CELEX: C2001/227/51
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-111/01: Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

C 227/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
In support of its claim, the applicant pleads infringement of           Trade marks objected to       Verbal mark ‘Saint-Hubert 41’ —
Article 87(1) and (3)(c) of the EC Treaty. According to the             in the opposition pro-        Decision of 9 March 2001 in
applicant, the Commission, in its assessment of the aid                 cedure:                       procedure R-127/2000-1
awarded, did not take account of the specific, more expensive
production methods of the applicant required by the Nether-             Proprietor of the marks       the applicant
lands authorities whereby the smell is reduced. According to            objected to:
the applicant, this method of production is not obligatory in
the other Member States, as a result of which production is             Decision of the Oppo-         rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
cheaper. Furthermore, the applicant pleads infringement of              sition Division:              sition to the application for regis-
the Commission Decision of 6 July 1989 approving the                                                  tration of the mark ‘Hubert’
Bijdrageregeling Proefprojecten Mestverwerking and of
Article 88 of the EC Treaty. Finally, the applicant alleges             Decision of the Board of      rejection of the appeal lodged by
infringement of the duty to state reasons, the principle of             Appeal:                       the applicant
legitimate expectations and the right to a fair hearing.
                                                                        Grounds of claim:             violation of the notion of ‘likeli-
                                                                                                      hood of confusion’ referred to in
                                                                                                      Article 8(1)(b) of the Community
                                                                                                      Trade Mark Regulation (1)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A. against
   the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                        (Case T-110/01)
                        (2001/C 227/50)
                                                                        Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelmetalle
                                                                        GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                  (Language of the case: French)                                                    munities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                   (Case T-111/01)
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A.,
established at Ludres (France), represented by Thierry van Innis                                 (2001/C 227/51)
and Geert Glas, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                                          (Language of the Case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision adopted on 9 March 2001 in pro-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      cedure R-127/2000-1;                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelme-
—     order the Office to pay all the costs.                            talle GmbH, of Halsbrücke (Germany), represented by Dr Peter
                                                                        von Woedtke, lawyer.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities of 28 March 2001 (Decision C(2001)
Applicant for the Com-        France Distribution                             1028) on the State aid granted by Germany in favour of
munity trade mark:                                                            EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. Management KG (now
                                                                              Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, together with Zeitzer
The Community trade           the semi-figurative mark ‘Hubert’               Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte GmbH, LandTechnik Schlüter
mark concerned:               — application No 108530                         GmbH, ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik GmbH, SKL Motoren-
                                                                              und Systembautechnik GmbH, SKL Spezialapparatebau
Goods or service con-         various food products including                 GmbH, Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH, Saxonia Edel-
cerned:                       milk, other dairy products, vin-                metalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) —
                              egar and sauces, together with                  State aid No C41/99 (EXN 49/95) Germany.
                              hotel and catering services
                              (Classes 29, 30 and 42)                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 11.8.2001                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 227/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Verónica Sabbag
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-113/01)
In 1995 the Federal Republic of Germany gave notice of aid
for the privatisation of eight subsidiaries of the holding
                                                                                                  (2001/C 227/52)
company EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH, now Lintra Beteiligungs-
holding GmbH. By decision of 13 March 1996, communicated
by letter of 23 April 1996 (1), the Commission informed                                      (Language of the case: French)
Germany of its approval of aid for restructuring measures in
connection with the privatisation of Lintra Beteiligungsholding
GmbH.                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 May 2001 by Verónica Sabbag,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
By the contested decision of 28 March 2001, the defendant                Véronique Peere, avocats, with an address for service in
has required Germany to reclaim aid totalling                            Luxembourg.
DEM 34 978 000 from Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH and
the Lintra subsidiaries. Aid amounting to DEM 3 195 559 is               The applicant claims that the Court should:
to be reclaimed from the applicant. The defendant asserts that           —     annul the decision of the Selection Committee in compe-
that aid has been used improperly and in breach of the                         tition COM/R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark
statements in the approved restructuring plan. According to                    insufficient for her to be included on the reserve list;
the defendant, the aid granted has reportedly been used to pay
for services provided by Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH.                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful
and void in relation to it if only because it was not granted any        The applicant took part in competition COM/R/A/01/1999.
aid whatsoever in breach of the decision of 13 March 1996.               She is contesting her non-inclusion in the reserve list for the
                                                                         selection of temporary agents responsible for the management
                                                                         of technological research and development programmes.
According to the applicant, it is significant that the defendant         In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:
has not asserted that the applicant misused the restructuring
                                                                         —     infringement of the selection notice, of essential pro-
aid. The defendant has relied solely on presumptions in its
                                                                               cedural requirements and of the rules governing the
request for recovery. The applicant states that all the aid which
                                                                               functioning of selection boards, as well as a manifest
was received by it was used exclusively for restructuring
                                                                               error of assessment;
measures. Moreover, the amount to be reclaimed from it was
set totally arbitrarily.                                                 —     breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;
                                                                         —     infringement of the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                         —     non-compliance with the obligation to have regard to the
Furthermore, all aid from the defendant or from Germany                        interests and welfare of officials and violation of the
went to Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH and was passed on                      principle of sound administration.
to its subsidiaries only indirectly. For that reason a notice for
recovery can be issued solely to the parent company.
The applicant is also of the view that no basis is apparent for
claiming that there is joint and several liability between Lintra
Beteiligungsholding GmbH and the subsidiaries. Such liability            Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Stefano Cocchi and
is presumably asserted by the defendant solely because the               Evi Hainz against the Commission of the European
parent company itself is insolvent.                                                                Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-114/01)
(1) A summary was published at OJ No C 168, 12.6.1996, p. 10.                                     (2001/C 227/53)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the