Case T-94/08: Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Centre de coordination Carrefour v Commission
Date: 2008-02-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, distributive trades, multinational enterprise

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/43

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark PROMINA for goods
and services in Class 7 (German trade mark No 847 011)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1) as the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was incorrect to take as a basis that the goods were not
similar.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1).

Action brought on 6 February 2008 — Now Pharma v
Commission

(Case T-74/08)

(2008/C 92/85)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Now Pharma AG (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (repre-
sented by: C. Kaletta and I.J. Tegebauer, Rechtsanwälte)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— annul Commission Decision C(2007) 6132 of 4 December

2007;

— hold that the Commission should take a new decision in
relation to the applicant's application of 6 February 2007,
taking into consideration the Court's view of the law;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

applicant

challenges

the Commission's Decision of
The
4 December 2007 refusing the applicant's request for designa-
tion of the medicinal product ‘Extrait liquide spécial de Cheli-
donii
liquid extract’) as an
radix special
orphan medicinal product within the meaning of Regulation
(EC) No 141/2000 (1).

(‘Chelidonii

radix’

decision

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
contested
Regulation
infringes Article
No 141/2000. In this respect, the applicant submits, in particu-
lar, that the final negative opinion of the European Medicines
Agency was based on a wrong standard, namely the require-
ments for marketing authorisation in respect of a medicinal

of

3

product pursuant to Article 8(3)(c) of Regulation No 141/2000.
However, according to the applicant, whether a medicinal
product is to be designated as an orphan medicinal product
depends on whether the medicinal product will be of significant
benefit to those affected by the particular condition, within the
meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 (2).
According to the applicant, the requirements of Article 3(1)(b)
of Regulation No 141/2000 are fulfilled, because the medicinal
product constitutes an orphan medicinal product and will be of
significant benefit.

In addition, the applicant takes issue with the lack of qualifica-
tions and the bias of the expert.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products
(OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 of 27 April 2000 laying
down the provisions for implementation of the criteria for designa-
tion of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product and
definitions of the concepts similar medicinal product and clinical
superiority (OJ 2000 L 103, p. 5).

Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Centre de
coordination Carrefour v Commission

(Case T-94/08)

(2008/C 92/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre de coordination Carrefour SNC (Brussels,
Belgium) (represented by: X. Clarebout and K. Platteau, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision in as much as it does not lay
down a transitional period as required by the Forum 187 (1)
judgment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By decision 2003/755/EC of 17 February 2003, the Commis-
sion and declared the aid scheme implemented by Belgium in
favour of coordination centres established in Belgium incompa-
tible with the internal market (2). That decision was annulled by
judgment of the Court of 22 June 2006 (3) (‘the judgment in
Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission’) in that it did not provide
the
transitional measures with regard to certain of
for

C 92/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.4.2008

coordination centres whose applications to benefit from the
scheme in question were pending at the time of notification of
that decision or whose approval expired at that time or shortly
after notification of the decision. The applicant in the present
case was one of the coordination centres referred to in the
operative part of the judgment.

On 13 November 2007, the Commission adopted a new deci-
sion, Decision C(2007) 5416 final, by which it amended Deci-
sion 2003/757/EC by declaring the Belgian law adopted
following the judgment in Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission
incompatible with the internal market and seeking to permit
extension until
the transitional period
during which the centres referred to in that judgment could
benefit from the scheme. Decision C(2007) 5416 final also
provided that the transitional period expires on 31 December
the
2005. This is the contested decision in the context of
present action.

the end of 2010 of

In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas in law.

As a principal plea,
the contested decision
it submits that
infringes the principle of equal treatment and the obligation on
the Commission to implement the measures contained in the
judgment in Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission,
in that it
would not put an end to the unequal treatment referred to in
that judgment since the transitional period granted to the appli-
cant is much shorter than that granted to centres in a similar
situation according to the indication given by the Court.
It
submits that it should have benefited from a transitional period
expiring on 31 December 2010.

As an alternative plea, the applicant raises a plea alleging breach
of the principles of legal certainty and of legitimate expectations
in that the contested decision establishes a transitional period
limited to 31 December 2005, which produces retroactive
effects and results in the applicant being unable in good time to
take the steps necessary to adapt to the change in the scheme
before that date. On that basis, and in the alternative, the appli-
cant claims that it should benefit from a transitional period
expiring on 31 December 2009 at the earliest.

As a further alternative plea, the applicant raises a plea alleging
breach of the principle of equal treatment in that the contested
decision treats it differently from four coordination centres
which were, at the time of the first decision, 2003/757/EC, in
an identical situation but which obtained a renewal of their
approval for an indefinite period. On the basis of that plea, and
in the alternative, the applicant submits that it should have
benefited from a transitional period expiring on 31 December
2006 at the earliest.

(1) Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v

Commission [2006] ECR I-5479.

(2) OJ L 282, p. 25, corrected version OJ 2003 L 285, p. 52.
(3) See footnote 1.

Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Italy v
Commission

(Case T-95/08)

(2008/C 92/87)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, avvocato
dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2007) 6514 of 20 December
2007, notified on 21 December 2007,
in so far as it
excludes from Community financing and charges to the
budget of the Italian Republic the financial consequences to
be applied in connection with clearance of the expenditure
financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agri-
cultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian Government brings
the present action against
Commission Decision C(2007) 6514 of 20 December 2007 in
so far as it excludes from Community financing and charges to
the budget of the applicant the financial consequences to be
applied in connection with clearance of
the expenditure
financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

In support of its claims, the applicant submits:

— As regards aid for products processed from fruit and vegeta-
bles,
infringement of Article 30(1) of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1535/2003 of 29 August 2003 laying down
applying Council Regulation (EC)
detailed rules
No 2201/96 as
the aid scheme for products
processed from fruit and vegetables (OJ 2003 L 218, p. 14).

regards

for

— As regards the purchase of bovine animals aged over
30 months
infringement of
intended for destruction,
Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000
of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional
support
measures for the beef market (OJ 2000 L 321, p. 47) and of
Article 4 of Commission Decision 97/735/EC of 21 October
1997 concerning certain protection measures with regard to
trade
in certain types of mammalian animal waste
(OJ 1997 L 294, p. 7).