CELEX: C1999/333/67
Language: en
Date: 1999-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-195/99: Action brought on 6 September 1999 by Sim 2 Multimedia SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

C 333/28              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.11.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
    the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
    (Trademarks and Designs) of 16 June 1999 — Appeal                     This application seeks the annulment of the Commission
    No.R 216/1998-1;                                                      Decision of 2 June 1999 which condemns the aid granted to
                                                                          Seleco SpA by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region through the
— order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the                   intermediary of Friulia SpA and by the Italian Government
    defendant.                                                            through the intermediary of Ristrutturazione Elettronica SpA
                                                                          (REL), which consists in particular in the partial writing off by
                                                                          REL of LIT 16.8 billion of loans amounting to LIT 82 billion
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           in 1994 and the redemption by Seleco of the outstanding
                                                                          balance of LIT 65.2 billion for only LIT 20 billion in 1996, the
                                                                          grant of capital of LIT 13 billion by Friulia SpA in 1994 and
Trade mark concerned:         DOUBLEMINT -              Application       the grant by that company in 1996 of a convertible loan of
                              No. 000218255.                              LIT 12 billion at an interest rate of 7 % secured by four Seleco
                                                                          industrial trade marks.
Product or service:           Cosmetics, dentifrices, pharma-
                              ceutical, veterinary and sanitary
                              preparations, clothing, footwear,
                              headgear, games and playthings,             The Commission ordered the Italian Government to take the
                              coffee, tee, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapi-      necessary measures to recover the aid in question from Seleco
                              oca, biscuits, cakes, different con-        and, in the alternative, from the applicant, a company set up
                              diments and spices; etc (Inter-             by Multimedia during the administrative procedure.
                              national classes 3, 5, 25, 28 and
                              30).
                                                                          The applicant relies on the following pleas in support of its
Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the              claims:
before the Board of           examiner.
Appeal:
                                                                          — Breach of the rights of the defence. It is argued on
Pleas in law relied on:       Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of              that point that no reference was ever made during the
                              Council Regulation (EC)No. 40/                  administrative procedure to the possibility that Multimedia
                              94.                                             might be jointly and severally liable for repayment of aid
                                                                              which the Commission considered illegal and incompatible
                                                                              with the common market. The applicant states that, in the
                                                                              successive phases of the procedure, the discussion between
                                                                              the Commission and the Italian Government only ever
                                                                              concerned the holding by Friulia and Italtel of two parcels
                                                                              of shares in Multimedia. There was never any discussion
                                                                              during the procedure or in any document published in the
Action brought on 6 September 1999 by Sim 2 Multime-                          Official Journal of any purported joint and several liability
dia SpA against the Commission of the European Com-                           on the part of Multimedia for the repayment required of
                           munities                                           Seleco. The applicant was never given an opportunity to
                                                                              express its views on that subject.
                        (Case T-195/99)
                                                                          — Breach of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty inasmuch as the
                        (1999/C 333/67)                                       defendant has not proved that the branches of the business
                                                                              released by Seleco and transferred to Multimedia received
                                                                              state aid. It is argued in that connection that, either the
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            applicant did receive aid and it is then not clear why Seleco
                                                                              should be called upon to repay what the applicant received,
                                                                              or the applicant did not receive any undue advantage in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     which case it is inexplicable that it should be required to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    repay what Seleco cannot repay. In fact, if it had been
European Communities on 6 September 1999 by Sim 2 Multi-                      given the opportunity to do so the applicant could have
media SpA, represented by Alessio Vianello, of the Venice Bar,                proved that it paid a fair price for the branches of Seleco’s
with an address for service in Luxembourg at Elvinger, Hoss &                 business inasmuch as that price reflected the valuations
Prussen, 15 Cote d’Eich.                                                      made by an expert appointed by the relevant court.
The applicant claims that the Court should annul Article 2.1
of the Decision insofar as the Commission orders Italy in the             — Lack of competence, inasmuch as it is not for the
alternative to recover from Multimedia that part of the aid                   Commission to regulate the question of the transfer of civil
which cannot be recovered from Seleco, and make an order                      law relations between companies as this is a matter
for costs.                                                                    governed by national law.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.11.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 333/29
— Abuse of process, inasmuch as it would be for the Court,               — declare the Council liable for the loss and damage caused
     in any event, to establish, in the course of proceedings for            by its failure to contest the TAC, adopted within NAFO, of
     failure to fulfil obligations, whether the conduct of a                 27 000 metric tonnes of Greenland halibut for 1995;
     Member State was apt to remedy breaches alleged in
     connection with an aid procedure or not.                            — declare the Council and the Commission liable for the loss
                                                                             and damage arising from the approval given to the signing
Finally, the applicant claims that the obligation to state reasons           of the bilateral Agreement between the EC and Canada and
was breached.                                                                the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1761/95;
                                                                         — declare the Council and/or the Commission liable for the
                                                                             loss and damage caused by all or any of the acts of
                                                                             either of those institutions as described in the preceding
                                                                             paragraphs;
Action brought on 2 September 1999 by Area Cova S.A.
and Others against the Council of the European Union                     — order the Commission and the Council to pay compen-
    and the Commission of the European Communities                           sation for the losses suffered by the applicants as a result
                                                                             of the acts of both those institutions;
                         (Case T-196/99)
                                                                         — declare that the Commission and the Council are strictly
                        (1999/C 333/68)                                      liable, even in the absence of any fault or unlawful act, and
                                                                             order them to pay compensation for the loss and damage
                                                                             caused;
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         — fix the amount of the compensation payable in relation to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             the damage suffered by the applicants in 1995 in a
ties and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                             minimum sum — corresponding to the criteria set out
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               in the application in the present case — of between
on 2 September 1999 by Area Cova S.A., established in Vigo,                  23 836 750 euro and 50 393 979 euro;
Pontevedra, Spain, Armadora José Pereira S.A., established in
Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Armadores Pesqueros de Aldán S.A.,
established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Centropesca S.A.,                — order the parties to agree between them the amount of the
established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Chymar S.A., estab-                  compensation payable in respect of the damage suffered
lished in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Eloymar S.A., established in              by the applicants in the years following 1995, on the basis
Estribela, Pontevedra, Spain, Exfaumar S.A., established in                  that such amount is to be reviewed and, if necessary,
Bueu, Pontevedra, Spain, Farpespan S.L., established in Moaña,              modified by the Court;
Pontevedra, Spain, Freiremar S.A., established in Vigo, Ponte-
vedra, Spain, Hermanos Gandón S.A., established in Cangas,              — fix the amount of the compensation payable in respect of
Pontevedra, Spain, Heroya S.A., established in Vigo, Ponteve-                the non-material damage suffered by the applicants, which
dra, Spain, Hio Pesca S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,                 should in their view total 25 000 euro in relation to each
Spain, José Pereira e Hijos S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,           vessel concerned;
Spain, Juana Oya Pérez, residing in Marı́n, Pontevedra, Spain,
Manuel Nores González, residing in Marı́n, Pontevedra, Spain,
Moradiña S.A., established in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain,                — order the Council and/or the Commission to pay to the
Navales Cerdeiras S.A., established in Camariñas, La Coruña,               applicants the whole of the costs incurred by the applicants
Spain, Nugago Pesca S.A., established in Bueu, Pontevedra,                   in the proceedings.
Spain, Pesquera Austral S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,
Spain, Pescaberbés S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain,
Pesquera Cı́es S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain,             Pleas in law and main arguments
Pesca Herculina S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain,
Pesquera Inter S.A., established in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain,
Pesquerı́as Marinenses S.A., established in Marı́n, Pontevedra,          The applicants in the present case claim that they should be
Spain, Pesquerı́as Tara S.A., established in Cangas, Pontevedra,         paid compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by them,
Spain, Pesquera Vaqueiro S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,          which has been caused by the unlawful and negligent way in
Spain, and Sotelo Dios S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,            which, according to them, the Council and the Commission
Spain, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona           have acted in the so-called ‘halibut war’. In their submission,
Bar, and Eva Contreras Ynzenga and Albert Agustinoy Guilayn,             there are three specific masters giving rise to non-contractual
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service c/o Cabinet               liability:
Cuatrecasas, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels.
                                                                         — the negotiations conducted by the Commission at the
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                             NAFO meeting in September 1994, which culminated in
— declare the Commission liable for the loss and damage                      the regulation by NAFO of fishing for Greenland halibut
     arising from its conduct in the course of the negotiations              and the adoption of a TAC for Greenland halibut in 1995;
     held within the framework of the NAFO Convention with
     a view to establishing a TAC for Greenland halibut for              — the failure by the Council to oppose the proposed TAC of
     1995;                                                                   27 000 metric tonnes for Greenland halibut; and