CELEX: C2001/186/19
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-85/01: Action brought on 11 April 2001 by IAMA Consulting S.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

C 186/12                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30.6.2001
Action brought on 5 April 2001 by VOF Josanne and                         In regard to dredging equipment, the applicants submit that in
Others against the Commission of the European Com-                        general the activities in question involve removal of the
                               munities                                   dredged material. Such removal is in general an activity
                                                                          inherent in that of dredging equipment such as hopper and
                                                                          suction dredgers. This, however, does not constitute a carriage
                           (Case T-82/01)                                 of goods within the meaning of Article 1 of the regulation.
                          (2001/C 186/18)                                 Should it none the less be held that the transport inherent in
                                                                          the operation of dredging equipment does constitute a carriage
                                                                          of goods within the meaning of Article 1 of the regulation, the
                                                                          question arises as to whether the Josanne, as a specialised vessel
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                        under Article 4(6) of the regulation, is eligible for exemption
                                                                          from the scope of Article 4(1) thereof. The applicants take the
                                                                          view that the conditions laid down by Article 4(6) of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 regulation have been satisfied and that the vessel does not
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                contribute to an increase in fleet capacity and does not
European Communities on 5 April 2001 by VOF Josanne,                      adversely affect the objectives of the Community rules. The
established in Papendrecht, P. van Wijnen and A.J. van Wijnen,            Commission, they submit, errs in its view that the Josanne fails
both resident in Papendrecht, and A. Veen, resident in                    to satisfy those criteria on the ground that the vessel can
Meerkerk, all represented by J. van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar.            transport a variety of types of goods, and that bringing that
                                                                          vessel into service would consequently contribute to an
                                                                          increase in fleet capacity. The Josanne is not suitable for the
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          carriage of any sort of goods other than dredged material.
(1) Annul Commission Decision SG (2001) D/286100 of
      9 February 2001 not to grant the applicants the requested           The applicants offer to substantiate their views by all legal
      exemption from the old-for-new obligations set out in               means, in particular by way of witnesses and experts.
      Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of
      29 March 1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to
      promote inland waterway transport, and rule that the
      requested exemption ought to be granted in respect of
      the hopper and suction dredger Josanne;
(2) Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 11 April 2001 by IAMA Consulting
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            S.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities
The applicants challenge Commission Decision SG (2001)                                               (Case T-85/01)
D/286100 of 9 February 2001, which is addressed to them.
That decision was issued in response to the request which VOF
                                                                                                    (2001/C 186/19)
Josanne submitted to the Commission on 27 June 2000 that
the hopper and suction dredger Josanne be exempted from
application of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation No 718/1999
of 29 March 1999. In the contested decision, the Commission                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
decided not to grant the requested exemption, a decision
which has a direct adverse effect on the applicants’ interests.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The Josanne was specially designed to perform dredging and                European Communities on 11 April 2001 by IAMA Consulting
suction work and consequently intended for use in ‘wet                    S.r.l., represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, lawyer.
contracting’, that is to say, with regard to water- (public-works)
related activities. The Josanne was thus designed for only one            The applicant claims that the Court should:
sort of material, namely ‘dredged material, dredged mud’.
                                                                          —      annul the contested provisions in so far as they are
                                                                                 unlawful, inasmuch as the expenses incurred by IAMA
According to the Commission, although the Josanne is indeed                      Consulting S.r.l. in the periods 1 May 1996 to 31 October
an item of dredging equipment, the exemption under                               1997 (Project REGIS 22337) and 1 November 1996 to
Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation No 718/1999 is not applicable                      31 October 1997 (Project REFIAG 23200) are not
inasmuch as the vessel is also designed for the transport of                     recognised as eligible, and make any other appropriate
filling sand, filling earth, fouled earth and fouled dredged mud.                order;
 ---pagebreak--- 30.6.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/13
—     in the alternative: review the amounts accounted for in          Action brought on 11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH
      the decision of 21 February 2001, reducing the amount            against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      not attributed to IAMA Consulting S.r.l., to its detriment,                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      in each case in an amount not less than LIT 600 000 000
      (six hundred million), the exact amount to be quantified
      according to prudent and fair assessment;                                                 (Case T-86/01)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                   (2001/C 186/20)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                          (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The present action has been brought against the measures               Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
adopted by the Commission on 12 February 2001 (INFSO-                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
3/dec0033FM/D(01)240047) and 21 February 2001 (INFO-                   11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH, of Stuttgart (Germany),
R2/feb0020RW/D(01)400027) respectively, with regard to                 represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
the eligibility of expenses incurred by IAMA International             for service in Luxembourg.
Management Advisors S.r.l. and by the applicant in the context
of ESPRIT projects REGIS 22337 and REFIAG 23200, in so
far as the expenses incurred by the applicant in the periods           The applicant claims that the Court should:
1 May 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REGIS 22337) and
1 November 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REFIAG                     —     annul the decision adopted on 31 January 2001 by the
23200) are not recognised as eligible.                                       First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                             the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the
                                                                             appeal proceedings registered under number
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:                           R 123/2000-1 concerning Community trade mark appli-
                                                                             cation No 761 304;
—     Infringement and misapplication of Articles 1362, 1366,
      1368, 1370, 1374 and 1375 of the Italian Civil Code;             —     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.
—     Misuse of powers inasmuch as the facts were misassessed
      and misrepresented. The applicant submits in this respect        Pleas in law and main arguments
      that the Commission regards the applicant undertaking
      as separate and autonomous from the other undertaking
      mentioned above, whereas they form part of the IAMA              Applicant for the Com-        the applicant
      group, of which both are representative. Consequently,           munity trade mark:
      the defendant appears to have accorded decisive import-
      ance to the formal matter of IAMA Consulting S.r.l.
                                                                       The trade mark con-           the verbal mark ‘Kit Super Pro’
      replacing IAMA International S.r.l., regarding it as suc-
                                                                       cerned:
      cessor to the relationship originally entered into with
      IAMA International S.r.l. only since 1 November 1997.
                                                                       Goods or service con-         goods and services in Class 12
                                                                       cerned:                       (parts for repairing drum brakes
—     Misuse of powers inasmuch as the measures are illogical,                                       in land vehicles)
      contradictory and do not provide an adequate statement
      of reasons. The applicant submits in this respect that, in
      view of the fact that the two aforementioned undertakings        Decision        contested     refusal of the application for regis-
      belong to the same group, of which the applicant is the          before the Board of           tration of the mark
      operational undertaking in relation to the group leader          Appeal:
      IAMA International S.r.l., and that contracts were per-
      formed in good time, it is difficult to see the objective        Grounds of claim:             — The mark is not descriptive
      pursued by the Commission in penalising the IAMA                                                   within the meaning of
      group by not finding eligible the expenses incurred by                                             Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
      the applicant in the performance of contracts which,                                               (EC) No 40/94 (1).
      moreover, made it possible for the prescribed objectives
                                                                                                     — There is no need to keep the
      to be fully attained.
                                                                                                         mark free.
                                                                                                     — The mark possesses the mini-
                                                                                                         mum level of distinctiveness
                                                                                                         necessary for trade-mark pro-
                                                                                                         tection.