Case T-336/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — 2K-Teint and Others v Commission and EIB (Non-contractual liability — Financing contract concluded with Morocco — EIB's alleged negligence and failures in monitoring a loan financed by the Community budget — Limitation — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2008-04-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EC action to establish liability, European Commission, European Investment Bank, financial institution, loan, short-term credit

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/25

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2008 —
Meggle v OHIM — Clover (HiQ with trefoil)

Re:

(Case T-37/06) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of
opposition — No need to adjudicate)

(2008/C 142/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Application for the annulment of the Commission decisions of
10 March and 23 June 2006 refusing to grant the applicant
access
to document SEK(2005) 420 of 22 March 2005,
containing a legal analysis of a draft framework decision, under
discussion in the Council, on the retention of data processed
and stored in connection with the provision of publicly available
electronic communications services or data on public communi-
cations networks for the purpose of prevention, investigation,
detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences
including terrorism.

Applicant: Meggle AG (Wasserburg, Germany) (represented by: T.
Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

Operative part of the order

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)
J. Weberndörfer,
acting as Agent)

(represented by:

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. It is not necessary to rule on the applications to intervene;

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Clover Corporation
Limited (Sydney, Australia)

3. Landtag Schleswig-Holstein shall bear its own costs and pay the
Commission's costs, except those relating to the applications to
intervene;

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2005 (Case R 1130/2004-2)
concerning opposition proceedings between Meggle AG and
Clover Corporation Limited

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case.

2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

4. Landtag Schleswig-Holstein,

the Republic of
Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland shall bear their own costs in relation to the applications to
intervene.

the Commission,

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

(1) OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 —
2K-Teint and Others v Commission and EIB

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2008 —
Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission

(Case T-236/06) (1)

(Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regional
parliament — Lack of capacity to be a party to legal proceed-
ings — Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 142/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landtag Schleswig-Holstein (Germany)
by: S. Laskowski and J. Caspar)

(represented

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and C. Ladenburger)

(Case T-336/06) (1)

liability — Financing contract concluded
(Non-contractual
with Morocco — EIB's alleged negligence and failures in
monitoring a loan financed by the Community budget —
Limitation — Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 142/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: 2K-Teint SARL (Casablanca, Morocco); Mohammed
Kermoudi, Khalid Kermoudi, Laila Kermoudi, Mounia Kermoudi,
Salma Kermoudi and Rabia Kermoudi (Casablanca) (represented
by: P. Thomas, lawyer)

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by A. Aresu and V. Joris, Agents) and European Invest-
ment Bank (EIB) (represented by C. Gómez de la Cruz and J.-P.
Minnaert, Agents)

C 142/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.6.2008

Re:

Action for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the
the EIB's negligence and failures in
applicants by reason of
monitoring the use of funds intended for the completion of the
project of 2K-Teint,
in performance of the financing contract
concluded between the EIB, as agent of the Community, and the
Kingdom of Morocco.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. 2K-Teint SARL, Mohammed Kermoudi, Khalid Kermoudi, Laila
Kermoudi, Mounia Kermoudi, Salma Kermoudi and Rabia
Kermoudi are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the
costs incurred by the Commission and the European Investment
Bank (EIB).

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

Action brought on 19 February 2008 — Hellenic Republic
v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-86/08)

(2008/C 142/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: B. Kondolaimos, S.
Kharitaki, and by M. Tassopoulou)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to

— annul or otherwise amend the Commission's decision of
20 December 2007, notified under No E(2007) 6514 final
and published as Decision 2008/68/EC (OJ 2008 L 18,
p. 12), in so far as it imposes financial corrections on the
Hellenic Republic as specified in the application;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

imposed on it
(b) guarantee accompanying measures,
payment deadlines.

sectors:

in the

(a)

fruit and vegetables,
failure to meet

(c)

The applicant claims that
the contested decision should be
annulled because it is unlawful, inasmuch as Community provi-
sions were misinterpreted and misapplied, or it was based on an
error as to the facts and incorrect assessment of the factual
circumstances, or otherwise as having defective, insufficient and
imprecise reasoning, undermining the legal basis of the decision;
in addition it should be annulled because in imposing the
corrections in question the Commission infringed the principle
of proportionality and exceeded the bounds of its discretion.

In particular the applicant puts forward six grounds for annul-
ment.

in view of the factual circum-
As regards citrus processing,
the correction of 2 % imposed
that
stances and the fact
concerns the repetition of
the procedure from the bilateral
consultation stage, after the annulment of a similar Commission
decision by the Court of Justice of the European Communities
in Case C-5/03 (1), the applicant alludes first to the fact that the
Commission was in breach of its obligation to comply with the
judgments of the Court of Justice under Article 233 EC and the
principle of res iudicata, and also with the Community rules
and guidelines for the clearance of accounts. The applicant also
submits that the Commission did not have the necessary powers
at the time, that the imposition of a correction for a short-
coming in supplementary checking was unlawful and,
lastly,
that the 24-month rule was infringed because of the erroneous
categorisation of the letter of 1999 as a letter of conclusions.

Secondly, the applicant alleges error as to the facts, insufficient
reasoning, infringement of the principle of proportionality and
that the Commission exceeded the bounds of its discretion in
view of
the fact that the alleged infringement (payment by
cheque instead of bank transfer) concerns a shortcoming rather
than the non-existence of supplementary controls, with no
finding of unlawful payment, in conjunction with the date when
it was effected.

Thirdly, with regard to the correction in the sector of guarantee
accompanying measures, the applicant alleges infringement of
essential procedural requirements and otherwise alludes to the
fact that at the time the Commission was not empowered to
impose financial corrections retroactively for a period earlier
than 24 months before the sending of the conciliation letter.
Fourthly, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is
vitiated by insufficient reasoning, in so far as the conciliation
letter merely refers to a shortcoming and in the summary there
is doubt as to the exact reason for the correction.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's deci-
sion excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
in so far as it concerns the financial corrections
(EAGGF)

Fifthly, the applicant maintains that the Commission was in
error as to the facts and imposed a correction of 5 % in respect
of agro-environmental measures and the salvage measure in
infringement of the Community rules and guidelines for the
clearance of accounts, without justification,
in breach of the
principle of proportionality and exceeding the bounds of its
discretion.