CELEX: C2003/289/67
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-334/03: Action brought on 29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post EURO EXPRESS GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

C 289/32               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        29.11.2003
The applicant claims, first, that the successful tenderer received         Pleas in law and main arguments
favourable financial treatment, to the detriment of the other
tenderers. The applicant also alleges that the successful tenderer
had privileged access to essential information. The applicant
alleges in particular that the other tenderers did not have                According to the applicant, its claim arises out of two TACIS
access to certain essential technical information on the current           contracts between the Commission and a contractor regarding
status of the database for the CORDIS project.                             two projects in Moldova and Russia. The contractor subcon-
                                                                           tracted with the applicant to provide some of the services.
                                                                           When the applicant discovered what it considered to be
                                                                           irregularities on the part of the contractor, it informed the
The applicant also submits that the criteria used in the award
of the tender do not conform to those laid down in the                     Commission Services. On the understanding that it would be
                                                                           paid for the services rendered, the applicant carried out the
contract documents and that the Commission applied in a
                                                                           services necessary for completion of the projects covered
discriminatory manner the criteria published in the contract
                                                                           by the contracts. Subsequently, the Commission ceased all
documents for the selection of the tender giving the best
quality/price ratio.                                                       payments to the contractor and issued recovery orders for
                                                                           amounts already paid to the contractor.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Commission’s failure to pay the
                                                                           sum of EUR 448 947,78 is wrongful and has caused the
                                                                           applicant additional loss. The applicant argues that the Com-
                                                                           mission has had the benefit of the services provided by the
                                                                           applicant but has not paid anyone for such services. The
Action brought on 30 September 2003 by Masdar (U.K.)                       applicant claims that the Commission is obliged to pay the
  Ltd against Commission of the European Communities                       applicant for the services provided on the basis of the principles
                                                                           of unjust enrichment, gestion d’affaires, legitimate expectation
                                                                           and general principles of fault liability. In addition, the
                         (Case T-333/03)                                   applicant claims interest and damages for loss consequential
                                                                           upon the Commission’s alleged illegal failure to pay the
                                                                           applicant for the services.
                        (2003/C 289/66)
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 September 2003 by Masdar
(U.K.) Ltd, Eversley, Hampshire, (United Kingdom), represented             Action brought on 29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post
by Philip Bentley QC and Patrick Green, Barrister.                         EURO EXPRESS GmbH against the Office for Harmonis-
                                                                             ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                   (Case T-334/03)
—    order the Commission to pay to the applicant:
                                                                                                   (2003/C 289/67)
     i)     the sum of EUR 448 947,78
     ii)    interest on the said sum as at 31 July 2003 in the                               (Language of the case: German)
            amount of £ 98 121,24 plus interest from 1 August
            2003 until the date of judgment
     iii)   compensation for material damage, loss of profits
            and non-material damage in an amount of
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
            £ 1 532 931,09;                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
—    order the Commission to pay the costs of the present                  29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post EURO EXPRESS GmbH,
     proceedings.                                                          represented by Gabriele Lindhofer.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 289/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Sadam S.p.A. and Others, represented by Gualtiero Pittalis,
                                                                            Ivano Vigliotti, Gian Michele Roberti, Paolo Ziotti and Alessan-
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the               dra Franchi, against the Commission of the European Com-
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                munities.
      Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2003 (Case R 348/2002-
      4) in so far as if concluded that trade mark No 1 575 521
      does not satisfy the requirements of Article 7(1)(b) and              The applicants claim that the Court should:
      (c) of Regulation No 40/94;
                                                                            —     annul Article 1(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
—     order publication of Community trade mark                                   1158/2003 of 30 June 2003 fixing the derived inter-
      no 1 575 521 under Article 40 of Regulation No 40/94;                       vention price for white sugar for the 2003/04 marketing
                                                                                  year for all areas in Italy;
—     in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of
      Appeal for determination;
                                                                            —     in the alternative, declare under Article 241 EC that
                                                                                  Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                       19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the
                                                                                  markets in the sugar sector is unlawful and inapplicable;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Community trade mark            Word mark ‘EUROPREMIUM’ —
sought:                         application no 1 575 521
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Goods or services:              Goods and services in Classes 16,
                                20, 35 and 39 (including paper,
                                goods made of wood, advertising             By the present action, the applicant companies challenge
                                and transport and storage)                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1158/2003 of 30 June 2003
                                                                            fixing the derived intervention prices for white sugar for the
Decision appealed to the        Refusal by the examiner to register         2003/04 marketing year (‘the contested regulation’) (1). In
Board of Appeal:                                                            support of their action the applicants raise the pleas in law set
                                                                            out below.
Decision of the Board of        Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:
                                                                            First, the applicants submit that, in several respects, the
Pleas in law:                   —    the trade mark is sufficiently         contested regulation is in conflict with the basic regulation
                                     distinctive                            adopted by the Council in the form of Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (2).
                                —    there is no need to preserve
                                     the availability of the mark
                                     as it is not descriptive               In particular, the applicants complain that the contested
                                                                            regulation erroneously classifies Italy as a ‘deficit area’ for the
                                                                            supply of sugar, thereby applying the system of derived prices
                                                                            (known as ‘Regionalisation’) to Italy. That classification, based,
                                                                            in the applicants’ view, on an incorrect analysis of the
                                                                            economic situation, prejudices them in so far as the introduc-
                                                                            tion of derived prices results in an increase in the production
                                                                            costs for sugar undertakings operating in Italy. In particular,
Action brought on 25 September 2003 by Eridania Sadam                       according to the applicants, when assessing Italian domestic
S.p.A. and Others against the Commission of the European                    supply, the Commission failed to take account of the quantities
                            Communities                                     of white sugar imported free of duty from the Balkan countries.
                                                                            Those imports significantly alter the conditions in which the
                          (Case T-338/03)                                   common organisation of the market functions bringing about
                                                                            significant imbalances which appear more serious following
                                                                            the application of regionalisation to the Italian market.
                          (2003/C 289/68)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         The applicants therefore consider that Article 1(c) of the
                                                                            contested regulation is both flawed in terms of its assumptions
                                                                            and potentially contrary in its effects to the Community
                                                                            principles on which the common agricultural policy is based,
An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of                 the WTO rules relating to sugar and the principles of
the European Communities on 25 September 2003 by Eridania                   proportionality and non-discrimination.