Case T-511/08: Action brought on 27 November 2008 — Unity OSG FZE/Conseil et EUPOL Afghanistan
Date: 2008-11-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Afghanistan, Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, contract, provision of services, security services

C 32/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2009

Pleas in law and main arguments

— take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of
the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant's
request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access
to documents relating to State aid procedures concerning the
presumed State aid granted through an agreement with the
operator of Tampere-Pirkkala airport. The said decision was
followed by the express decision of 31 October 2008. The
annulment of the express decision is alternatively sought by the
applicant in the present case.

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant
are identical to those relied on in Case T-494/08 Ryanair v
Commission.

(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.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of
the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant's
request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access
to documents relating to State aid procedures concerning the
presumed State aid granted through an agreement with the
operator of Bratislava airport. The said decision was followed by
the express decision of 26 September 2008. The annulment of
the express decision is alternatively sought by the applicant in
the present case.

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant
are identical to those relied on in Case T-494/08 Ryanair v
Commission.

(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 7 November 2008 — Ryanair/
Commission

(Case T-509/08)

(2009/C 32/85)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 27 November 2008 — Unity OSG
FZE/Conseil et EUPOL Afghanistan

(Case T-511/08)

(2009/C 32/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin,
Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Ireland)

(represented by: E.

Parties

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the
Commission's implied decision refusing access to the docu-
ments for which access was requested by the applicant in an
application dated 20 June 2008 is void and that
the
Commission's decision of 26 September 2008 refusing
access to the same documents is non-existent;

— alternatively, declare

in accordance with Articles 230
and 231 EC that the Commission's decision of 26 September
2008 refusing access to the documents for which access was
requested by the applicant in an application dated 20 June
2008 is void;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the

applicant in the proceedings; and

Applicant: Unity OSG FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (repre-
sented by: C. Bryant and J. McEwen, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Union
Police Mission in Afghanistan (‘EUPOL Afghanistan’)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the European Union Police Mission in
(i) to reject the appli-
Afghanistan (‘EUPOL Afghanistan’)
cant's tender in relation to the contract for provision of
guarding and close protection services in Afghanistan, (ii) to
award the contract to another tenderer as communicated to
the applicant by letter of 23 November 2008;

— order the defendant to bear the applicant's costs pursuant to
Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance.

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/45

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 19 December 2007, the applicant entered into a contract
with the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (1)
(‘EUPOL Afghanistan’) for the provision of security services. In
September 2008, EUPOL Afghanistan issued a public procure-
ment notice concerning the provision of guarding and close
protection services which was published (2) on the European
Commission's website in relation to the ‘EuropeAid’ programme
and in accordance to the provisions of Title V of Part One of
the Financial Regulation 1605/2002 (3)
(‘the Financial Regu-
lation’) and the detailed rules for the implementation of the
Financial Regulation contained in Commission Regulation
2342/2002 (4).

The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of EUPOL
Afghanistan of 23 November 2008, by which the applicant was
informed that its tender had not been successful and that the
contract would be awarded to Armor Group, on the basis of the
following grounds:

First, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the prin-
ciples of equal treatment and non-discrimination provided for in
Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation.

Second, the applicant submits that the conditions applicable to
contacts between the contracting authority and tenderers during
the procurement process as set out in Article 99 of the Financial
Regulation and in Articles 120(2)(d) and 148 of the Imple-
menting Rules have been infringed.

Third, the applicant contends that the requirement to advertise a
contract opportunity first in the Official Journal of the European
Union, before being advertised elsewhere, as
in
Article 121 of
infringed.
According to the applicant, this requirement was infringed since
the contract was advertised on the EuropAid website first, rather
than in the Official Journal.

Implementing Rules, was

set out

the

Fourth, the applicant submits that the requirement to respect
the minimum time-limits under the accelerated restricted proce-
dure laid down in Article 142(1) of the Financial Regulation has
been infringed.

Fifth, the applicant claims that the defendant failed to respect
the requirement set out in Article 158(a) of the Implementing
Rules, for a standstill period between the decision on contract
award and signature of the contract. In addition, the applicant
puts forward that the defendant failed to provide an adequate
statement of reasons, in accordance with Article 253 EC.

(1) Established on 30 May 2007, pursuant to Council

Joint Action

2007/369/CFSP (OJ 2007 L 139, p. 33).

(2) The notice was published in the supplement to the Official Journal

of 7 October 2008, 2008/S 194-255613.

(3) OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1.
(4) OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1.

Action brought on 28 November 2008 — Agatha Ruiz de
la Prada de Sentmenat v OHIM — Mary Quant (AGATHA
RUIZ DE LA PRADA)

(Case T-522/08)

(2009/C 32/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat (Madrid, Spain)
(represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, 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:
Mary Quant Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

— Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the contested decision be annulled
and replaced with a different decision in which registration
of Community trade mark No 3.291.234 is granted in
respect of all the goods requested in Class 3 of the Classifica-
tion (including ‘soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics,
hair lotions’), and MARY QUANT Cosmetics Japan Ltd. be
ordered to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, and

— the defendant, and any intervening or other party, be

ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de
Sentmenat.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a
pink flower with a yellow centre on a light green background
with the wording AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA (application
No 3.291.234) for goods in Classes 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14,
16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27 and 28.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
MARY QUANT Cosmetics Japan Ltd.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark representing a
black flower with a black centre surrounded by a white outline:
British trade marks for goods in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21,
24, 25 and 26 and Community trade mark for goods in
Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25 and 26.

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was upheld in part.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.