Case T-141/08: Action brought on 15 April 2008 — E.ON Energie v Commission
Date: 2008-04-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), application of EU law, competition law, damages, dominant position

C 158/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2008

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance
(Interim measures) of 30 April 2008 — Spain v
Commission

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Flynn and A Steiblytė)

(Case T-65/08 R)

Re:

of

(Interim proceedings — Control
concentrations —
Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 —
Conditions imposed by the Spanish authorities on parties to a
concentration declared incompatible with the common market
— Application for stay of execution — Prima facie case —
Lack of urgency — Balance of interests)

Application for
suspension of operation of debit note
No 3240912189 of 17 December 2007 relating to Commission
Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007 cancelling the assis-
tance from the European Social Fund (ESF) granted to CPEM by
Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999.

(2008/C 158/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

Parties

2. Costs are reserved.

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad,
Agent)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Di Bucci, F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini
Fournier, acting as Agents)

Re:

5913

Application for stay of execution of Commission Decision
(Case
Final
C(2007)
No COMP/M.4685 — Enel/Acciona/Endesa)
in relation to a
procedure pursuant to Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentra-
tions between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1)

5 December

2007

of

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of
18 April 2008 — CPEM v Commission

(Case T-106/08 R)

(Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation
— Further application — New fact — None — Inadmissi-
bility — Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance)

(2008/C 158/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): CPEM (Marseille,
Bonnefoi, lawyer)

France)

(represented by: C.

Action brought on 15 April 2008 — E.ON Energie v
Commission

(Case T-141/08)

(2008/C 158/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: E.ON Energie AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by:
A. Röhling, C. Krohs and F. Dietrich, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

the defendant's Decision C(2008) 377 Final of
30 January 2008 in Case COMP/B-1/39.326 — E.ON
Energie;

— In the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on

the applicant to an appropriate amount;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2008) 377
Final of 30 January 2008 in Case COMP/B-1/39.326 — E.ON
Energie AG. In that decision the Commission imposed a fine
on the applicant as it broke a seal affixed by representatives
of the Commission under Article 20(2)(d) of Regulation (EC)
No 1/2003 (1) and, at least negligently, infringed Article 23(1)(e)
of that regulation.

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/19

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law in support of
its
action. In the first six pleas the applicant attempts to state that
there is insufficient evidence of an infringement of the law. It is
submitted in particular that there was failure to have regard to
the full burden of proof which lies with the defendant, infringe-
ment of the inquisitorial principle, an erroneous assumption
that the seal was affixed properly, a false assumption that there
was something amiss with the condition of the seal on the
following day, a false assumption as to the suitability of the
security foil, and that there was failure on the defendant's part
to consider alternative scenarios.

With the seventh plea it is submitted that the presumption of
innocence was disregarded and thus essential rules as to proce-
dure and form were infringed.

the applicant submits that

the defendant erred in
Eighth,
making the accusation of fault for the purpose of Article 23 of
Regulation No 1/2003.

Lastly, it is submitted that there were infringements of the law
when the fine was calculated. According to the applicant there
was infringement of the principle prohibiting arbitrary measures
and of
laid down in
Article 253 EC. There was failure to have regard to mitigating
circumstances and an erroneous acceptance of aggravating
circumstances.

the obligation to state

reasons

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Action brought on 17 April 2008 — Atlas Transport v
OHIM — Atlas Air (ATLAS)

(Case T-145/08)

(2008/C 158/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 24 January 2008 (Case R 1023/2007-1);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of
invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘ATLAS’ for goods and
services in classes 9, 36 and 39 (Community trade mark
No 2 970 788).

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Atlas Air, Inc.

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: In particular the
figurative mark ‘ATLASAiR’ registered in the Benelux States for
goods in class 39 (No 555 184).

Decision of
declared partially invalid for services in class 39.

the Cancellation Division: Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Applicant's appeal dismissed as
inadmissible.

Pleas in law: Infringement of the third sentence of Article 59 of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the grounds of the appeal were
linked to very specific assumptions and implicit grounds were
not regarded as being sufficient. Further, analogous infringement
of Article 61 of Regulation No 40/94 in conjunction with
Rule 20(7) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2), as the proceed-
ings before OHIM should necessarily have been suspended.

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

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

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community
trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

Action brought on 17 April 2008 — Deutsche Rockwool
v OHIM — Redrock
Construction
Mineralwoll
(REDROCK)

(Case T-146/08)

(2008/C 158/32)

Applicant: Atlas Transport GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (repre-
sented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus,
Rechstanwälte)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

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

Parties

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Atlas Air, Inc. (New York, United States of America)

Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG
(Gladbeck,
Beckmann,
(represented
Rechstanwältin)

Germany)

by:

S.