Case T-372/07: Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Dimos Kerateas (Municipality of Keratea) v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), dumping of waste, environmental protection, protected area, waste management

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’;

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/37

— in the event of doubt, order an on-the-spot inspection in the
project area and to seek independent technical opinions to
corroborate the applicant's arguments;

Action brought on 27 September 2007 — EOS v OHIM
(PrimeCast)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards its locus standi on the basis of Article 230 EC, the
applicant considers that the contested decision, concerning the
creation of a Hygienic Landfill Site on an area which is not
within the district of the Municipality of Keratea, is of direct and
individual concern to it insofar as it is a public body responsible
for the protection of public health and the environment in the
area of the subsidised project.

The applicant claims that the contested decision — the content
of which it maintains came to its notice on 13 August 2007 —
infringes a number of provisions of primary Community law
for the protection of health and the environment as well as
provisions of secondary Community law laying down the rele-
vant detailed provisions.

the financing of

the applicant claims that

Specifically,
the
project contravenes the aims of maintaining, protecting and
improving the quality of the environment, the protection of
public health and the prudent and rational use of physical
resources.
in the applicant's view, the contested
Commission decision infringes first and foremost Articles 3, 4
and 6 of Directive 75/442 (1) and Articles 3 and 4 of Directive
91/156 (2), which lay down specific obligations in the areas of
prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmful-
ness.

In addition,

Lastly, according the applicant, it is clear that the creation of a
waste management and disposal facility within a protected area
cannot in any circumstances be regarded as a project eligible for
financing by a financial instrument such as the Cohesion Fund,
which by definition should finance only works complying with
the requirements of protection of the environment.

(1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975

L 194, p. 39).

(2) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Direc-

tive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).

(Case T-373/07)

(2007/C 283/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EOS GmbH Electro Optical Systems
Germany) (represented by M. Mentjes, lawyer)

(Krailling,

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 of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 20 July
2007 in Case R 333/2005-4, notified to the applicant by
facsimile on 27 July 2007;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs in accordance with

Article 87(2) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the verbal mark ‘PrimeCast’ for
goods and services in Classes 1, 19, 40 and 42 (Application
No 2854677).

Decision of the Examiner: refusal in part of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1).

(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 22 September 2007 — Pachtitis v
Commission of the European Communities and EPSO

(Case T-374/07)

(2007/C 283/68)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Demetrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece) (represented by:
P. Giatagantzidis, B. Niangou, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities and the
European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)