Case T-106/08: Action brought on 27 February 2008 — CPEM v Commission
Date: 2008-02-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, European Social Fund, action for annulment (EU), image, judicial investigation, micro-enterprise, services of general interest

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/39

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
(Trade
of 8 November 2007 (Case

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Marks
No R 1656/2006-1);

and Designs)

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned:
trade
mark in the shape of a perfume bottle for goods in class 3
(Application No 4 995 361).

the three-dimensional

Decision of the Examiner: Dismissal of the application.

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1), because the trade mark applied for has a distinc-
tive character.

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

trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

— uphold the claims for annulment and for compensation
submitted by the appellant to the Civil Service Tribunal;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal, the appellant is seeking the annulment of the
judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) dismissing
his application, on the one hand, for the annulment of the
competition
decision of
EPSO/A/19/04 not to admit the applicant to the oral test in that
competition and, on the other, for damages for the material and
non-material damage which he allegedly suffered.

selection board in general

the

the appellant pleads a misunder-
In support of his appeal,
standing of evidence produced before the Tribunal, namely, a
copy of the written test.

in addition, an error in the Tribunal's
The applicant pleads,
reasoning concerning the absence of a manifest error of assess-
ment on the part of the president of the selection board in the
comparison between the mark given to the applicant and the
literal assessment in the evaluation sheet.

Action brought on 27 February 2008 — CPEM v
Commission

Appeal brought on 26 February 2008 by Kris Van
Neyghem against
the Civil Service
the judgment of
Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-73/06,
Van Neyghem v Commission

(Case T-105/08 P)

(2008/C 107/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

(Case T-106/08)

(2008/C 107/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entre-
(represented by: C. Bonnefoi,
prise (CPEM)
lawyer)

(Marseille, France)

Appellant: Kris Van Neyghem (Vissenken, Belgium) (represented
by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

Form of order sought by the appellant

— declare the present appeal admissible;

— annulment of the debit note;

— recognise a right to damages for public detriment to the
reputation of a body acting in the context of a task of
general interest (estimated at EUR 100 000);

— annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second
Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-73/06;

— repayment of lawyers' fees and the costs of legal assistance

made necessary, proof of which can be provided.

C 107/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commis-
sion decision contained in debit note No 3240912189 of
to Commission Decision
17 December 2007 relating
C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007, cancelling,
following an
OLAF report, the assistance granted by the European Social
Fund to finance, by way of a global subsidy, a pilot project
carried out by the applicant (1)
the annulment of which is
sought by the applicant in Case T-444/07 CPME v Commis-
sion (2).

— Annul Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December
2007 excluding from Community financing certain expendi-
ture incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guar-
antee Fund (EAGGF), to the extent it relates to the subject
matter of this action, and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

In support of its application, the applicant submits, principally,
that the Commission has erred in law and exceeded its powers
in so far as the contested debit note was not addressed to the
actual debtor. By relying on infringement of Article 135 of the
Financial Regulation No 1605/2002 (3), it submits that the debit
note should have been addressed to the body which played a
financially responsible role in the project concerned, which actu-
ally received the grant from the European Social Fund.

Moreover, the applicant submits that the fact that the debit note
was addressed to it damages its image and its credibility with
respect to its financial partners given the general interest task it
performs.

(1) Commission Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999, amended

by Decision No C(2001) 2144 of 18 September 2001.

(2) OJ 2008 C 37, p. 29.
(3) 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).

Action brought on 29 February 2008 — Spain v
Commission

(Case T-113/08)

(2008/C 107/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The effect of the contested decision is to exclude from Com-
munity financing certain corrective measures, among which, for
the purposes of this action, are included those concerning aid to
olive oil production in the seasons 1998/1999, 1999/2000 and
1999/2001, to a total sum of EUR 183 965 185,54; and direct
aid payments, aid for arable crop areas, applied for in the years
2003 and 2004, to a total sum of EUR 16 591 528,35.

In particular,
this action relates to the corrective financial
measures adopted in relation to aid to olive oil production,
excluding the proportion relating to the season 1999/2000 in
Andalusia, and that adopted in relation to aid to arable crops
areas applied for in the years 2003 and 2004.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

— As regards aid to olive oil production:

— Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 (1),
in that the financial corrective measures were not based
on observations made by the Commission on verifica-
tions made as a result of the investigation, but on extra-
polations from observations relating to other investiga-
tions.

— Infringement of Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation
No 729/70 (2)
and of Article 2 of Regulation
No 1258/1999 (3), since the contested decision applies
them in inappropriate circumstances, given that
the
theoretical irregularities relied on by the Commission to
justify the financial corrective measures decided upon
are insufficient.

— Failure to observe the period of 24 months prior to
written communication of the results of the verifications,
laid down in Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/99.

— As regards the aid to arable crops areas:

— Infringement of the procedure laid down in Article 8(1)
of Regulation No 1663/95, since there was no statement
of the reasons justifying the financial corrective measures
in the document in which the results of the verifications
were notified to the Member State, and alternatively,
failure to observe the period of 24 months laid down in
Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999.