CELEX: C2002/289/67
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-297/02: Action brought on 30 September 2002 by ACEA S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

23.11.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 30 September 2002 by ACEA S.p.A.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     declare void and annul the decision adopted on 17 July
      2002 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
      Harmonisation in the Internal Market, concerning appeal                                     (Case T-297/02)
      No R 0036/2002-3 relating to registration of the Com-
      munity trade mark ‘Lindenhof’ (application No 629741);
                                                                                                  (2002/C 289/67)
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-         REWE-Zentral AG                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
munity trade mark:                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 30 September 2002 by ACEA
The Community trade            the word mark ‘Lindenhof’, inter           S.p.A., represented by Andrea Giardina, Luca G. Radicati di
mark applied for:              alia for goods in Class 32 (mineral        Brozolo and Vincenzo Puca, avvocati.
                               waters and aerated waters and
                               other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit
                               drinks and fruit juices) — appli-
                               cation No 629741                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Proprietor of the trade-       the applicant in these proceedings
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 June 2002 (State
mark right opposed in
                                                                                Aid No C.27/99) in so far as it declares unlawful and
the opposition proceed-
                                                                                incompatible with the common market the three-year
ings:
                                                                                exemption from tax on profits granted by Italy to local
                                                                                public service undertakings the majority of the shares
Trade-mark            right    the German pictorial mark ‘LIND-                 in which are publicly owned within the meaning of
opposed:                       ERHOF’ for goods in Class 33                     Article 3(70) of Law No 549/1995, and loans granted on
                               (champagne-like wines)                           preferential terms pursuant to Article 9a of Decree-Law
                                                                                No 488/1986, and in so far as it requires Italy to recover
Decision of the Oppo-          partial rejection of the opposition              the aid in question from the recipients thereof, including
sition Division:                                                                the applicant (Articles 2 and 3 of the decision);
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal        —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              —     likelihood of confusion
                                     within the meaning of
                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                     (EC) No 40/94 (1);                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                               —     the competing marks are
                                     extremely similar;
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                               —     the goods of the trade-mark          advanced in Case T-292/02 Confederazione Nazionale dei
                                     applicant are not sufficiently       Servizi v Commission.
                                     dissimilar to those of the
                                     applicant in these proceed-
                                     ings.
                                                                          In particular, the applicant pleads that the measures at issue
                                                                          cannot constitute State aid, inasmuch as the companies
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the          benefitting from the system in question do not operate within
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                           a framework of competition. Furthermore, even if the measures
                                                                          at issue were to be regarded as State aid and were not classified
                                                                          as existing aid, they should be regarded as compatible aid
                                                                          within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) EC.
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/38               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23.11.2002
In addition, the contested act infringes the principles of the            —     infringement of the principle of non-discrimination,
protection of legitimate expectations and of proportionality,                   inasmuch as the case involves a difference in treatment
in so far as the Italian State has been ordered by the defendant                between personal situations which are substantially the
to recover the alleged aid.                                                     same, since no account has been taken, for the purposes
                                                                                of calculating the reference period, of the periods of work
                                                                                completed, prior to their engagement, by certain officials
                                                                                employed in Brussels in offices of German Länder or of
                                                                                United Kingdom federations.
Action brought on 1 October 2002 by Anna Romero                           The applicant also pleads failure to comply with the obligation
Romeu against the Commission of the European Com-                         to provide a statement of reasons.
                             munities
                         (Case T-298/02)
                         (2002/C 289/68)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                        Action brought on 30 September 2002 by Carles Dedeu i
                                                                          Fontcuberta against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                    Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                         (Case T-299/02)
European Communities on 1 October 2002 by Anna Romero
Romeu, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-
Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillem-Carrau, lawyers.                                          (2002/C 289/69)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 June
      2002 in so far as it does not recognise the applicant’s
      entitlement to the expatriate allowance and, consequently,          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      her entitlement to the other associated allowances in               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      accordance with the decision in Lozano;                             European Communities on 30 September 2002 by Carles
                                                                          Dedeu i Fontcuberta, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represent-
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           ed by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and J. Guillem-Carrau,
                                                                          lawyers.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
By the present action, the applicant, an official of the defendant        —     annul the decision of 23 September 2002, implicit in the
institution, is contesting the appointing authority’s decision                  Commission’s silence, rejecting complaint 275/02, and
refusing to recognise her entitlement to the expatriation                       refusing to acknowledge his right to the expatriation
allowance (Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations); in                 allowance and, therefore, other associated benefits, in
the applicant’s view, that allowance is due to her inasmuch as                  accordance with the judgment in Lozano;
her habitual residence and centre of interests during the
relevant period under the Staff Regulations was Barcelona and             —     order the Commission to pay the full costs.
not Brussels.
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     commission of a manifest error of assessment of the facts,
      inasmuch as, first, the contested decision did not treat the
      work done for the representative office of a Spanish                The pleas in law and main arguments have already been put
      Autonomous Community in Brussels as ‘work done for                  forward in Case T-298/02 Ana Herrero Romeu v Commission.
      another State’ and, second, it failed to take account of the
      applicant’s personal situation as regards lasting links with
      the country of employment;