CELEX: C2002/144/103
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-85/02: Action brought on 23 March 2002 by Pedro Diaz S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

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)
Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Stephan-Harald                                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
           Voigt against the European Central Bank
                         (Case T-78/02)                                 An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        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 pro-
based 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 data-              Trade 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
 ---pagebreak--- 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 (Boletı́n Oficial del Territorio
                                                                          Histórico 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 con-
                                      fusion                              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 Histórico                        aforementioned article. In the applicant’s view, the pre-
de Alava — Diputación 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
                           (Case T-86/02)                                       objective criteria and affects all economic operators (both
                                                                                natural and legal persons) in the same way.
                         (2002/C 144/104)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       b.    in the alternative, with regard to the first plea in law,
                                                                                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 Communi-                       within 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
Histórico de Alava — Diputación 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
                                                                                observe the procedures laid down by law. According to
—      annul the Commission Decision of 20 December 2001                        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