Case T-56/08: Action brought on 5 February 2008 — IEA and Others v Commission
Date: 2008-02-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender, social survey

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/29

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 (2) by which the Commis-
sion declared that the list drawn up by the United Kingdom
to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC,
pursuant
listing the entire UEFA European Football Championship final
tournament — the EURO, was compatible with Community
law.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Commission's decision:

Action brought on 5 February 2008 — IEA and Others v
Commission

(Case T-56/08)

(2008/C 107/49)

Language of the case: English

— is not adopted following a clear and transparent procedure
as required under Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552/EEC;

Parties

— does not set out an adequate statement of reasons;

— is based on a manifest error of appreciation, as the Commis-
sion concluded that matches not involving any home nation
team in the EURO could be considered as events of major
importance for the UK society;

— contains no proper analysis of competition law or of the
free movement of services and leads to a disproportionate
and unjustified distortion of competition on the relevant
market and restriction of the free provision of broadcasting
services;

— infringes the applicant's property rights, as it results in a
restriction of the way in which the applicant may market
the television rights to the EURO;

— infringes the principle of proportionality, as it is neither
suitable nor necessary for the objectives it purports to
achieve; and

— infringes the principle of equal treatment, as it gives the
applicant a disadvantage compared to other right holders.

(1) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordina-
tion of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-
trative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television
broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).

(2) Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 on the
compatibility with Community law of measures taken by the United
Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC
on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regu-
lation or administrative action in Member States concerning the
pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12).

Stichting

IEA Secretariaat Nederland

Applicant:
(IEA)
(Amsterdam, Netherlands), Educational Testing Service Global
BV (ETS-Europe) (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Deutsches Institut
für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung (DIPF) (Frankfurt am
Main, Germany), Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungs-
wesen (IQB) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: E. Morgan de
Rivery and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

in its entirety the decision of the Commission of
23 November 2007 rejecting the tender from the applicant
in response to the call
tender No EAC/21/2007
for
‘European survey on language competences’, in so far as it
infringes EU law and is based on manifest errors of assess-
ment;

— annul

in its entirety the decision of

the Commission
awarding the contract related to this call for tender to the
SurveyLang Consortium, in so far as it infringes EU law and
is based on manifest errors of assessment; and

— order, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of
the CFI, the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants submitted a bid in response to the defendant's
call for tender concerning the ‘European survey on language
competences’ (OJ 2007/S 61-074161), as rectified (OJ 2007/S
109-133727). The applicants contest the defendant's decision of
23 November 2007 to reject their bid and to award the contract
to another tenderer.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
contested decision violates the principle of equal
treatment,
the financial regulation (1) and the tender
Article 100(1) of
specifications.

C 107/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

the

applicants

claim that

Furthermore,
the Commission
committed a manifest error of assessment of the qualitative
criteria laid down in the tender specifications, which in turn led
to a manifest error of assessment in the setting of the bidders'
respective scores.

Finally, the applicants allege that the Commission breached the
principle of good administration by failing to exercise due care
during the tender procedure.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1), as rectified (OJ 2003
L 25, p. 43).

Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Hedgefund
Intelligence v OHIM — Hedge Invest (InvestHedge)

(Case T-67/08)

(2008/C 107/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
(represented by: J. Reed, Barrister, and G. Crofton Martin, Soli-
citor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hedge
Invest SGR P.A. (Milan, Italy)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Hedge Invest SGR P.A.

Mark or sign cited: The Community figurative mark ‘HEDGE
INVEST’ for services in class 36

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the
contested services in classes 36 and 41; the trade mark applica-
tion allowed to proceed for the non-contested goods in classes 9
and 16

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant submits that when determining the
visual similarity of the respective marks in the eyes of non-
English speaking consumers, the Board of Appeal was wrong to
impression’ and to consider
take account of the ‘commercial
that the commercial impression of the conflicting trade marks
was the same.

When assessing the aural similarity of
the conflicting trade
marks to the ears of non-English speaking consumers, the Board
of Appeal improperly put the burden of proof on the applicant.

Finally, the Board of Appeal failed to apply, at the relevant stage,
there was only a very limited
the uncontested finding that
and/or remote degree of similarity between the services in
classes 36 and 41.

Action brought on 6 February 2008 — FIFA v Commission

(Case T-68/08)

(2008/C 107/51)

Language of the case: English

Form of order sought

Parties

— The decision of

the Second Board of Appeal dated
28 November 2007 in Case R 148/2007-2 dismissing the
appeal shall be annulled;

Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association
(represented by: E. Batchelor,
(FIFA)
F. Young, Solicitors, and A. Barav, lawyer)

(Zurich, Switzerland)

— the Opponent's opposition be dismissed;

— the Office and the other party shall bear their own costs,
and the other party shall pay those of the applicant before
the Opposition Division,
the Board of Appeal and this
Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

trade mark

Community
figurative mark
concerned:
‘InvestHedge’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 36 and 41
— application No 3 081 081

The

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment, in whole or in part, of the Commission Deci-
sion 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 on the compatibility
with Community law of measures taken by the United
Kingdom pursuant
to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive
89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid
down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member
States concerning the pursuit of
television broadcasting
activities,
in particular Articles 1-3 thereof in so far as it
concerns the FIFA World Cup™;