Case T-136/08: Action brought on 4 April 2008 — Aurelia Finance v OHIM (AURELIA)
Date: 2008-04-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), banking, investment, provision of services, trade-mark law

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.