Case T-475/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission
Date: 2007-12-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), indemnification, pharmaceutical product, plant health legislation, plant health product, withdrawal from the market

C 51/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.2.2008

The applicants further allege that the Council committed an
error of law in relying on Article 9(1) of the Basic Regulation in
a situation that does not fall within the scope of that article, as
the complaint leading to the investigation had not been with-
drawn.

Finally, the applicants invoke a violation of Article 253 EC in
that the contested regulation is inadequately reasoned in respect
of the level of support from Community producers and the
conclusion on Community interest.

According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal based its deci-
sion on a purely theoretical philological analysis of the mark
applied for with regard to grammar, composition and spelling
rules as well as structure and syntax of the trade mark applied
for, completely leaving aside the overall impression of the mark
to the average consumer.

(1) OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

Action brought on 21 December

2007 — Dow

AgroSciences and Others v Commission

(Case T-475/07)

(2008/C 51/99)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Wella v OHIM
(TAME IT)

Parties

(Case T-471/07)

(2008/C 51/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wella AG (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: B.
Klingberg, K. Sandberg, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— That

the decision of

the Second Board of Appeal of

24 October 2007 in Case R 713/2007-2 be annulled;

— that the defendant be ordered to bear the costs of

the

proceedings including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade mark concerned: The international word mark ‘TAME IT’ for
goods in Class 3 (international registration No 879 186) —
request for EC territorial extension of protection in accordance
with the Madrid Protocol

Decision of the examiner: Refusal on absolute grounds for all the
goods applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partly upheld the appeal and
allowed the EC territorial extension of the protection of interna-
tional registration No 879 186 to proceed in part

in law:

Pleas
Council Regulation 40/94.

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of

Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom),
Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Makh-
teshim Agan International Coordination Center
(Brussels,
Belgium), Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos Ld.a
Italy), Dow
(Funchal, Portugal), Finchimica SpA (Manerbio,
Agrosciences BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Dow AgroSciences
Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary), Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl
(Milano, Italy), Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o. (Warszawa,
Poland), Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA (Madrid, Spain), Dow
AgroSciences s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic), Dow AgroSciences
LLC (Indianapolis, United States), Dow AgroSciences GmbH
(Stade, Germany), Dow AgroSciences Export SAS (Mougins,
France), Dow AgroSciences SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroS-
ciences Danmark A/S (Lyngby-Taarbæk, Denmark), Makhteshim-
Agan Poland sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland), Makhteshim-Agan
(UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Makhteshim-Agan France
SARL (Sevres, France), Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl
(Bergamo,
Italy), Alfa Agricultural Supplies SA (Halandri, Greece) (repre-
sented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision.

— Order the Commission to take such measures as are neces-
sary to comply with the annulment of the contested decision
in accordance with Article 233 EC,
including, but not
limited to, ordering it to request the Member State compe-
tent authorities to reinstate the relevant national trifluralin
registrations withdrawn as a result of the contested decision,
and extend any relevant deadlines as required to comply
with the judgment of the Court.

— Declare the illegality, and inapplicability to the applicants, of
the
Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004
on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive
79/117/EEC.

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/55

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings, including interest at 8 %.

Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Evropaïki
Dynamiki v Frontex

— Take such other or further measures as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market (1) provides that Member
States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its
active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid
down therein are fulfilled. The applicants seek the annulment of
Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007
concerning the non-inclusion of
to
Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisa-
tions for plant protection products containing that substance (2).

trifluralin in Annex I

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
Commission failed to base its decision on the report from the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and thereby misused its
powers.

The applicants further contend that
contains manifest errors of appraisal in that the Commission:

the contested decision

(Case T-476/07)

(2008/C 51/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant:
Systimata
Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena
Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece)
(represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational
Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)

— failed to take all

the available scientific evidence into

account as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414;

Form of order sought

— failed to extend the relevant deadlines although the circum-
stances and criteria for the assessment of trifluralin changed
during the review process;

— did not have a scientific justification for its findings;

— lacked competence to assess trifluralin under Regulation
850/2004 (3) and, in any event, erred in its assessment.

Moreover, the applicants allege that the contested decision does
not comply with the applicable legislative procedures and that
the Commission and EFSA infringed Article 8(7) and (8) of
Regulation 451/2000 (4) by not complying with the procedural
deadlines, which according to the applicants amounts to a
breach of an essential procedural requirement.

that

the applicants submit

Finally,
the contested decision is
inadequately reasoned in violation of Article 253 EC and that it
infringes the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, non-
retroactivity, the protection of the applicants' legitimate expecta-
tions and their right to be heard.

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230,
p. 1).

(2) OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and
amending Directive 79/117/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 7).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000
laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second
and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2)
of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2000 L 55, p. 25).

— Annul the decision of FRONTEX to evaluate the applicant's
to the

successful and award the contract

bid as not
successful tenderer;

— order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's damages suffered on
the tendering procedure in question for an

account of
amount of 500 000 EUR;

— order the Commission (DIGIT) to pay the applicant's legal
and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with
this application, even if the current application is rejected;

— order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's legal and other costs
and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call
for an open tender for the provision of informatics services and
hardware and software licences (OJ 2007/S 114-139890). The
applicant contests the defendant's decision of 3 October 2007
rejecting the applicant's bid and informing the applicant that the
contract will be awarded to another tenderer.

failed

to state

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
in accordance with
defendant
Article 253 EC and used evaluation criteria that were not
expressly included in the call for tender. Furthermore, the appli-
cant alleges that the defendant committed manifest errors of
assessment.

reasons