Case T-128/08: Action brought on 25 March 2008 — CBI and Abisp v Commission
Date: 2008-03-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administrative transparency, aid system, complaint to the Commission, medical institution, public service

C 142/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.6.2008

Form of order sought

Action brought on 25 March 2008 — CBI and Abisp v
Commission

— annul

the

notice

procurement

reference
a
EuropeAid/125672/C/SER/CY for
contract entitled ‘Technical Assistance οn animal husbandry’,
which was published, only in English, on the webpage
http://ec.europa.eu/europaid/tender/data/
around
27 December 2007, and annul points 5 and 28.2 of the
notice;

under
conclusion of

the

on

or

(Case T-128/08)

(2008/C 142/55)

Language of the case: French

— order the Commission of the European Communities to pay

the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

The applicant's pleas in law and main arguments are identical or
to those advanced in Cases T-91/08, T-92/08 and
similar
T-93/08 Cyprus v Commission.

Applicants: Coordination Bruxelloise d'Institutions sociales et de
santé (CBI) (Brussels, Belgium) and Association Bruxelloise des
Institutions de Soins Privées (Abisp) (Brussels, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, solicitor)

Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v
Commission

(Case T-122/08)

(2008/C 142/54)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul

the

the

notice

procurement

under
conclusion of

reference
EuropeAid/126316/C/SER/CY for
a
contract entitled ‘Establishment of a Programme Manage-
ment Unit to support the implementation of investments
projects in the field of water/wastewater and solid waste’,
which was published, only in English, on the webpage
http://ec.europa.eu/europaid/tender/data/
around
4 January 2008, and annul points 5 and 28.2 of the notice;

on

or

— order the Commission of the European Communities to pay

the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant's pleas in law and main arguments are identical or
similar
to those advanced in Cases T-91/08, T-92/08 and
T-93/08 Cyprus v Commission.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission's deci-
sion of 10 January 2008 rejecting their complaint made on
7 September and 17 October 2005 against the State aid granted
by the Kingdom of Belgium to public hospitals of the IRIS
network in the Brussels-Capital Region and refusing to initiate
the formal investigation procedure in respect of the aid in ques-
tion pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.

The applicants submit, first of all, that the contested decision is
vitiated by procedural defects inasmuch as it should have been
adopted by the Commission as a body, addressed to the
Member State concerned, and published in the Official Journal of
the European Union.

As to the merits, the applicants submit that the Commission
made manifest errors of assessment and failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions to state reasons in taking the view that the measures in
question were compatible with Article 86(2) EC and that it was
not necessary to initiate the formal
investigation procedure
pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.

The applicants claim that the conditions for the application of
Article 86(2) EC are not satisfied in this case, since:

— the public-service mission of the hospitals receiving the aid

is not clearly defined;

— the compensation criteria have not been established in

advance;

— the compensation exceeds the costs incurred; and

— no comparison has been made between the hospitals

receiving the aid and comparable private hospitals.

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/31

The applicants further submit that the directive on the transpar-
ency of financial relations between Member States and public
undertakings (1) has not been complied with in the present case.

Action brought on 3 April 2008 — Schräder v CPVO —
Jørn Hansson (Lemon Symphony)

(1) Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the
relations between Member States and
transparency within

transparency of
public undertakings as well as on financial
certain undertakings (OJ 2006 L 318, p. 17).

financial

(Case T-133/08)

(2008/C 142/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Action brought on 2 April 2008 — ENRI Electronics v
OHIM (MaxiBridge)

(Case T-132/08)

(2008/C 142/56)

Parties

Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented
by: T. Leidereiter and W.-A. Schmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of CPVO:
Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant: ENRI Electronics GmbH (Adelberg, Germany) (repre-
sented by N. Breitenbach, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM

of 30 January 2008 in Case R 1530/2006-4;

— Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of
4 December 2007 (Case A 007/2007) and declare the adap-
tation of the variety description for the plant variety Lemon
Symphony null and void;

— In the alternative, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal

of CPVO of 4 December 2007 (Case A 007/2007);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

— Order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred

in the course of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MaxiBridge’ for
goods in Classes 9 and 17 (Application No 4 899 647).

Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected

Community plant variety right concerned: Lemon Symphony

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right: Jørn Hansson

Decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety
Office which is being contested: Adaptation of a variety description
in accordance with Article 87(4) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2100/94 (1)

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Appellant before the Board of Appeal: the Applicant

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1) inasmuch as the mark in respect of which applica-
tion is sought does not constitute an indication which needs to
be kept freely available.

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

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

No 1239/95 (2)
the
summoned to the hearing in due form;

inasmuch as

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement

of Article

59(2)

of Regulation

(EC)
applicant was not

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 inas-
much as the applicant was unable to present his comments
orally or in writing on the absence of locus standi;