Case T-129/08: Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Sahlstedt and Others v Commission
Date: 2008-03-31
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for annulment (EU), biotope, environmental protection, protected area, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/35

on the market (1) (hereinafter ‘the second review regulation’ of
‘SRR’)
(EC) No
repealing Commission Regulation
2032/2003 (2), on the grounds that the contested provisions:

and

Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Sahlstedt and Others
v Commission

(i) maintain the letter and/or the content of provisions origin-
ally introduced by Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 and
previously challenged by the applicants (Cases T-75/04 to
T-79/04) into the ongoing review of substances in a way
which adversely affects their rights and legitimate expecta-
tions under Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the
placing of biocidal products on the market (hereinafter ‘the
BDP’) (3);

(ii) are contradictory in themselves and at odds with the BPD,

and

(iii) violate provisions of the EC Treaty and a series of high-
ranking principles of EC law such as the principle of undis-
torted competition, legal certainty and legitimate expecta-
tions, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimina-
tion, as well as the right to property and freedom to pursue
a trade.

Moreover, the applicants claim that as participants in the second
review regulation, they are entitled to benefit from procedural
guarantees and data protection rights (i.e. exclusive use) for the
data in their notifications and complete dossiers in all Member
the BPD. However,
States in accordance with Article 12 of
according to the applicants, Article 4 of
the SRR, by not
requiring Member States to cancel biocidal product registrations
corresponding to the applicants' notified active substance/
product type combinations held by competing companies which
do not participate in the review and have no access to the data
submitted by the applicants for the purposes of the review, de
jure and de facto violates the exclusive use right granted to the
applicants by Article 12 of the BPD. In addition, the applicants
submit that the defendant misused the powers entrusted upon it
by the basic BPD, by deliberately implementing the BPD in a
way which goes beyond the text of it and upsets the applicants'
rights and expectations. Further,
the
contested measure violates EC Treaty provisions on fair competi-
tion by allowing companies which do not participate in the
review and do not bear investment costs to remain on the
market and regain a competitive advantage over the applicants.

submitted that

is

it

The applicants finally raise a plea of illegality against Article 6(2)
of the FRR and Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of the BPD.

(1) OJ 2007 L 325, p. 3.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003
on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in
Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the
market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ 2003
L 307, p. 1).

(3) OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1.

(Case T-129/08)

(2008/C 128/75)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicants: Markku Sahlstedt (Karkkila, Finland), Juha Kankkunen
(Laukaa, Finland), Mikko Tanner (Vihti, Finland), Toini Tanner
(Helsinki, Finland), Liisa Tanner (Helsinki, Finland), Eeva Jokinen
(Helsinki, Finland), Aili Oksanen (Helsinki, Finland), Olli Tanner
(Lohja, Finland), Leena Tanner (Helsinki, Finland), Aila Puttonen
(Ristiina, Finland), Risto Tanner (Espoo, Finland), Tom Järvinen
(Espoo, Finland), Runo K. Kurko (Espoo, Finland), Maa- ja metsä-
taloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry (Helsinki, Finland), Maata-
loustuottajain Keskusliiton Säätiö (Helsinki, Finland) (represented
by: K. Marttinen, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision which is the subject of this action in so
far as it concerns all the SCI sites in the Republic of Finland
mentioned in that decision;

— alternatively, should the Court not consider the foregoing
possible, annul the decision in so far as it concerns the
specific SCI sites set out section 6.2.2.7 of the application;

— requests for information and measures of inquiry:

If
the
the dispute is not decided solely on the basis of
evidence submitted in this application in favour of the appli-
cants,
in accordance with the above principal heads of
claim, the Court of First Instance of the European Commu-
nities should:

1. order the Commission of the European Communities to
in CD-Rom format, with the
provide the applicants,
proposals submitted to it by Finland,
including all the
areas included in the contested decision together with all
information referred to in recital (7) in the preamble to
the contested decision,

2. order the Commission of the European Communities to
provide to the applicants, in CD-Rom format, scientific
data concerning habitats and other information in its
possession relating to all the areas of the Republic of
Finland referred to in recital (8) in the preamble to the
contested decision, together with,
in paper format, the
maps and the information referred to in recital (9) in the
preamble thereto,

3. order the Commission of the European Communities to
provide the applicants, in CD-Rom format, with all the
documents
relating to the sites in the Republic of
Finland drawn up during the cooperation mentioned in
recital (10) in the preamble to the contested decision, or
made available to the Commission at that time, together
with paper copies of the maps, and

C 128/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.5.2008

4. order the Commission of the European Communities to
provide the applicants with the opinion of the Habitats
Committee mentioned in recital (15) in the preamble to
the contested decision.

— order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs in full,

together with statutory interest.

Action brought on 4 April 2008 — Aurelia Finance v
OHIM (AURELIA)

(Case T-136/08)

(2008/C 128/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

The applicants submit that the decision (1) is contrary to Com-
munity law, in particular Articles 3 and 4 of the Habitats Direc-
tive and Annex III thereto, referred to in Article 4. The grounds
alleging non-conformity of the decision with Community law
are set out in four principal pleas:

Applicant: Aurelia Finance SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented
by M. Elmslie, Solicitor)

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

(a) The Habitats Directive does not permit earlier decisions
relating to the list of sites of Community importance (‘SCI
sites’) to be annulled by way of new decisions in the manner
and on the grounds set out. The procedural rules in the
Habitats Directive are also binding on the Commission. Any
other interpretation would lead to legal uncertainty in rela-
tion to national
implementing measures and the legal
protection of landowners.

(b) According to Article 3 of the Habitats Directive, the Natura
2000 network is a coherent European network of protected
areas which is intended to guarantee a favourable conserva-
tion status as defined in the directive. The coherence of the
network is guaranteed and the favourable conservation
status achieved by the fact that Article 4 of and Annex III to
the directive, relating to the choice of sites, are detailed tech-
nical substantive law rules which are binding on both the
Member States and the Commission. Areas cannot be
selected as SCI sites without following those two stages.
Given the favourable conservation status which was desig-
nated as a coherent objective, sites in each Member State
must be selected in accordance with uniform criteria corre-
sponding to Article 4 of and Annex III to the Habitats
Directive.

(c) Stage 1 in Annex III (the Member State stage) and Stage 2
thereof (the Commission stage) form a whole consisting of
acts accompanied by legal effects. The decision relating to
sites of Community importance in Stage 2 of the procedure
is not
the
proposal
in Stage 1 does not satisfy the conditions laid
down by the directive.

in accordance with the Habitats Directive if

(d) When the Republic of Finland was preparing its proposal
relating to the boreal region as an SCI site, neither Article 4
of
the Habitats Directive nor the provisions relating to
Stage 1 in Annex III to the directive were observed. As the
Republic of Finland's proposal was accepted in its entirety,
and as regards all the sites, by decision of the Commission,
the Commission decision relating to the SCI sites is also
contrary to the directive on that ground alone.

(1) Commission Decision 2008/24/EC of 12 November 2007 adopting,
pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a first updated list of sites
of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region
(OJ 2008 L 12, p. 118).

Form of order sought

— Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 9 January

2008 in case R 1214/2007-1;

— Remit the applicant's application for restitutio in integrum to

OHIM for reconsideration; and

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: A word mark consisting of the
word AURELIA for various services in class 36 — application
No 274 936

Decision of the OHIM: Refusal of the application for restitutio in
integrum

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 78 of Council Regulation
No 40/94 as the standard of due care required in connection
with administrative renewals is lower than that for a party to
proceedings before OHIM.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 April 2008 —
Elektrociepłownia (Zielona Góra) v Commission

(Case T-142/06) (1)

(2008/C 128/77)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) has
ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.