CELEX: C2003/171/58
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-146/03: Action brought on 15 April 2003 by the Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio against the Commission of the European Communities

C 171/34               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the explicit rejection of the Commission of 11 July
      2002 BSS01 MS CDL/GS/MSG D (02) No 6779 in reply                     —     annul the Commission Decision of 11 December 2002
      to the request registered under No D/256/02 submitted                      which found that measures to support agricultural coop-
      by the applicant pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff                    eratives, by virtue of which only such cooperatives are
      Regulations;                                                               able to distribute unlimited amounts of fuel to non-
                                                                                 member third parties whilst enjoying preferential tax
—     annul, in so far as necessary, the refusal to register the                 treatment and which are contained in Royal Decree
      applicant’s fresh complaint;                                               Law 10/2000 of 6 October on emergency support for
                                                                                 agriculture, fisheries and transport do not constitute State
                                                                                 aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;
—     order the Commission to pay the entire costs.
                                                                           —     order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an official working for the defendant. She is
bringing her action against the rejection of a request concern-
ing the inclusion of certain documents in her personnel file               Pleas in law and main arguments
and to be informed of alleged written defamatory statements
made in her regard. In support of her action, she alleges breach
of the protection of dignity and equality between men and
women at work, enshrined in Article 31 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as a result of the               The applicants in the present action, who have also brought
fact that the defendant failed to take the necessary measures to           Case T-95/03 (Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de
ensure the protection of the applicant against the alleged                 Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and the
denigration by other officials of the defendant institution,               Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio) ( 1), are challeng-
which amounts, in her view, to harassment. She also alleges                ing the Commission’s refusal to regard as State aid the
infringement of Articles 25, 26 and 45 of the Staff Regulations,           measures in Royal Decree Law 10/2000, which allow only
of the obligation to provide reasons and of the rights of                  agricultural cooperatives, and not other cooperatives which
defence.                                                                   also benefit from special protection, to sell B diesel to non-
                                                                           member third parties without being subject to any limit
                                                                           and without losing the tax advantages granted to specially
                                                                           protected cooperatives. The contested decision concludes that
                                                                           the measures at issue do not constitute State aid, since they are
                                                                           justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system.
Action brought on 15 April 2003 by the Asociación de
Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad                      In support of their claims, the applicants maintain that the
Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de                          defendant has made various errors of fact and law:
Estaciones de Servicio against the Commission of the
                     European Communities
                                                                           —     in exempting the Spanish Government from its duty to
                                                                                 provide an explanation for the measures at issue on the
                         (Case T-146/03)                                         basis of the nature of the tax system. The contested
                                                                                 decision is at odds with the arguments put forward by
                         (2003/C 171/58)                                         the Government (need for further liberalisation in the fuel
                                                                                 sector as a structural measure responding to the increase
                                                                                 in the price of crude oil and the depreciation of the euro
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                               against the dollar).
                                                                           —     in concluding that Royal Decree Law 10/2000 is consist-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        ent with the nature of the tax system and in basing that
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       finding on an incomplete and incorrect analysis of the
European Communities on 15 April 2003 by the Asociación                          tax system applicable to cooperatives.
de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad
Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de Estacion-
es de Servicio, established in Madrid and Barcelona respectively,          —     in finding that the contested measures do not constitute
represented by Raimundo Ortega Bueno, lawyer.                                    State aid.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 171/35
The applicants assert, in particular, that there is no special tax         Pleas in law and main arguments
system applying specifically to agricultural cooperatives and
giving rise to certain tax obligations which the contested
measures are specifically intended to offset. However, the fact
that the measures do not consist in the grant ex novo of a tax             Applicant for Com-             T.I.M.E.ART      ULUSLARARASI
advantage but entail an exemption from obligations with                    munity trade mark:             SAAT TICARETI VE DI– TICAR-
which cooperatives have hitherto had to comply when selling                                               ET A.–.
fuel to third parties or members, an exemption which allows
them not to lose their pre-existing preferential tax treatment,
does not negate the existence of a new advantage within the
                                                                           Community trade mark           figurative mark QUANTUM —
meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
                                                                           sought:                        Application No 625 913 for
                                                                                                          goods in Class 14 (watches and
                                                                                                          jewellery)
( 1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003, p. 43.
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or          the applicant
                                                                           sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                           sition proceedings:
                                                                           Mark or sign cited in          French figurative mark QUANTI-
                                                                           opposition:                    EME, No 1555274, registered for
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Devinlec Developpe-                                                    goods in Classes 14 and 18
ment Innovation Leclerc against the Office for Harmonis-                                                  (including watches, clocks and
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                    watchstraps)
                              (OHIM)
                                                                           Decision of the Oppo-          Registration refused
                         (Case T-147/03)                                   sition Division:
                         (2003/C 171/59)                                   Decision of the Board of       annulment of the decision of the
                                                                           Appeal:                        Opposition Division and dis-
                                                                                                          missal of the opposition
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Pleas in law:                  Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                                          of Regulation (EC) No 40/
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                            94 (1) (likelihood of confusion)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                and disregard for Rule 50 of the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                Regulation (EC) No 2868/
30 April 2003 by Devinlec Developpement Innovation Leclerc,                                               95 (2) implementing the Com-
established in Toulouse (France), represented by Jean-Pierre                                              munity trade mark
Simon, lawyer.
T.I.M.E.ART ULUSLARARASI SAAT TICARETI VE DI– TICAR-
ET A.–. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
—     annul the contested decision, delivered by the Third                      Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
                                                                           (2 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
      Board of the defendant on 30 January 2003 in Case R
                                                                                1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
      109/2002-3, and the refusal to register the Community                     Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
      figurative trade mark ‘QUANTUM’;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs and the applicant for
      the Community trade mark to pay the costs incurred in
      proceedings before the OHIM.