Case T-221/08: Action brought on 6 June 2008 — Strack v Commission
Date: 2008-06-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), audiovisual document, provision of documents

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/45

Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Gosselin World Wide
Moving v Commission

(Case T-208/08)

(2008/C 223/78)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Gosselin World Wide Moving (Deurne, Belgium)
(represented by: F. Wijckmans, lawyer, and S. De Keer, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

determined the gravity of the infringement,
its duration, the
value of turnover with regard to setting the basic amount of the
fine, and rejected the existence of any mitigating circumstances
for the applicant for the purposes of the fine.

In the alternative, the third plea alleges breach of the principle
of equal treatment, in particular when the Commission deter-
mined the gravity of the infringement and the value of relevant
turnover for the purposes of the fine.

(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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation No 17 : First Regulation implementing Articles 85

and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition, 1962, p. 87).

(3) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (Text with EEA relevance)
(OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).

Form of order sought

Action brought on 6 June 2008 — Strack v Commission

— Annul Commission Decision C(2008)926 final of 11 March
2008, notified to the applicant on 25 March 2008, relating
to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.543 —
International removal services), in so far as it concerns the
applicant;

— In the alternative, annul Article 1 of the Decision, in so far
as it concerns the applicant, inasmuch as it finds a conti-
nuous infringement by the applicant from 31 January 1992
until 18 September 2002, and reduce the fine imposed on it
in Article 2,
in a manner corresponding to that adjusted
period of the infringement;

(Case T-221/08)

(2008/C 223/79)

Language of the case: German

— In the alternative, annul Article 2(e) of the Decision, in so
far as it concerns the applicant, on the grounds set out in
the second and/or third pleas, and reduce correspondingly
the fine imposed on it in Article 2;

Parties

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H.
Tettenborn, lawyer)

Pleas in law and main arguments

the plea submits that

the Decision infringes
The applicant's first plea alleges that
Article 81 EC. The first part of
the
Commission has not proved that the acts alleged against the
applicant are to be classified as an appreciable restriction of
competition for the purposes of Article 81 EC. The second part
submits that the Commission has not correctly proved that that
the agreement in which the applicant participated could appreci-
ably affect trade between Member States.

In the alternative, the second plea submits that the Decision
infringed Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), Regulation
No 17/62 (2), and the Guidelines on the method of setting
fines (3). Those provisions were infringed when the Commission

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decisions, particularly the decision of 19 May
2008, adopted by the Commission — either actually or in
the form of a deemed refusal under Article 8(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — in the context of the
processing of the applicant's application for access to docu-
ments of 18 January 2008 and 19 January 2008 and his
confirmatory application of 22 February 2008, 18 April
2008 and, in particular, 21 April 2008, in so far as they
refuse those applications either in part or in full;

C 223/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.8.2008

— order

the European Commission to pay the applicant
compensation for the immaterial and moral damage suffered
by the applicant as a result of the processing of his applica-
least symbolic
tion, of an appropriate amount, but at
damages in the amount of 1 Euro;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the

procedure

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of

6 March 2008 in Case R 1257/2006-1;

— Alter that decision so that the appeal is dismissed;

— Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings,

including the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 18 and 19 January 2008, the applicant applied to the
Commission for access to numerous documents. The applicant
brings the present application because he was not granted
access to those documents, at least partly, within the period
provided for.

In support of his application, the applicant submits, in particu-
lar, that the defendant infringed Article 255 EC as well as
Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). In addition, the applicant claims
that there has been an infringement of the principles of good
administration, Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Funda-
mental Rights and the principles governing the obligation to
state reasons for refusal decisions laid down in Article 253 EC.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145,
p. 43)

Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Sanatur v OHIM —
Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim (life light)

(Case T-222/08)

(2008/C 223/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sanatur GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘life light’ for goods
in Class 32 (Application No 3 192 481).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim AG.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German figurative mark ‘LIGHT
live’ for goods in Class 32 (Mark No 302 00 216).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annul the decision of the Oppo-
sition Division.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1) in that no likelihood of confusion exists between
the conflicting marks.

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

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

Action brought on 12 June 2008 — Iranian Tobacco v
OHIM — AD Bulgartabac (Bahman)

(Case T-223/08)

(2008/C 223/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sanatur GmbH (Singen, Germany)
M. Wiume, lawyer)

(represented by:

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Tobacco Company (Teheran, Iran) (represented
by: M. Beckensträter, lawyer)

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim AG (Trier, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
AD Bulgartabac Holding (Sofia, Bulgaria)