CELEX: C2002/191/50
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-171/02: Action brought on 6 June 2002 by Regione Autonoma della Sardegna against Commission of the European Communities

10.8.2002               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 191/29
The applicants claim that the contested regulation is unlawful               The applicant claims that the Court should:
and infringes their rights. The Commission was not em-
powered to issue the regulation in its present form. In addition,
the required investigation procedure was not implemented                     —     annul Commission Decision 2002/229/EC of 13 Novem-
before, but at the same time as, or only after, the regulation                     ber 2001 on the aid scheme which the Sardinia Region
was issued.                                                                        (Italy) is planning to implement for the restructuring of
                                                                                   holdings in difficulty in the protected crops sector (OJ
                                                                                   2002 L 77, p. 29)
The applicants further submit that the regulation, and
Annexes 1.1 to 2.1 thereto, have a dubious factual basis. On                 —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
27 March 2002, the data listed in those annexes were, in fact,                     pay the costs.
not yet available to the Commission, because EUROSTAT had
not yet received all the information for 2001.
In addition, the applicants claim that the contested regulation
is also unlawful on substantive grounds as the measures it                   Pleas in law and main arguments
lays down are disproportionate. The additional duties are
prohibitively high and, with the exception of developing
countries, the safeguard measures apply without distinction to
all countries.                                                               The decision which is at issue in the present case concerns a
                                                                             regional aid scheme for the restructuring of holdings in
                                                                             difficulty in the protected crops sector (flowers and vegetables)
Finally, the applicants claim that, given the circumstances, the             in Sardinia, adopted pursuant to Law No 4/98 of the Sardinian
provisional safeguard measures are incompatible with the rules               Region, which specifically concerns action to be taken in
laid down by the World Trade Organisation and GATT, and                      favour of small and medium-sized agricultural holdings in
infringe European Agreements concluded by the Council and                    difficulty.
the Commission with certain non-member countries.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002                  In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
    imposing provisional safeguard measures against imports of
    certain steel products (OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on                —     breach or misapplication of Article 88(3) of the Treaty,
    the common rules for imports and repealing Regulation (EC)                     the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and
    No 518/94 (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 53).                                       restructuring firms in difficulty (1) and of the principle of
                                                                                   legitimate expectations. Moreover the time spent
                                                                                   assessing whether the aid was compatible with the
                                                                                   common market was unreasonably long.
                                                                             —     breach or misapplication of Article 87 of the Treaty and
                                                                                   of the abovementioned guidelines, lack of a proper
                                                                                   inquiry and inadequate statement of reasons.
Action brought on 6 June 2002 by Regione Autonoma
della Sardegna against Commission of the European
                            Communities
                                                                             In that regard, the applicant points out that, although the
                                                                             Commission first became aware of the regional plan in
                          (Case T-171/02)                                    question on 15 January 1998, the decision finding the aid
                                                                             unlawful was not adopted until 13 November 2001. During
                                                                             that time, there was an exchange of correspondence between
                          (2002/C 191/50)                                    the defendant and the Italian authorities with the purpose of
                                                                             clarifying the scope and effects of the notified aid project.
                                                                             However, by the contested decision, the Commission has
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             firmly declared the project unlawful, furthermore, according
                                                                             to the applicant, by reference to aspects which were perfectly
                                                                             clear from the earliest exchanges.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 June 2002 by the Regione                           The applicant further claims that the contested scheme is
Autonoma della Sardegna, represented by Giacomo Aiello of                    compatible with the guidelines for rescuing and restructuring
the Avvocatura dello Stato.                                                  firms in difficulties and that there was no basis in the inquiry
 ---pagebreak--- C 191/30                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.8.2002
for the conclusions concerning the impact of the scheme on                In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
intra-Community trade.                                                    of the first indent of Article 37(a) and Article 38 of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations in that the contested decision changes the place of
                                                                          employment of the applicant during the period in which he
(1) OJ 1997 C 283, p. 2.                                                  was on secondment in the interests of the service. The
                                                                          applicant further alleges infringement of Article 85 of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations and breach of the principle prohibiting arbitrary
                                                                          decisions, the principle that legitimate expectations are to be
                                                                          protected and the duty to have regard for the welfare of
                                                                          officials inasmuch as the applicant was unaware of the irregular
                                                                          nature of the payments received. Finally, the applicant alleges
                                                                          infringement of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                          Regulations.
Action brought on 11 June 2002 by Georgios Gouvras
    against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-180/02)
                          (2002/C 191/51)                                 Action brought on 14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l.
                                                                          against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
                                                                                     Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                   (Case T-186/02)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                         (2002/C 191/52)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 June 2002 by Georgios                          (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
Gouvras, residing in Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by              Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the
Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Albert Coolen, lawyers,                                application was drafted: Italian)
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                          Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
—     annul the decision of 14 August 2001 of the Staff                   the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l., whose registered office is
      Administration and Management Directorate Luxem-
      bourg and Ispra of DG Admin:                                        in Pianezze San Lorenzo (Italy), represented by Federico
                                                                          Tedeschini, Maurizio Pinnarò and Patrik Santer.
      —     fixing, with effect from 1 November 2000, the place
            of employment as Athens, retrospectively removing             The applicant claims that the Court should:
            his right to the expatriation allowance, to the annual
            travel expenses and applying to his salary the                annul the decision of 19 March 2002 of the Third Board of
            weighting applicable to Greece;                               Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                          in the appeal against the decision of 28 February 2001 of the
      —     to withhold from his remuneration, pursuant to that           Fifth Unit of the Opposition Division and consequently
            decision, any amount in general;                              uphold the registration application submitted by the applicant
                                                                          undertaking.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
                                                                          munity trade mark:
The applicant, whose place of employment was Luxembourg,                  The Community trade            Figurative mark ‘DIESELIT’ —
was seconded in the interests of the service to the Greek                 mark concerned:                Registration            application
Ministry of Health. The contested decision fixes, with retrospec-                                        No 880211, registration sought
tive effect as from 1 November 2000, his place of employment                                             in respect of goods and services
as Athens, with all the implications of that decision. Further-                                          within Classes 7, 11 and 21 (flat
more, the Commission decided to withhold from his salary,                                                irons, steam irons and ironing
pursuant to the contested decision, any amount in general.                                               boards)