Case T-236/08: Action brought on 16 June 2008 — HPA v Commission
Date: 2008-06-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Economic Interest Grouping, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), debt, limitation of legal proceedings, principle of proportionality

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/49

Action brought on 17 June 2008 — Asenbaum Fine Arts v
OHIM (WIENER WERKSTÄTTE)

Action brought on 16 June 2008 — MPDV Mikrolab v
OHIM (ROI ANALYZER)

(Case T-231/08)

(2008/C 223/85)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Asenbaum Fine Arts Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
(represented by: P. Vögel, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 10 April
2008 (R 1571/2006-4) so as to allow the applicant's appeal
of 29 November 2006 in its entirety;

In the alternative annul the contested decision and refer the
matter back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market to complete the proceedings;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of
the appeal proceedings.

(Case T-233/08)

(2008/C 223/86)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbei-
tung und Mikroprozessorlabor (Mosbach, Germany) (represented
by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

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

of 15 April 2008 in Case R 1525/2006-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ROI ANALYZER’
for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 (Application
No 4 866 042).

Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected in part.

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1) in that the trade mark applied for does not
lack distinctive character and no requirement of availability
exists for it.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

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

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘WIENER WERK-
STÄTTE’ for goods in Class 14 (Application No 4 207 783).

Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected.

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1) in that the trade mark applied for is neither
descriptive nor devoid of distinctive character.

(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 16 June 2008 — HPA v Commission

(Case T-236/08)

(2008/C 223/87)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Hoofdproductschap Akkerbouw (The Hague, Nether-
lands) (represented by: R.J.M. van den Tweel)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

C 223/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.8.2008

Form of order sought

subsequently informing the applicant in good time of activities
which might have suspended the limitation period.

— declare non-existent, or at least annul, Commission Decision
C(2006)7093/6 of 19 December 2006 concerning the
recovery of Claim No 3240206544 payable jointly and
severally by the members of the European Economic Interest
Grouping (EEIG) Euroterroirs, within the framework of
Project No 93.EU.06.002 concerning a study to compile an
inventory on European heritage in respect of typical and
regional agricultural and food products (certified local and
regional products), at any rate in so far as the Hoofdpro-
ductschap Akkerbouw is thereby held to be jointly and
severally liable for the full amount of the aforementioned
claim;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the
European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) (OJ 1985 L 199, p. 1).

Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Commission v
Commune de Valbonne

(Case T-238/08)

(2008/C 223/88)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Language of the case: French

The applicant challenges the recovery of a claim from Euroter-
roirs established by Commission decision of 14 August 2000.
According to the applicant, the contested decision must, at least
to the extent to which the applicant is thereby declared to be
jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the claim, be
declared to be non-existent and void, in view of the fact that
that decision is vitiated by particularly serious and manifest
defects. The applicant further contends that a ruling can be
given to the effect that the decision has given rise to no effects
in law even after expiry of the period within which that decision
ought to have been challenged.

By its first plea, the applicant submits that there has been a
breach of Regulation No 2137/85 (1) inasmuch as the applicant
has never been a member of the European Economic Interest
Grouping (EEIG) Euroterroirs and for that reason cannot be
liable.

Second, the applicant alleges infringement of the rights of the
defence. The Commission, it submits, failed to provide the appli-
cant with an opportunity to set out
its views before the
Commission adopted the contested decision, and notified the
applicant of the claim established by decision of 14 August
2000 only when it sent the contested decision to the applicant.

Third, the applicant submits that the principle of proportionality
has been infringed. The Commission,
it claims, declared the
applicant to be jointly and severally liable six years after the
claim was established without first having itself taken appro-
priate measures against Euroterroirs, against
the establishing
member — and also the administrator — of Euroterroirs,
namely the Conseil national des Arts Culinaires (CNAC)
in
France, or against the Member State France. In addition, the
applicant submits, the Netherlands expert engaged for individual
inventarising activities in 1994/1995 in the context of the Euro-
terroirs project received remuneration of merely EUR 13 055.

In conclusion, the applicant submits that the claim is time-
barred in view of the fact that the Commission sent the disputed
debit note to Euroterroirs on 28 September 2000 without

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Escobar Guerrero, acting as Agent, and E. Bouttier,
lawyer)

Defendant: Commune de Valbonne

Form of order sought

— Order the Commune de Valbonne, represented by its current
mayor, to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 18 619,38
corresponding to the principal sum of EUR 14 261,29 and
late-payment interest thereon of EUR 4 358,09 due from
31 May 2008;

— Order

the Commune de Valbonne to pay the sum of
EUR 5 000 in order to cover the costs the applicant was
obliged to incur to recover the debt;

— Order the Commune de Valbonne to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

For 1998 and 1999,
the Commission concluded, with the
Commune de Valbonne (municipality of Valbonne) in France,
the municipality of Fermo in Italy and the European Economic
Interest Group ARCHI-MED, a research and training contract
relating to a mutual education project between the city of
Valbonne and the province of Di Ascoli Piceno, called ‘VALASPI
MM 1027’.

The municipalities and ARCHI-MED undertook,
inter alia, to
supply the Commission with a final report. Since they did not
supply that report following a letter of formal notice from the
the
Commission,
contracting parties had failed to fulfil their obligations under the
contract and terminated it, requesting reimbursement of part of
the advances paid by the Commission, together with interest.

the Commission took the

view that