Case T-362/08: Action brought on 28 August 2008 — IFAW Internationaler Tiershutz-Fonds v Commission
Date: 2008-08-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Germany, action for annulment (EU), animal life, biotope, disclosure of information, environmental protection, plant life

C 301/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

Ninth, the commitments in the areas covered were furthermore
incapable of ensuring effective competition.

Tenth, the applicant's right to a fair hearing was infringed by
procedural errors.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the
control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger
Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the
trade marks at issue due to their similar overall impression.

Action

brought

on

28 August

2008 — IFAW

Internationaler Tiershutz-Fonds v Commission

Action brought on 27 August 2008 — Peek & Cloppenburg
and van Graaf v OHIM — Thailand (Thai Silk)

(Case T-361/08)

(2008/C 301/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

(Case T-362/08)

(2008/C 301/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) and van
Graaf GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: V. von
Bombard, A. Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Thailand

Form of order sought

— annulment of the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
the Office
Internal Market
for Harmonisation in the
(Trade Marks and Designs) No R 1677/2007-4 of 10 June
2008

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Thailand

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark ‘Thai
Silk’ with the colours ‘dark blue and white’
for goods in
Classes 24 and 25 (Registration No 4 099 297)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the
Applicants

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Representation of a black and
white peacock for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

IFAW Internationaler

Applicant:
gGmbH
(Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Crosby and S. Santoro,
lawyers)

Tiershutz-Fonds

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— To order the Commission to produce to the Court the letter
from Mr Schröder, German Chancellor, of 15 March 2000
to Mr Prodi, President of the Commission;

— To find that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of
law and by manifest errors of assessment and to annul it
accordingly; and

— To order

the Commission to pay the applicant's costs
pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of procedure of the
Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 18 December 2007 in Case C-64/05 P (1), the
Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of 30 November 2004 in Case T-168/02 IFAW Interna-
tionaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission [2004] ECR 1435, annul-
ling the Commission's decision of 26 March 2002 which had
refused access to the documents requested by the applicant by
application of 20 December 2001, concerning the declassifica-
tion of the Elbe site in Hamburg, a nature reserve, protected by
the Natura 2000 scheme, as established by Council Directive
92/43/EEC (2),
the existing Daimler
Chrysler Aerospace GmbH plant for the final assembly of the
Airbus A3XX. As a consequence,
in the light of the Court's
judgment on appeal, the applicant, by letter of 13 February
2008, renewed its application for access to the requested docu-
ments and made a confirmatory application, in accordance with
Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3) on 29 April
2008.

the expansion of

for

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/43

the present application,

By means of
the applicant seeks,
pursuant to Article 230 EC, the annulment of the Commission's
decision of 19 June 2008, granting partial access to its request
and refusing to allow access to one of the documents for which
the applicant applied under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of
the European Parliament and of the Council.

The applicant claims that the Commission committed an error
of law by applying Article 4(1)(a), third indent of Regulation
(EC) No 1049/2001 to a purely intra-EU relationship. Moreover,
the applicant submits that the Commission committed a mani-
fest error of law in considering that the content of Mr Schrö-
der's letter was confidential to such an extent that its disclosure
would jeopardise the economic policy of Germany and other
EU Member States. Further, the applicant contends that the
Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in consid-
ering that the disclosure of the letter would compromise the
decision-making process and, finally, by not considering public
interest as overriding the confidential nature of
is decision-
making process.

(1) Case C-64/05 P Kingdom of Sweden v Commission [2007] ECR 11389.
(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,
p. 7).

(3) 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 2 September 2008 — Federcoopesca
and Others v Commission

(Case T-366/08)

(2008/C 301/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Federazione Nazionale delle Cooperative della Pesca
(Federcoopesca) (Rome, Italy); Pappalardo (Cetara, Italy); Pesca-
tori La Tonnara (Cetara, Italy); Fedemar (Cetara, Italy); I Ciclopi
di Tudisco Matteo (Catania, Italy); Testa (Catania, Italy); Pescatori
San Pietro Apostolo, Camplone (Pescara,
Italy), and Pesca
(Pescara, Italy) (represented by: P. Cavatola, V. Cannizzaro and G.
Micucci, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June
2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse

seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of
longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-305/08 Italian Republic v Commission
and Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore snc v
Commission.

Action brought on 26 August 2008 — Atlantean v
Commission

(Case T-368/08)

(2008/C 301/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Atlantean Ltd (Killybegs,
(represented by:
M. Fraser, D. Hennessy, Solicitors, G. Hogan SC, E. Regan, and
C. Toland, Barristers)

Ireland)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2008) 3236 of 26 June
2008 addressed to Ireland responding to the request by
Ireland concerning the Atlantean;

— Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs of these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant is bringing an action for
partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3236 final
of 26 June 2008 which provided for the rejection of the request
the applicant's vessel Atlantean to
by Ireland in respect of
increase capacity under
the fourth multi-annual guidance
programme (MAGP IV) applicable for the reasons of improve-
ments in safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and
working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length
overall. The first Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April
2003 (1) rejecting the request by Ireland was annulled by the
Court's judgment of 13 June 2006 in so far as it applied to the
applicant's vessel Atlantean (2).