Case T-579/08: Action brought on 23 December 2008 — Eridania Sadam v Commission
Date: 2008-12-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), competition law, control of State aid, farming sector, intra-EU trade

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/65

Action brought on 23 December 2008 — Proges v
Commission

(Case T-577/08)

(2009/C 44/110)

Language of the case: Italian

— geographical representativeness is rightly not referred to in
the invitation to tender since the project is not concerned
with development, integration and/or inter-European cohe-
sion. Furthermore, it is not understood on what basis, for
the purposes of assessing a company, European experience
is deemed more valuable than the United Nations and IUCN
experience possessed by the applicant.

Parties

Action brought on 23 December 2008 — Eridania Sadam v
Commission

Applicant: Proges srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Falcetta,
lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-579/08)

(2009/C 44/111)

Language of the case: Italian

Forms of order sought

— Annul

the contested decision,

consequential measures,
damages;

thereby giving rise to all
for
compensation

including

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings,

together with all related fees and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the measure by which the
Commission declined to award the applicant
the contract
covered by invitation to tender ENV.G.1./SER/2008/0050 for
the creation of land use models and, in particular, for the assess-
ment of environmental impact.

In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:

— the decision was incorrect in so far as it stated that the
applicant's bid focused exclusively on the Driving force-Pres-
sure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model; in any event, the
tender specifications specifically require the integrated use of
‘social, economic and environmental institutional indicators
of land use changes’, with DPSIR being the most interna-
tionally established tool for the management and integration
of such indicators. Moreover, DPSIR has been developed and
properly used by the European Environment Agency. The
in fact proposed by the applicant is a DPSIR model
tool
updated in accordance with an innovative methodology and
already successfully used in several projects of the United
Nations and the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN);

— contrary to what is stated in the contested decision,

it is
specifically stated in the applicant's bid that a land use
model will be developed integrating the various models
arising from the Sixth Framework Research Programme;

— there is no reason to doubt the appropriateness of involving
the applicant's director in the implementation of the project;

Parties

Applicant: Eridania Sadam SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by:
G.M. Roberti, lawyer, I. Perego, lawyer, B. Amabile, lawyer, and
M. Serpone, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested Decision;

— require by way of measure of inquiry, in accordance with
Articles 65 and 66 of the Rules of Procedure, the produc-
tion before the Court of the documents in the Commission's
case-file;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, Eridania Sadam SpA contests, in accord-
ance with the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, the Commis-
sion's decision of 16 July 2008 in State aid case C 29/2004
(ex N 328/2003).

In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law,
respectively alleging:

— misapplication of Article 87(1) EC to the facts and, in any
event, erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to state
sufficient reasons, in so far as the Commission found that
the financial aid scheme duly notified by the Italian authori-
ties was likely,
trade between
Member States and to distort competition;

implemented,

to affect

if

C 44/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2009

— infringement of Article 87(2)(b) EC and of the guidelines
applicable to State aid in the agricultural sector, and breach
of the Commission's own working practice — and, in any
case, erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to state
sufficient reasons — in so far as the Commission found that
the financial aid scheme duly notified by the Italian
authorities could not be treated as an exception under
Article 87(2)(b) EC;

— infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC — and, in any case, erro-
neous assessment of the facts and failure to state sufficient
reasons — in so far as the Commission found that the finan-
cial aid scheme duly notified by the Italian authorities could
not be treated as an exception under Article 87(3)(c) EC;

— breach of the principles of sound administration and dili-
gence and of the duty of care, by reason inter alia of the
excessive length of the administrative procedure.

Action brought on 24 December 2008 — PJ Hungary/
OHIM v Pepekillo (PEPEQUILLO)

(Case T-580/08)

(2009/C 44/112)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: PJ Hungary Szolgáltató (PJ Hungary kft), (Budapest,
Republic of Hungary) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter
and C. Gutiérrez Martínez, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pepekillo
SL (Algeciras, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 30 April 2008 (Case R-722/2007) of
the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (OHIM), which granted the restitutio in
integrum claimed by PEPEKILLO SL;

— Annul

the

decision of 24 September 2008 (Case
R-722/2007) of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), which set
aside the decision of the Opposition Division of 9 March
2007 and, as a result, granted Community trade mark
No 3 546 471 ‘PEPEQUILLO’, and make such other order as
is appropriate in accordance with Community law; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceed-
ings, in addition to the costs incurred during the administra-
tive procedure before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Marta Sancho Lora, who
subsequently
company
PEPEKILLO SL.

application to the

assigned

the

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PEPEQUILLO’
(Application No 3.546.471) for goods in classes 18 and 25 and
services in class 35.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
to whom the company ‘PEPE JEANS N.V.’ had
applicant,
assigned its rights.

‘PEPE M3’,

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word marks ‘PEPE’ and
‘PEPE JEANS’, Spanish figurative marks ‘PEPE JEANS LONDON’,
Spanish word marks ‘PEPE 2XL’,
‘PEPE
‘PEPE F4’,
‘PEPE M5’ and ‘PEPE F6’, Spanish figurative
F4’,
marks ‘PEPE JEANS LONDON’,
‘PEPE JEANS
‘PEPE JEANS 73’,
PORTOBELLO’,
‘PEPE’ and Spanish word marks ‘PEPE JEANS
M2’, ‘PEPE BETTY’, ‘PEPE CLOTHING’ and ‘PEPECO’, for goods
in classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25; and Community word and
figurative marks ‘PEPE JEANS’ for goods in classes 3, 9, 14
and 18.

‘PEPE M99’,

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and appli-
cation refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Pleas in law admitted and appeal
upheld.

Pleas in law:
Incorrect application of Articles 78 and 8(1)(b)
and (5) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Action brought on 31 December 2008 — Fresh Del Monte
Produce v Commission

(Case T-587/08)

(2009/C 44/113)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. (George Town, Cayman
lawyer and E. Verghese,
Islands)
solicitor)

(represented by: B. Meyring,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities