Case T-426/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
Date: 2008-09-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Community, Italy, action for annulment (EU), citrus fruit, common agricultural policy, export, fruit vegetable, marketing, milk product

C 301/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal (i) failed to asses the
similarity of the trade marks by taking into account the overall
impression of the earlier trade mark, and (ii) failed to take into
account the interdependence of the relevant factors, in particular
the low similarity of the goods when assessing the likelihood of
confusion.

Action brought on 29 September 2008 — SOZA v
Commission

(Case T-413/08)

(2008/C 301/93)

Language of the case: English

In support of its claims the applicant submits that:

(i) the inclusion of

territorial delineations in its reciprocal
representation agreements is not the result of a concerted
practice, and

(ii) in the alternative, if there were a concerted practice on terri-
torial delineations, it would not be restrictive of competition
within the meaning of Article 81 EC.

On the basis of its first plea, the applicant submits that the
Commission made an error of assessment and infringed
Article 81 EC as well as Article 253 EC by determining that the
parallel territorial delineation included in the reciprocal repre-
sentation agreements concluded by the applicant and the other
EEA CISAC members is the result of a concerted practice,
whereas the decision failed to provide any evidence of such a
concerted practice.

On the basis of its second plea, the applicant contends that the
alleged concerted practice on territorial delineations is not
illegal because it concerns a form of competition that is not
worthy of protection. Moreover, the applicant claims that, even
if the alleged practice should be considered to restrict competi-
tion, it does not infringe Article 81(1) EC because it is necessary
and proportionate to a legitimate objective.

Parties

(1) International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers.

Applicant: Slovenský ochranný Zväz Autorský pre práva k
hudobným dielam (SOZA) (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (repre-
sented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July
2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and
Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC); and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application the applicant seeks partial annul-
ment of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a
proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case
COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) and in particular, of its Article 3,
the EEA CISAC (1) members engaged in a
determining that
concerted practice
in violation of Article 81 EC and
Article 53 EEA by coordinating the territorial delineations of
the reciprocal representation mandates granted to one another
in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each
collecting society.

Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Italy v
Commission

(Case T-426/08)

(2008/C 301/94)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato
dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/57

Form of order sought

Action brought on 30 September 2008 — SIAE v
Commission

— annul decision 8/VII/2008 No C(2008) 3411 final, notified
on 11 July 2008, excluding from Community financing
certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under
the European Agricultural
the Guarantee Section of
the
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) in so far as it
makes certain financial corrections to be borne by Italy.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision the Commission excluded from Com-
munity financing chargeable to the EAGGF four categories of
expenditure incurred by the Italian State from 2001 to 2006.
They were corrections relating to certain export refunds of fruit
and vegetables and sugar, aid for citrus processing in respect of
the financial years 2004 and 2005, the amount of the addi-
tional levy to be applied to milk products which in production
and marketing exceed the milk quotas allocated to them in rela-
tion to the 2002-2003 marketing campaign and area/arable
crops aid in respect of 2004, 2005 and 2006.

(Case T-433/08)

(2008/C 301/95)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società Italiana degli Autori ed Editori — SIAE
(Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, M. Mandel, L. Vullo,
and S. Valentino, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

In support of its claims the applicant submits that the controls
carried out were correct and fair.

Form of order sought

In this case the applicant relies on infringement of the duty to
state reasons, the principle of proportionality, Articles 11, 12
and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July
2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk
and milk products (1), Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC)
the
No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of
common agricultural policy, Article 31 of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the
common agricultural policy (2), Article 31 of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the
common agricultural policy (3), Articles 22 and 30 of Commis-
sion Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001
laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated adminis-
tration and control system for certain Community aid schemes
established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (4), and
Articles 50, 51 and 30 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for
the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the
integrated administration and control system provided for in of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common
rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural
policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (5).

(1) OJ L 187 of 10.7.2001, p. 19.
(2) OJ L 160 of 26.6.1999, p. 103.
(3) OJ L 209 of 11.8.2005, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 327 of 12.12.2001, p. 11.
(5) OJ L 141 of 30.4.2004, p. 18.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul Articles 3 and 4(2) of the Decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the

applicant in the present proceedings;

— order any other measure, including measures of inquiry, that

it considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Decision contested in the present proceedings is the same
as that contested in Case T-392/08 AEPI v Commission.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

By the first plea, the applicant alleges infringement and misap-
plication of Article 81 EC, and lack of a preparatory inquiry, in
so far as the Decision makes a finding of concerted practice
even though there is no evidence to support that finding apart
from the mere fact that many reciprocal representation agree-
ments restrict the power to grant licences to the territory in
which the other collecting society operates. In that connection,
the Commission disregards the fact that many collecting socie-
their
ties believe that they can best guarantee the rights of
members by entrusting their catalogues or
to
collecting societies which can offer efficient protection of the

repertoires