Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

22.3.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/33

European Communities on 30 January 2003 by The General
Workers Union in Denmark (Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark ‘SID’), Copenhagen, Denmark, represented by Philip
Bentley QC, Mr Anders Worsøe and Mr Filip Ragolle, Lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul Commission decision C(2002)4370fin of 13 November 2002 in so far as it is decided not to raise any
objections to fiscal measures that have been applied since
1 January 1989 to seafarers on board vessels registered
in Denmark, either in the DAS or in the DIS registers;

—
order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
Commission.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant, the General Workers Union in Denmark, lodged
a complaint with the Commission regarding the tax regime
applied to seafarers employed on board ships registered in the
Danish International Shipping register (DIS). In the contested
decision, the Commission decided not to raise objections to
the fiscal measures and considered that they constituted state
aid, but that they were and still are compatible with the
common market on the basis of Article 87 (3)(c) EC Treaty.

The fiscal measures in question grant tax exemptions to all
seafarers employed on board ships registered in the DIS
register. The Commission considered that this was in conformity with the Community guidelines on state aid to maritime
transport ( [1] ) according to which reduced rates of income tax
for EC seafarers on board ships registered in a Member State
are compatible with the common market.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes an infringement of essential procedural requirements and the principle of
good administration. The applicant alleges that the case
involved serious difficulties and that the Commission therefore
should have opened an investigation pursuant to Article 88(2)
EC Treaty.

The applicant furthermore submits a violation of
Article 87(3)(c) EC Treaty in conjunction with the Community
guidelines on state aid to maritime shipping and the principle
of legitimate expectations. According to the applicant, the
Commission erred by interpreting the notion of ‘EC seafarers’
as meaning any seafarer employed on board a vessel registered
in a Member State.

The applicant finally invokes a manifest error of assessment.
The applicant alleges that the Commission should have made
an assessment of the effect of the tax exemptions have on the
employment of seafarers residing in a Member State and
employed on terms and conditions which meet the high
standards prevailing in the Community.

( [1] ) Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (OJ
C 205 of 1997, p. 5.

**Action brought on 31 January 2003 by GRUPO SADA,**
**P.A., S.A. against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-31/03)**

(2003/C 70/53)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
31 January 2003 by GRUPO SADA, P.A., S.A., whose registered office is in Madrid, represented by Álvaro Aguilar De
Armas and José María Marrero Ortega.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the OHIM of 20 November 2002
in so far as it refuses to register ‘GRUPO SADA’ as a
Community trade mark; and

—
order OHIM to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for the Com- The applicant
munity trade mark:

The Community trade GRUPO SADA — Application
mark concerned: No 157545 for goods in Classes 29, 31 and 35

C 70/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 22.3.2003

Proprietor of the right to SADIA CONOCORDIA S.A.
the trade mark or sign INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO
asserted by way of opposition in the opposition
proceedings:

Trade mark or sign SADIA (national registration
asserted by way of oppo- numbers 1919733, 642151 and
sition in the opposition 2077409 in Spain, Italy and Gerproceedings: many respectively) for goods in
Class 29

Decision of the Oppo- Refusal to register the trade mark
sition Division: for goods in Class 29, registration

application upheld in respect of
goods in Classes 31 and 35

Decision of the Board of Appeal dismissed
Appeal:

Grounds of claim: Misapplication ofArticle 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of
the case-law relating to the overall
appraisal of the trade marks in
question and to the likelihood of
confusion between them