CELEX: C2003/112/64
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-68/03: Action brought on 24 February 2003 by Olimpiaki Aeroporia A.E. (Olympic Airways) against the Commission of the European Communities

C 112/32                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         of 4 March 2003                                    —      annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                                                                                   Office of 5 December 2002 in Case No R 1072/2000-2;
in Case T-316/02: Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission                        —      order the defendant to pay all the costs.
               of the European Communities ( 1)
(Officials — Action for annulment — Refusal to admit to
the tests of a competition — Irregularity of the prior                      Pleas in law and main arguments
administrative procedure — Manifest inadmissibility of the
                       action for annulment)                                Applicants for Com-            F. Dann and A. Backer
                                                                            munity trade mark:
                          (2003/C 112/62)
                                                                            Community trade mark           The word mark ‘HOOLIGAN’ —
                                                                            sought:                        application No 7179 filed in
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                           respect of goods in Class 25
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or          The applicant
In Case T-316/02: Marie-Claude Girardot, residing in L’Haye                 sign cited in the oppo-
les Roses (France), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an             sition proceedings:
address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart                    Mark or sign cited in          The French word mark and the
and H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the                  opposition:                    international word mark ‘OLLY
rejection of the applicant’s application to take part in the tests                                         GAN’, registered, inter alia, for
for Internal Competition COM/R/502211/01 — the Court of                                                    goods in Class 25 (clothing)
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges;                       Decision of the Oppo-          Refusal of the application for
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 4 March 2003, the                  sition Division:               registration
operative part of of which is as follows:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                        Opposition Division
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                            Pleas in law:                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
2.    The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                                                     Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of
                                                                                                           the legal concept of likelihood of
                                                                                                           confusion.
( 1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.02.
Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Société Provença-                     Action brought on 24 February 2003 by Olimpiaki
le d’Achat et de Gestion (SPAG) against the Office for                      Aeroporia A.E. (Olympic Airways) against the Com-
            Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                        mission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-57/03)                                                             (Case T-68/03)
                          (2003/C 112/63)                                                            (2003/C 112/64)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                              (Language of the Case: Greek)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2003 by Société                         European Communities on 24 February 2003 by Olimpiaki
Provençale d’Achat et de Gestion (SPAG), established in                     Aeroporia A.E. (Olympic Airways), whose seat is at 96-100
Marseilles, France, represented by K. Manhaeve, lawyer, with                Leoforos Singrou, 11741 Athens, Greece, represented by Denis
an address for service in Luxembourg. F. Dann and A. Backer,                Waelbroek, Efthimios Bourtzalas, Julian Ellison, Matthew Hall,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, were also parties to the proceed-               Andreas Kalogeropoulos, Kharis Tagaras and Aristidis Khiote-
ings before the Board of Appeal.                                            lis, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 112/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —    The applicant further submits that the final instalment of
                                                                              the State aid which had been authorised by
—     annul in whole or in part, under Articles 230 EC and                    Decision 1999/332/EC was never paid to it, an omission
      231 EC, the Commission decision of 11 December 2002                     known to, and approved by, the Commission and consti-
      (C(2002) 4831 final) on State aid granted by Greece to                  tuting an amendment of the restructuring programme to
      the applicant;                                                          which the Commission had likewise agreed. On the basis
                                                                              of that submission, the applicant contends that the
                                                                              principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   an essential procedural requirement have been breached
                                                                              by the Commission which now pleads breach of the
                                                                              original programme, when that programme, with the
                                                                              agreement of the Commission itself, was never completed.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               The applicant also pleads breach of the non bis in idem
                                                                              rule, arguing that the non-payment of the final instalment
                                                                              of the State aid constitutes a penalty imposed by the
The applicant is an air transport company whose head office                   Commission, which has thus exhausted its right to
is in Athens. By the contested decision, the Commission                       impose penalties and is unable to go back.
declared certain restructuring aid which had been granted by
Greece to the applicant to be incompatible with the common
market within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, on the ground
that the conditions subject to which the aid had initially been
authorised by Commission Decision 1999/332/EC were no
longer met. In the decision, the Commission also declared
incompatible with the common market new State aid
implemented by Greece in favour of the applicant in the form
of tolerance of its prolonged non-payment of social security
contributions, value added tax, the airport passenger tax
known as ‘Spatosimo’ and charges and rent which were                     Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Tokai Carbon Co.,
payable by it to airports. The Commission required Greece to             Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communi-
take all the necessary measures to recover from the applicant                                           ties
the abovementioned aid.
                                                                                                  (Case T-71/03)
In support of its action, the applicant pleads:
—     that the Commission committed manifest errors of                                           (2003/C 112/65)
      assessment and appraisal, infringed the obligation to state
      reasons, erred in law, infringed the rules concerning the
      burden of proof and infringed the right to a fair hearing
      so far as concerns its conclusions that Greece failed to                             (Language of the case: English)
      comply with certain of the undertakings entered into by
      it and referred to in Decisions 1999/332/EC and 94/696/
      EC. The applicant also pleads that Article 87(3)(c) EC was
      infringed or misapplied in that the Commission failed
      to examine sufficiently or correctly whether the aid               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      authorised in 1998 could be considered compatible with             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      that article.                                                      European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Tokai Carbon
                                                                         Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, represented by Mr Gerwin Van Gerven
—     that the Commission committed manifest errors of                   and Mr Thomas Franchoo, Lawyers, with an address for service
      assessment and appraisal, infringed the obligation to state        in Luxembourg.
      reasons, erred in law, infringed the rules concerning the
      burden of proof, infringed the right to a fair hearing and
      offended against the principle of legal certainty so far as
      concerns its findings relating to the new aid purportedly          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      granted by Greece to the applicant in the form of
      tolerance of non-payment of charges, tax and rent, as
      referred to above.                                                 —    annul Article 3 of the Commission decision C(2002)
                                                                              5083 final of 17 December 2002 in Case COMP/E-2/
                                                                              37.667 — Speciality Graphite, insofar as it imposes a fine
—     that the Commission misused its powers since, in the                    of — 6,97 million on the applicant, or alternatively, to
      applicant’s submission, the motive for the contested                    substantially reduce that fine; and
      decision is the desire that the ‘coup de grâce’ be adminis-
      tered to the applicant or at least that the applicant be
      weakened.                                                          —    order the Commission to pay the costs.