CELEX: C1999/174/26
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-90/99: Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Salzgitter AG against the Commission of the European Communities

19.6.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 174/13
13 April 1999 by Michel Hendrickx, residing at Ambelokipon,             Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Salzgitter AG against
Greece, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Françoise Parmentier                   the Commission of the European Communities
and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
30 Rue de Cessange, L-1320 Luxembourg.                                                            (Case T-90/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                 (1999/C 174/26)
— annul CEDEFOP’s decision of 3 June 1998 rejecting the
     applicant’s application for the post of ‘Head of General
     Support Services (Administration)’;
                                                                                          (Language of the case: German)
— annul CEDEFOP’s decision not to give consideration to his
     application for the post of ‘Head of Administration’;
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— annul the decision not to extend his contract as a member             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     of the temporary staff beyond 30 June 1998;                        European Communities on 15 April 1999 by Salzgitter AG,
                                                                        of Salzgitter, Germany, represented by Jochim Sedemund,
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 Rechtsanwalt, of Deringer Tessin Herrmann & Sedemund, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant, a Council official, was seconded to CEDEFOP in
order to occupy a post as a member of its temporary staff. By
note of 12 December 1997, the applicant applied to the                  1. annul the Commission decision of 3 March 1999 (reference
Director of CEDEFOP for renewal of his contract until at least              SG (99) D/1542, procedure C 10/99/ex NN 55/98-
30 June 1998.                                                               Germany);
On 2 April 1998 CEDEFOP published an internal notice of                 2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
vacancy concerning the post of ‘Head of General Support
Services (Administration)’. On the same date, it also published
an internal notice of vacancy with regard to the post of ‘Head
of Administration’. The applicant applied for each of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
vacant posts.
                                                                        In the contested decision the Commission initiated a procedure
By note of 3 June 1998, the Director of CEDEFOP informed                for examining aid under Article 6(5) of the ‘Sixth Steel Aid
the applicant that he had decided to regard the applicant as            Code’ (1).
unsuitable for the post of ‘Head of General Support Services’
within the administration, and not to take into consideration
his internal application for the post of ‘Head of Adminis-              In the applicant’s view, the Commission concludes in its
tration’, or to extend his contract beyond 30 June 1998.                reasoning that tax write-offs and the possibility of creating
                                                                        reserves under the German Zonenrandförderungsgesetz (Law
The applicant maintains that the vacancy notices are illegal,           on the Promotion of Zone Boundary Areas) (2), taken advantage
inasmuch as they do not state the precise level of the post to          of by various companies in the applicant’s group, were
be filled or the nature of the tasks to be performed and                subsidies which constituted impermissible State aid. The
the qualifications required. According to the applicant, the            Commission therefore, in the applicant’s view, decides that
rejection of his applications for the posts in question is vitiated     proof has been provided of the grant of impermissible and
by a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as that rejection           incompatible aid by the authorities to Salzgitter/Preussag Stahl
is based not on the decision of the Selection Committee but             and to the subsidiary companies in the ECSC sector of the
solely on the dissenting minority view of its President.                group.
Moreover, the decision not to give consideration to the
applicant’s application for the post of ‘Head of Administration’
is vitiated not only by a manifest error of assessment but also         The applicant complains of incorrect interpretation of
by misuse of powers and an abuse of procedure. Those                    Articles 4(c) and 67(1) of the ECSC Treaty: The purpose of the
decisions were adopted in flagrant breach of the principles of          Zonenrandförderungsgesetz was partial economic compen-
equal treatment and of non-discrimination.                              sation for the massive locational disadvantages resulting from
                                                                        the former situation along the border with the GDR and the
The applicant claims that the decision not to renew his                 CSSR. The law applied without exception to all Community
contract as a temporary agent beyond 30 June 1998 is a direct           undertakings with plants in that region. The factor of specific
consequence of those two decisions, the illegality of which,            preferential treatment of an undertaking, essential for the
according to him, renders unlawful the subsequent decision              definition of aid, is therefore lacking. Those provisions merely
not to renew his contract as a temporary agent.                         allowed the undertakings concerned a temporary post-
                                                                        ponement of the date of taxation, and never, as the Com-
                                                                        mission wrongly asserts, led to a transfer of State resources.
                                                                        Even the basic conditions for aid are thus absent.
 ---pagebreak--- C 174/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.6.1999
The provisions of the Zonenrandförderungsgesetz constituted              — take any further action as the Court may deem appropriate.
general measures of tax law of the Federal Republic of
Germany, which, according to the case-law of the Court of                    Trade mark        con- ‘OPTIONS’           —    Application
Justice, are to be assessed solely on the basis of Article 67 of             cerned:                  No 128611
the ECSC Treaty, not of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty or the               Product or service:      insurance, warranty, financing,
steel aid code.                                                                                       hire-purchase and lease-purchase
The tax provisions of the Zonenrandförderungsgesetz were                     Decision contested refusal of registration by the exam-
always duly notified to the Commission in accordance with                    before the Board of iner
Article 93 of the EEC Treaty and were approved by the                        Appeal:
Commission throughout the period when that law was in                        Pleas in law relied on: — Article 7(2) does not itself pro-
force. Nor were any objections raised under Article 67(2) of                                              vide grounds for refusal but
the ECSC Treaty.                                                                                          merely directs Article 7(1) (b)
                                                                                                          and (c);
Moreover, the contested decision is based on the provisions of
the steel aid code in force from 1986, which the Commission                                           — distinctiveness         acquired
ought not to have adopted by the procedure under the first                                                through use in a part of the
and second paragraphs of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty. The                                               Community should enable the
provisions of that code which extended the definition of aid to                                           provisions of Article 7(3) to
include non-specific aid by the Member States should not have                                             apply.
been applied in the present case.
In the alternative, the applicant submits that the contested
decision is founded on a legal basis which is not applicable:
according to Article 9 of the ‘Sixth Steel Aid Code’, it entered
into force only on 1 January 1997, that is, on a date when the
Zonenrandförderungsgesetz had already ceased to exist.
                                                                         Action brought on 20 April 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
(1) Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996
    establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry
    (OJ L 338 of 28.12.1996, p. 42).                                                              (Case T-98/99)
(2) Law of 5 August 1971, Bundesgesetzblatt i, p. 1237.
                                                                                                 (1999/C 174/28)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Ford Motor Company                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                     European Communities on 20 April 1999 by UPS Europe
                        Market (OHIM)                                    NV/SA, represented by Mr. Tom R. Otervanger, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff
                         (Case T-91/99)                                  Claeys Verbeke, 5 rue Charles Martel.
                        (1999/C 174/27)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — declare, in accordance with Article 175 of the EC Treaty,
                   (Language of the case: English)                           that the Commission has failed to act by not having
                                                                             rendered a definitive decision within a reasonable period
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               of time upon the Applicant’s complaint lodged with the
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance                 Commission on 8 June 1998;
of the European Communities on 15 April 1999 by the Ford
Motor Company, having its registered office in Delaware, USA,            — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
represented by Anthony James Tweedale Willoughby, with an                    applicant in the present proceedings;
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia
Manhaeve, 56-58 rue Charles Martel.                                      — take such further action as the Court may deem appro-
                                                                             priate.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                Pleas in law and main arguments
     Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to refuse
     under Article (1)(b) and (c) of the Community Trade Mark            On 8 June 1998, the applicant submitted a formal complaint
     Regulation to register the word ‘OPTIONS’ as a trade mark;          against the German Republic for granting unlawful State aid
                                                                         contrary to Article 92 of the EC Treaty in connection with the
— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market              proposed acquisition by Deutsche Post AG of 22.5 % of the
     to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present           shares of DHL. The applicant assumed that the financing of
     proceedings;                                                        the transaction infringed the said Article of the EC Treaty. The