Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

15.6.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 144/51

The pleas and arguments invoked in the present case are written reprimands within the meaning of Article 43(i) of the
largely similar to those raised in case T-45/02, DOW Agro- Conditions of Employment by a valid decision of the Executive
Sciences and DOW AgroSciences -v- European Parliament and Board.
Council of the European Union (not yet published in the OJ).

( [1] ) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for
Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327,
22.12.2000, p. 1) **Action brought on 23 March 2002 by Pedro Diaz S.A.**
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market**

**(Case T-85/02)**

(2002/C 144/103)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_
**Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Stephan-Harald**
**Voigt against the European Central Bank**

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
**(Case T-78/02)**
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 March 2002 by Pedro Diaz S.A.
(2002/C 144/102) of Carretera de Cartagena-La Palma, Km 2,4, Cartagena (Spain),
represented by Patricia Koch Moreno.

_(Language of the case: German)_
The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of 16 January 2002 of the Third Board
An action against the European Central Bank was brought of Appeal rejecting application number 199 265 for
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities registration of a Community trade mark CASTILLO to
on 19 March 2002 by Stephan-Harald Voigt, residing in describe ‘cheeses’ falling within Class 29;
Langenselbold (Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.

—
declare that application number 199 265 for registration
of a Community trade mark CASTILLO to describe
‘cheeses’ falling within Class 29 should be allowed;
The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
order the defendant and, where appropriate, the inter
—
annul the written reprimand issued to the applicant by vener, to pay the costs of the proceedings.
the defendant pursuant to Article 43(i) of the Conditions
of Employment by letter of 1 March 2002;

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

Applicant for the Com- Pedro Diaz S.A.
munity trade mark

_Pleas in law and main arguments_ Community trade mark CASTILLO — application no 199
applied for Word mark: 265 for products falling within
Classes 29 and 30

In support of his application, the applicant claims that the
Proprietor of the trade Granja Castello S.A.
written reprimand is invalid on the ground that general
mark or sign invoked in
procedural principles were not respected. The reprimand is the opposition probased on incorrect assumptions and the applicant was, _inter_ cedure:
_alia_, not granted an adequate hearing in the procedure.
Moreover, the defendant’s conduct infringes European dataTrade mark or sign being Word mark with graphic elements
protection rules. opposed: ‘EL CASTILLO’ registered for
products in Class 29 and word
mark with graphic elements ‘EL
The applicant also disputes that the Vice-President of the CASTILLO NADO 1’ for products
defendant had been granted the general authority to decide on in Class 30

C 144/52 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 15.6.2002

Decision of the oppo- Refusal of registration in respect 1993 of 5 July 1993 on urgent fiscal provisions to promote
sition division: of certain products investment and economic activity (Boletı´n Oficial del Territorio
Histo´rico de Alava No 79 of 16 July 1993), which provides
Decision of the Board of Partial annulment of the decision for exemption from company tax for undertakings created
Appeal: of the Opposition Division and between the entry into force of that Law and 31 December
refusal of registration in respect 1994, provided that they invest more than PTA 80 million
of an additional product (‘cheeses’) (EUR 480 810), create more than 10 new jobs and have
disbursed capital amounting to more than PTA 20 million
Pleas in law: — Infringement of Arti- (EUR 120 202).
cle 8(1)(b) of Regulation
No 40/94

—
Incorrect interpretation of
the concept of risk of confusion The applicants put forward essentially 5 pleas in law:

a. infringement of the first paragraph of Article 87 EC
inasmuch as the Commission committed a manifest error
of assessment by considering that the fiscal measure at
issue is _prima facie_ State aid within the meaning of the
**Action brought on 26 March 2002 by Territorio Histo´rico** aforementioned article. In the applicant’s view, the pre**de Alava — Diputacio´ n Foral de Alava against Com-** sent case does not involve selective advantage, which is
**mission of the European Communities** typical of State aid within the meaning of that provision,
since it is a measure which is established on the basis of
objective criteria and affects all economic operators (both
**(Case T-86/02)**
natural and legal persons) in the same way.

(2002/C 144/104)

b. in the alternative, with regard to the first plea in law,
_(Language of the case: Spanish)_
misinterpretation by the Commission of the concept of
‘State aid’. The applicants state that, should the Court take
the view that the measure at issue is indeed State aid, it
would in any event be as an existing aid scheme either
An action against the Commission of the European Communiwithin the meaning of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation (EC)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
No 659/1999 since, when it was implemented, the
European Communities on 26 March 2002 by the Territorio
measure was not ‘aid’, or within the meaning of 1(b)(ii) as
Histo´rico de Alava — Diputacio´n Foral de Alava, Alava (Spain),
aid which, at the time, was impliedly authorised by the
represented by Ignacio Saenz-Cortabarria and Marta Morales Commission.
Isasi.

The applicants claim that the Court should:
c. in the further alternative to the first plea in law, failure to
— annul the Commission Decision of 20 December 2001 observe the procedures laid down by law. According to
Article 88(1) EC and Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the
on the system of aid implemented by Spain in 1993 in
proper procedure for the review of systems of existing
favour of a number of newly-created undertakings in
aid is as provided for in Articles 17 to 19 of that
Alava;
regulation, not that followed by the Commission in the
present case, which is the procedure to be applied to

—
in the alternative, annul Article 3 of that decision; unlawful aid.

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

d. in the alternative with regard to the first three pleas in
law, abuse by the Commission of its power to authorise
_Pleas in law and main arguments_ aid under Article 87(3)(c) EC by considering the disputed
fiscal measure to be operating aid and to declare, as a
consequence, that it is aid incompatible with the common
The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001) 4475 market. The Commission improperly equates what is
final of 20 December 2001 declaring State aid incompatible nothing more than a means of assessing the element of
with the common market the exemption from company tax aid with the genuine concept of aid to investment or for
arising from Article 14 of Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 18/ job creation. The fact that the amount of the aid as a