CELEX: C1999/246/70
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-105/99: Action brought on 28 April 1999 by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions against the Commission of the European Communities

C 246/34                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
Action brought on 24 April 1999 by Campina Melkunie                       Action brought on 28 April 1999 by the Council of
B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-                      European Municipalities and Regions against the Com-
                                 ties                                                 mission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-100/99)                                                           (Case T-105/99)
                          (1999/C 246/69)                                                          (1999/C 246/70)
                    (Language of the Case: Dutch)                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 28 April
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          1999 by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions
European Communities on 24 April 1999 by Campina                          (‘CCRE’), an association established in Paris, represented by
Melkunie B.V., of Rosmalen (Netherlands), represented by P.               Francis Herbert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Glazener and G.W.A. van de Meent, of the Amsterdam Bar,                   in Luxembourg at the chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56-58
with an address for service in Luxembourg care of Messrs Loeff
                                                                          Rue Charles Martel.
Claeys Verbeke, 58 Rue Charles Martel.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
— annul the Commission Decision of 3 February 1999 on                          Communities, contained in debit note 97002489N of 15
     the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member                     February 1999, not to pay certain sums to the CCRE;
     States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the
     Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance              — order the Commission to pay the costs.
     and Guarantee Fund;
— order the Community to pay compensation for the damage                  Pleas in law and main arguments
     suffered by Campina Melkunie, provisionally estimated to
     amount to NLG 9 108 538;
                                                                          The applicant association, the Council of European Munici-
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  palities and Regions, contests the decision of the Commission,
                                                                          contained in debit note 97002489N of 15 February 1999, by
                                                                          which the defendant set off the sum of EUR 195 991.00
                                                                          allegedly due to it in connection with the MED-URBS 1994,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           MED-URBS 1995 and MED-URBS MIGRATION 1995 pro-
                                                                          grammes against sums which it acknowledges owing to the
The applicant produces caseinates of a particular type which,             CCRE by virtue of:
according to the contested decision, are ineligible for Com-
munity aid on account of their being contrary to Directive                1. the following grant documents:
83/417/EEC (1) and Regulation No 2921/90 (2).
                                                                               — Regional seminars in the target 2 zones (DG XVI),
                                                                                   amounting to EUR 39 447.39;
It maintains that the connection which the Commission
purports to establish between the two legislative acts referred                — Declaration B4-3040/98/208/jnb/d3 (DG XI), amount-
to above cannot be reconciled with their different legal bases,                    ing to EUR 82 800.00;
and effectively amounts to giving direct effect to the provisions
of the directive, to the detriment of individuals. It further             2. the subsidy allocated to the CCRE by the European
pleads breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate
                                                                               Parliament, entitled ‘Subvention Programme 1998’ (Gen-
expectations and of legal certainty, inasmuch as the Com-
                                                                               eral Secretariat), amounting to EUR 50 000.00; and
mission did not make its position in the matter known in
advance, together with breach of the duty to provide a
statement of reasons.                                                     3. agreement SC 98 101185 05D05 (DG V), amounting to
                                                                               EUR 23 743.61 (out of a total of EUR 31 405.08).
(1) Council Directive 83/417/EEC of 25 July 1983 on the approxi-          In support of its claims, the applicant association argues, first,
    mation of the laws of the Member States relating to certain           that the contested decision must be annulled on the ground
    lactoproteins (caseins and caseinates) intended for human con-        that it lacks any legal basis for refusal to pay the Community
    sumption (OJ 1983 L 237, p. 25).                                      contributions referred to in it. The applicant maintains in that
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2921/90 of 10 October 1990             connection that the existence of any debts which may be due
    on aid for the production of casein and caseinates from skimmed       to the Commission from the applicant in the context of the
    milk (OJ 1990 L 279, p. 22).                                          MED programmes cannot constitute a permissible ground for
                                                                          suspending payment of the subsidies in issue. In the applicant’s
                                                                          view, there exists no general rule on which the Commission
                                                                          can base its decision. At all events, it is not permissible for the
 ---pagebreak--- 28.8.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 246/35
Commission to offset against debts owed by it, arising from             The applicant argues that the aforementioned Article 115 and
non-contractual prescriptive obligations, contractual debts due         Rule 1(1)(j) are invalid and lack binding force because they
to it which are governed by the laws of a Member State — in             infringe Article 12 EC (ex Article 6) and Article 1 of Council
this case, Belgium — to which the MED-URBS contracts refer.             Regulation No 1 (2). While the Community trade mark may be
                                                                        lodged in the Dutch language, one of the five working
The applicant also pleads breaches of the principles of legal           languages of the Office must be used during the subsequent
certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, and         procedure and in opposition proceedings. This rule on
of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons for                 languages places the applicant at a disadvantage vis-à-vis trade
measures adopted.                                                       mark agents from Member States whose languages feature
                                                                        among the official working languages of the Office.
                                                                        (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
                                                                            1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) Council Regulation of 15 April 1958 determining the languages
                                                                            to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English
Action brought on 19 May 1999 by C. Kik against the                         Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade
                       marks and designs)
                        (Case T-120/99)
                        (1999/C 246/71)
                                                                        Action brought on 21 May 1999 by Enrique Gutiérrez de
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                            Quijano y Llorens against the European Parliament
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                   (Case T-125/99)
Market (trade marks and designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19                                        (1999/C 246/72)
May 1999 by C. Kik, trade mark agent, The Hague, represented
by G.L. Kooy, of the Bar of The Hague, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Decker, 16                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
Avenue Marie-Thérèse.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        21 May 1999 by Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens,
1. declare her application to be well founded;                          represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Stephan Le Goueff,
2. annul, or review, the decision of the Board of Appeal,               9 Avenue Guillaume, 1651 Luxembourg.
     Third Chamber, rejecting her application for registration
     of the (Community) trade mark KIK and, ruling afresh,
     annul the decision taken by the Office on 19 March 1999;           The applicant claims that the Court should:
3. in the alternative, rule that all formal requirements were           — partially annul Notice of Open Competition PE/215/LA of
     satisfied with regard to the application for registration of            the General Secretariat of the European Parliament — as
     the trade mark KIK;                                                     regards ‘option 2’ — published in Official Journal of the
                                                                             European Communities No C-53 A of 24 February 1999;
4. in the further alternative, rule that the applicant is not
     obliged to submit only one of the Office’s official working        — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
     languages as a second language;
5. order the Office to pay the costs of the proceedings.                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice and a former
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         official of the European Parliament, contests Notice of Open
                                                                        Competition PE/215/LA in that, in one of its options, that
The applicant’s application for registration of the trade mark          notice provides for the drawing up of a reserve list of
KIK for ‘providing advice on situations of unfair competition           Spanish-language interpreters. It must be remembered in this
on the European Community market (Class 42)’ was submitted              connection that, by judgment of 22 May 1996 (1), upheld on
in the Dutch language. Dutch was also indicated as the second           appeal by judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November
language. The application was rejected on the ground that it            1998 (2), the Court of First Instance annulled the decision of
failed to comply with Rule 1(1)(j) of Regulation No 2868/95 (1)         the defendant institution rejecting the applicant’s complaint
and Article 115(3) of Regulation No 40/94 with regard to the            against the rejection of his candidature for the post advertised
second language. The Board of Appeal confirmed the decision             in Notice PE/LA91 for the recruitment by transfer of a
of the examiner.                                                        Spanish-language interpreter.