-432/07)

(2008/C 22/92)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and
A.-L. During, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Decision 2007/647/EC of 3 October
2007 excluding from Community financing certain expendi-
ture incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guar-
antee Fund (EAGGF) (1),
in so far as it excludes certain
expenditure incurred by the applicant for producers' organi-
sations in the fruit and vegetable sector in respect of the
financial years 2003 and 2004;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested decision on
the Commission wrongly interpreted and
the ground that

Form of order sought

— To declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that

the
Commission has failed to act pursuant to its obligations
under the EC Treaty by not having defined a position with
respect
lodged with the
Commission on 22 December 2006 followed by a letter of
formal notice of 2 August 2007;

to the applicant's complaint

— to 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 applica-
tion as inadmissible;

— to take such further action as the Court may deem appro-

priate.

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 basis of
the applicant's
complaint filed on 22 December 2006, regarding unlawful aid
granted by Greece to Olympic Airlines and Olympic Airways
Services (‘OA/OAS’) following an arbitration ruling of the Greek
Supreme Court, ordering the Greek State to pay OA/OAS
EUR 563 million for allegedly unpaid services and the cost of
relocation to Athens' new airport.

C 22/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.1.2008

The applicant puts forward that
the difference between the
amounts owed by the Greek State to OA/OAS as approximately
assessed in Commission Decision 2003/372/EC (1) and the
compensation for damages awarded to OA/OAS by the ruling of
20 December 2006 constitutes an advantage within the
meaning of state aid rules, granted to the company. The grant of
such advantage is attributable, according to the applicant, to the
Greek State because the arbitration Court has acted as an organ
of the State.

the State measures did not amount

The applicant further submits that the Commission was under a
duty to carry out a diligent and impartial examination of the
complaint received in order to either adopt a decision declaring
that
to aid within the
meaning of Article 87(1) EC, or that those measures were to be
classified as aid within the meaning of the said provision but
were compatible with the common market under Article 87(2)
and (3) EC, or to initiate a procedure under Article 88(2) EC.

The applicant further submits that the period of seven months
which elapsed between the applicant's complaint and its letter
of formal notice was unreasonably long, and the inaction of the
Commission during that period constitutes failure to act within
the meaning of Article 232 EC.

(1) Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid
granted by Greece to Olympic Airways (notified under document
number C(2002) 4831) (OJ, L 132, p. 1).

— uphold the claims for annulment and for compensation

submitted by the appellant at first instance;

— order the defendant at first instance to pay all the costs of

the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward pleas in law
alleging failures to state reasons and manifest errors of assess-
ment in the response given by the Civil Service Tribunal in rela-
tion to the first plea in law, alleging breach of Article 31(2) of
the Staff Regulations, which the appellant put forward in the
proceedings at first instance.

Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Huta Buczek v
Commission

(Case T-440/07)

(2008/C 22/95)

Language of the case: Polish

Appeal brought on 30 November 2007 by Nikos
Giannopoulos against the judgment of the Civil Service
Tribunal delivered on 20 September 2007 in Case
F-111/06, Giannopoulos v Council

(Case T-436/07 P)

(2008/C 22/94)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Nikos Giannopoulos (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium)
(represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, Lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

— declare the present appeal admissible;

Parties

Applicant: Huta Buczek sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (repre-
sented by: D. Szlachetko-Reiter, legal adviser)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare invalid Articles 1, 3(1) and 3(3) of the Commission
decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006
(ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to
the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek;

— in the alternative, declare invalid Articles 1, 3(1) and 3(3) of
the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case
No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid
granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie
Buczek in so far as the Commission orders recovery to be
effected from the company Huta Buczek sp. z o.o.;

— declare invalid Articles 4 and 5 of the Commission decision
of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex
NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the
steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek in so far as those
provisions concern the effecting of recovery from Huta
Buczek sp. z o.o.;

— annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered

on 20 September 2007 in Case F-111/06;

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