CELEX: C1999/333/66
Language: en
Date: 1999-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-193/99: Action brought on 1 September 1999 by WM. Wrigley JR. Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

20.11.1999             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 333/27
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                                Guarantee Fund) (FOGASA), of the other part. Those agree-
                                                                        ments, which are based fundamentally on a reduction in the
The decision of the selection board to cancel certain of the            rate of interest normally applicable to loans granted by those
                                                                        two bodies, are intended to facilitate the scheduling and
questions in test (b), giving instructions to the markers not to
                                                                        deferment of repayment of the debts due to them.
take them into account and to readjust the weight attached to
the questions which remained valid on completion of that test,
altered the rules and the conditions which the selection                SNIACE considers that the contested decision is vitiated by a
board had itself originally laid down for the conduct of the            manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as the alleged aid
competition.                                                            received by it does not constitute State aid, does not affect
                                                                        trace between Member States and does not distort or threaten
                                                                        to distort competition in the single market.
The grounds given for Decisions 21.06.99/IX.A2./023 and
IX.A.2 D(98)/500R-EL 501502 were insufficient.
                                                                        Second, the applicant undertaking maintains that it has acted
                                                                        in accordance with the rules in force in the Kingdom of Spain;
                                                                        those rules are applicable to all undertakings which find
                                                                        themselves in any of the situations specified therein, and not
                                                                        to any specific undertakings or sectors. Thus, the measures
                                                                        criticised by the Commission are, in reality, agreements
                                                                        concluded pursuant to the provisions of labour law and social
                                                                        security law. In particular, the recovery of debts owed by
Action brought on 24 August 1999 by SNIACE S.A.                         undertakings to the Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad Social
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    (General Social Security Treasury) in the event of non-payment
                                                                        of contributions is governed by the General Law on Social
                         (Case T-190/99)                                Security. It therefore involves measures of general application
                                                                        forming part of a system already in existence, in respect of
                                                                        which the Member States possess exclusive competence and
                        (1999/C 333/65)                                 on which the Commission has not expressed a view pursuant
                                                                        to Article 88(1) EC. In addition, as regards FOGASA, that body
                                                                        bears a responsibility for guaranteeing the payment of salaries
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       which forms an integral part of the essential provisions of
                                                                        contracts of employment.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Lastly, the applicant states that the sole purpose of the alleged
European Communities on 24 August 1999 by SNIACE S.A.,                  aid is to facilitate the recovery of labour-related debts and
established in Madrid, represented by Fernando Rodrı́guez               debts owed to the Social Security Treasury; consequently, it
Carretero, Miguel Angel Gómez de Liaño Botella and José Luis          cannot be said that the criteria enabling it to be characterised
Baró Fuentes, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in        as State aid have been fulfilled, since it neither emanates from
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 2 Rue Dahlias.              State funds nor reduces the lever of those funds.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Article 1(a) and (b) of the decision of the Com-
    mission of 28 October 1998;
— annul Article 2 of the decision of the Commission of
                                                                        Action brought on 1 September 1999 by WM. Wrigley
    28 October 1998 inasmuch as it requires the Kingdom of
                                                                        JR. Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the
    Spain to take the necessary measures to recover from the
                                                                                                 Internal Market
    recipient the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully
    made available to it;
                                                                                                (Case T-193/99)
— order the European Commission to pay to SNIACE all
    of the costs incurred by the applicant in the present                                       (1999/C 333/66)
    proceedings.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The present action is directed against Commission Decision              Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
1999/395/EC of 28 October 1998 on State aid implemented                 European Communities on 1 September 1999 by WM. Wrig-
by Spain in favour of SNIACE SA (OJ 1999 L 149 of                       ley JR. Company, having its registered office in Chicago, USA,
16.6.1999, p. 40). The applicant undertaking, which is the              represented by Helmut Eichmann, Gerhard Barth, Ulrich
recipient of the alleged aid, contests the categorisation as aid        Blumenröder, Christa Niklas-Falter and Maximillian Kinkeldey,
of the agreements concluded between that undertaking and                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
the Tesorerı́a de la Seguridad Social (Social Security Treasury),       Pierre Kihn, Office de Brevets, Ernest T. Freylinger, P.O. Box
of the one part, and the Fondo de Garantı́a Salarial (Salary            48, Strassen.
 ---pagebreak--- 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.