Case T-197/08: Action brought on 23 May 2008 — Polson and Others v Commission
Date: 2008-05-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), aid system, control of State aid, fishing vessel, shareholder

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/55

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the
European Union (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2007 in
Case F-112/06 Krcova v Court of Justice, not yet published in
the ECR,

— Annul the decision of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities of 17 October 2005 by which the appellant
was dismissed following her probationary period and, in so
far as necessary, the decision of 16 September 2005 to
extend her probationary period by two months, and the
report on the probationary period of 12 September 2005
recommending her dismissal,

cant on 3 March 2008, deciding that the applicant must be
required to repay the sum of EUR 25 485,00, equivalent to
PTE 5 109 287.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The training programme was carried out in full.

The auditors used criteria far removed from reality and for
reasons quite foreign to the applicant they treated costs as ineli-
gible.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred before the
Civil Service Tribunal and before the Court of First Instance.

All the expenditure ought to have been regarded as eligible and
taken into consideration in the final account.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks annulment of the
judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal
(CST) of 18 October
2007 in Case F-112/06 Krcova v Court of Justice dismissing the
action by which the appellant sought annulment of the decision
of the Court of Justice dismissing the appellant at the end of her
probationary period.

After the lapse of twenty years, repayment of any amount is
flagrant injustice and runs counter to the fundamental princi-
ples of proportionality and of certainty for citizens before the
law and the institutions.

The appellant claims that the CST ruled ultra petita and incor-
rectly interpreted Article 34 of the Staff Regulations of the
European Communities.

Action brought on 23 May 2008 — Polson and Others v
Commission

Action brought on 12 May 2008 — Rui Manuel Alves dos
Santos v Commission

(Case T-184/08)

(2008/C 209/99)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos (Rominha, Alvaiázere,
Portugal) (represented by A. Marques Fernandes, lawyer)

(Case T-197/08)

(2008/C 209/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Magnus Polson (Lerwick, United Kingdom), Garry
Sandison (Lerwick, United Kingdom), Andrew Anderson
Ian Johnston (Lerwick, United
(Whalsay, United Kingdom),
Kingdom) (represented by: R. Murray, Solicitor, R. Thompson,
QC)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— annul Articles 1(2), 3, 4 and 5 of Commission Decision
State Aid No C 39/06 (ex NN 94/2005) of 13 November
2007 concerning the First Time Shareholders Scheme imple-
mented in the United Kingdom;

— annulment of the European Commission's decision, adopted
in connection with Case 89 0488 P1, notified to the appli-

— order the Commission to pay costs of the proceedings.

C 209/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

In the present case, the applicants seek partial annulment of
Commission Decision 2008/166/EC, State Aid No C 39/06 (ex
NN 94/2005) of 13 November 2007 concerning the First Time
Shareholders Scheme implemented by the United Kingdom (1).
In the contested decision the Commission found that the aid
it
was
concerned aid granted for the first time acquisition of a share in
a second-hand fishing vessel and required the United Kingdom
to recover the aid granted. The applicants are the beneficiaries
of the aid to be recovered.

incompatible with the common market as

far as

The applicants seek annulment of the contested decision on the
following grounds:

— The Commission erred in law in finding that all payments
made for first time acquisition of a share in a second-hand
fishing vessel were incompatible with the common market
and had to be repaid; the applicants claim that the awarded
grants fall within the scope of Commission Regulation
875/2007 (2) and should be therefore considered de minimis
aids compatible with the common market; they claim that
Articles 1(2) and Articles 3 to 5 of the contested decision
unlawfully extend to beneficiaries of aid who complied in
substance with the relevant Community guidelines;

— The Commission erred in law in finding that the recovery of
these payments would be compatible with Article 14(1) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (3) as well as with the
general principles of legal certainty and the protection of
legitimate expectations and of equality of treatment.

(1) OJ 2008 L 55, p. 27.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 875/2007 of 24 July 2007 on the
application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid
in the fisheries sector and amending Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004,
OJ 2007 L 193, p. 6.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
(OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Habanos v OHIM —
Tabacos de Centroamérica

(Case T-207/08)

(2008/C 209/101)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
OHIM of 31 March 2008, and declare that there is a simi-
larity, and a likelihood of confusion, between the composite
mark KIOWA and the earlier composite marks COHIBA,
which designate identical profits, and a intent, on the part of
the applicant for registration, of undue profit from/detri-
ment to the distinctive character and or the reputation of
the earlier COHIBA marks cited, and thus refuse registration
of the Community mark No 3.963.931 KIOWA (composite);
the OHIM
or,
referred to, and order that the file be sent back to the
Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM so that the claims and
evidence relating to Article 8(5) of Regulation 40/94 be
analysed and examined, and

in the alternative, annul

the decision of

— order OHIM to pay the costs of all instances, including the

fees of the applicant's representatives.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Tabacos de Centroamérica,
SL

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘KIOWA’
respect of goods in Class 34 (application No 3.963.931)

in

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Corporación Habanos, SA, which operates under the business
name of Habanos, SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘COHIBA’ (Com-
munity mark No. 3.323.292), word mark ‘COHIBA’ (Spanish
mark No 1.271.173) and the figurative mark ‘COHIBA’ (Spanish
mark No 2.052.344) in respect of products in Class 34.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition.

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Parties

Applicant: Corporación Habanos, SA (Ciudad de la Habana,
Cuba) (represented by: V. Gil Vega and A. Luiz López, lawyers)

Pleas in law: In particular, a high level of similarity between the
opposing marks, resulting in a risk of confusion.