Case T-238/08: Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Commission v Commune de Valbonne
Date: 2008-06-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Economic Interest Grouping, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), contract, financial solvency, research, teaching

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

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/51

Faced with ARCHI-MED's insolvency, the Commission seeks an
order that the defendant pay the sums due, since the contracting
parties were jointly and severally liable to perform the contract.

— the Commission incorrectly assumed that the offer made by
the competitor, Lidl, was incompatible with a number of
conditions and that it was binding and credible; and

Action brought on 23 June 2008 — Konsum Nord v
Commission

(Case T-244/08)

(2008/C 223/89)

— the Commission wrongly applied the principle of a private

investor in a market economy.

Further, the applicant submits that the Commission disregarded
its own guidelines in the Communication on State aid elements
in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (1) and failed
to fulfil
its duty of inquiry since it failed to examine all the
factual circumstances.

Finally, the applicant asserts that the alleged State aid neither
distorts competition nor affects trade between the Member
States.

Language of the case: Swedish

(1) OJ 1997 C 209, p. 3.

Parties

Applicant: Konsum Nord ekonomisk förening (Umeå, Sweden)
(represented by: U. Öberg, lawyer)

Action brought on 20 June 2008 — Iranian Tobacco v
OHIM — AD Bulgartabac (TIR 20 FILTER CIGARETTES)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

in its

entirety Commission Decision C(2008)
311 final of 30 January 2008 on the State aid implemented
by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland ekonomisk förening;

(Case T-245/08)

(2008/C 223/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

— order the Commission of the European Communities to pay

the costs.

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

By decision of 30 January 2008 on State aid No C 35/2006 (ex
NN 37/2006) implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland,
which merged with the applicant in 2006, the Commission
found that the sale by the municipality of Åre of parts of an
unbuilt plot of land for SEK 2 million instead of SEK 6,6 million,
which was offered by Konsum Jämtland's competitor, Lidl,
constituted State aid contrary to Article 87 EC.

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

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

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

The applicant submits in support of its action that the Commis-
sion has committed a series of incorrect assessments in its legal
classification of the disputed sale as State aid since:

Form of order sought

— the Commission incorrectly found that the sale was not at
the market price and thus constituted an economic advan-
tage for Konsum Jämtland;

— the Commission did not take into consideration the fact that
the sale formed part of a series of land transactions under-
taken between different parties, the purpose of which was
the implementation of detailed plans for the village of Åre;

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 11 April
2008 (Case R 708/2007-1), notified on 21 April 2008;

— order the third party to pay the refundable costs, including

those of the main proceedings and of the defendant;

— in the alternative, annul the decision of 11 April 2008 and
that of 7 March 2007 — 1414C — and hold the third
party's application of 8 November 2005 to be inadmissible.