Case T-29/08: Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Liga para a Protecção da Natureza v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2008-01-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), civil engineering, engineering structure, provision of documents

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

and the environment in the area where the project that is being
financed is located.

together with default

By this action, the applicant requests that the defendant be
ordered to repay the balance of the advance disbursed to it by
the Community,
following its
failure to perform the part of the cost reimbursement contract
EP No 26970 concluded with the consortium of which it was a
member, concerning the project ‘Neutral Archiving of EDA Data
(ARCHIVE)’, implemented within the framework of the Fourth
European Strategic Programme for Research and Development
in Information Technologies (ESPRIT) (1994-1998).

interest,

The applicant submits that the contested decision, the content
of which it maintains came to its notice on 9 November 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 giving concrete expres-
sion to the primary law.

the financing of

the applicant claims that

Specifically,
the
project contravenes the aims of maintaining, protecting and
improving the quality of the environment, of protecting public
health and of using natural resources in a wise and rational
manner.
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 to 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 Cohe-
sion Fund, which by definition should finance only works
complying with the requirements of protection of the environ-
ment.

(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).

Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Liga para a
Protecção da Natureza v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-29/08)

(2008/C 79/58)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Action brought on

4

January

2008 — Kinotita

Grammatikou v Commission

(Case T-13/08)

(2008/C 79/57)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Kinotita Grammatikou (Community of Grammatiko)
(Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Papakonstantinou and M.
Khaïntarlis, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Decision C(2004) 5509 of 21 December
2004 relating to the grant of assistance from the Cohesion
Fund for the project ‘Construction of a Landfill Site at the
Integrated Waste Management Facility of North-East Attica
at the location “Mavro Vouno Grammatikou”, in the Hellenic
Republic’;

— in the event of doubt, order an on-the-spot inspection in the
technical opinions to

project area and seek independent
corroborate the applicant's submissions;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

As regards its locus standi to bring the action for annulment on
the basis of Article 230 EC, the applicant considers that the
contested decision, which seeks the creation of a landfill site on
an area which is within the boundaries of the Community of
Grammatiko, is of direct and individual concern to it because it
is a public body responsible for the protection of public health

Applicant: Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN)
Portugal) (represented by: P. Vinagre e Silva, lawyer)

(Lisbon,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

C 79/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.3.2008

Form of order sought

Action brought on 23 January 2008 — Winzer Pharma v
OHIM — Oftaltech (OFTASIL)

— Annul

the decision of

the General Secretariat of

the
European Commission, in response to a confirmatory appli-
cation, rejecting the LPN's application for access to the docu-
ments concerning the procedure for the construction of the
dam in the lower Sabor.

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The information requested by the LPN from the Commission
should be regarded, from the outset, as information which can
and must be made available to it given the significant
environmental
interest which that entity seeks to defend and
take charge of in the context of the project to construct the
dam in the lower Sabor (Regulations Nos 1367/2006 (1) and
1049/2001 (2)).

interest

in disclosure

The derogation from the presumption that there is an overriding
public
(Article 6(1) of Regulation
No 1367/2006) does not relieve the Commission of the obliga-
tion to weigh up the basis of that interest in each individual
case. Any grounds for refusal must be interpreted restrictively
by the Commission.

that

It is not sufficient for the Commission to rely on a theoretical
model
the exception related to inspections and audits
prevails, without giving any additional, concrete reasons on a
in order to adopt a decision
document by document basis,
refusing access to all of the documents requested by the LPN.

The Commission refused partial access, basing that refusal on
general reasons without making any effort to divide the docu-
ments into ‘confidential and non-confidential parts’, on the basis
that access may not be given to any of the documents relating
to the inspection and investigation proceedings. However, the
Commission also has to make a concrete assessment here of the
information contained in the documents to which access is
sought.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provi-
sions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environ-
mental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006
L 264, p. 13).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145,
p. 43).

(Case T-30/08)

(2008/C 79/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany)
(represented by: S. Schneller, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Oftaltech S.A. (L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain)

Forms of order sought

— Annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM
of 29 October 2007 (R 599/2007-2) and the decision of
the Opposition Division of OHIM of 19 February 2007
(B 925 554);

— rejection of Community trade mark application No 4 229 274

‘OFTASIL’;

— holding of oral proceedings;

— an order that OHIM pays the costs of the proceedings;

— in the alternative, a referral of the case back to OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Oftaltech S.A.

Community
‘OFTASIL’ for goods in Class 5 (application No 4 229 274)

trade mark concerned:

the figurative trade mark

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Ophtal’ for goods
in Classes 5 and 10 (Community trade mark No 489 948), the
word mark ‘Ophtal’ for goods in Class 5 (German trade mark
No 800 702) and the word mark ‘OPHTAN’
for goods in
Classes 5, 29 and 30 (German trade mark No 303 349 033)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal