CELEX: C2002/097/26
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-17/02: Action brought on 29 January 2002 by Fred Olsen S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

C 97/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.4.2002
The applicant asserts that the decision refusing his application        Grounds of claim:              —     incorrect application of the
is contrary to Article 5(2) of Annex VII, since the conditions                                               provisions of Regulation
for granting an installation allowance are fulfilled, and that the                                           (EC) No 40/94 (1) and of
European Parliament cannot validly rely on the ground of                                                     Regulation (EC) No 2868/
exclusion laid down in Article 5(4) of Annex VII.                                                            95 (2);
                                                                                                       —     incorrect application of
                                                                                                             Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                                                                                                             Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
                                                                                                       —     incorrect application of
                                                                                                             Article 7(3) of Regulation
                                                                                                             (EC) No 40/94.
Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Audi AG against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1003 on the Com-
                  (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                            munity trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                            (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
                                                                            1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                         (Case T-16/02)                                     Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
                         (2002/C 97/25)
                  (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  Action brought on 29 January 2002 by Fred Olsen S.A.
30 January 2002 by Audi AG, of Ingolstadt (Germany),                         against Commission of the European Communities
represented by L. von Zumbusch, lawyer.
                                                                                                 (Case T-17/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                 (2002/C 97/26)
—     annul the decision adopted on 8 November 2001 by the
      First Board of Appeal in appeal No R 0652/2000-1;
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
—     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 29 January 2002 by Fred Olsen
                                                                        S.A., whose registered office is in Santa Cruz de Tenerife
The trade mark con-           the verbal mark ‘TDI’ — appli-            (Spain), represented by Rafael Marı́n Correa, lawyer.
cerned:                       cation No 19752
Goods or services:            goods and services in Classes 12          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              and 37 (vehicles and constructive
                              parts thereof; repair and mainten-        —      annul the decision of the Commission of 25 July 2001
                              ance of vehicles)
Decision        contested     refusal of registration by the            —      order the Commission of the European Communities
before the Board of           examiner                                         to initiate the procedure for verifying whether aid is
Appeal:                                                                        compatible with the EC Treaty in accordance with its
                                                                               judgment;
Decision of the Board of      rejection of the appeal
Appeal:                                                                 —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.4.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 97/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         —    infringes Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty and general
                                                                             communications on services in the general interest and
                                                                             those specifically concerning aid to maritime transport
                                                                             by considering, in blatant contradiction to those pro-
The applicant, a Spanish maritime company which, although                    visions, that the aid is compatible with Article 86(2). The
the majority of its shares are held in the Netherlands, has for a            applicant would point out in that respect that:
long time been operating a number of sea routes between
the islands of the Canaries archipelago, is challenging the
Commission decision                                                          (a)   there is no act emanating from the public authorities
                                                                                   defining the content of services in the general
                                                                                   interest and recommending Transmediterránea to
                                                                                   provide them;
(a)   not to contest the payment to Transmediterránea S.A. of
      PTA 15 560 625 000 intended to make up for the losses
      arising from the provision of cabotage services during                 (b) it was not necessary to declare Canary routes as
      1997 and, secondly, to settle the rights and obligations                     being in the general interest; and
      of the State directly linked to the public service contract
      entered into in 1977 between Transmediterránea and the
      Spanish State and,                                                     (c)   the routes were not awarded by means of an open
                                                                                   tender procedure.
(b) not to raise any objection whatever to the aid valued at
      PTA 1 650 000 000 paid to Transmediterránea in the
      form of public service compensation for the maritime
      cabotage services provided by that company in the
      Canaries archipelago during 1998.
As regards the first aspect, that is to say the amounts paid to         Action brought on 8 February 2002 by Daiichi Pharma-
Transmediterránea in the form of settling accounts for 1997            ceutical Co. Ltd. against the Commission of the European
and final settlement of the contract which the Commission                                         Communities
accepts because it deems such payments existing aid — prior
to the accession of Spain — in that they arise directly from the
                                                                                                 (Case T-26/02)
implementation of the contract entered into in 1977, the
applicant claims that the contested decision is vitiated by an
error of assessment inasmuch as it allows:                                                       (2002/C 97/27)
—     certain expenditure relating to staff reduction to be                                (Language of the case: English)
      charged to the accounts for 1997 and for final settlement;
      and
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     payment of the entire amount by way of final settlement           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      without charging the debts to the financial years in which        European Communities on 8th February 2002 by Daiichi
      they may have arisen and without offsetting them with             Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., represented by Mr Jacques Buhart and
      any surpluses.                                                    Mr Pierre-M. Louis of Coudert Brothers LLP, Brussels (Belgium).
As regards the second aspect, that is to say the aid granted in         The applicant claims that the Court should:
the form of compensation for the routes provided in the
Canaries during 1998, which the Commission classifies as new            —    annul Article 3 (f) of the Commission Decision of
aid, the applicant alleges that the contested decision:                      21 November 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                                                                             Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
                                                                             Agreement (Case No. COMP/E-1/37,512 — Vitamins);
—     infringes Article 88 of the EC Treaty, since the competent
      Spanish authority, by granting the aid, has failed to fulfil      —    alternatively, substantially decrease the fine levied on the
      its obligations under the recommendation, drawn up by                  applicant; and
      the Commission pursuant to the aforementioned article,
      on the upkeep and maintenance of the system of aid
      applicable to Transmediterránea.                                 —    order the Commission to pay the costs.