CELEX: C2003/184/85
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-163/03: Action brought on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB against the Commission of the European Communities

2.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —      annul the Secretary-General's decision of 13 June 2002
The applicants in the present case seek the annulment of the                     which confirms, without amendment, the applicant's staff
Commission's Decision approving the grant by the United                          report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
Kingdom of State aid, in the form of ‘rescue aid’, to British
Energy plc (BE), a generator of electricity in the United                 —      annul the Commission's decision of 13 January 2003
Kingdom. The main source of its electricity is nuclear power.                    rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
                                                                                 13 September 2002;
The applicants contend that the contested Decision is unlawful            —      order the defendant to pay damages of EUR 10 000;
in as much as it failed adequately or properly to assess
whether the aid was warranted by serious social difficulties,             —      order the defendant to pay the full costs of the proceed-
and whether the amount of aid was restricted to the minimum                      ings.
necessary, both in accordane with point 23(e) of the Guidelines
on State aid for Rescuing and Restructureting firms in diffi-
culty (1).
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In particular, the applicants submit that the defendant institu-          The applicant is an official in DG II of the European Commis-
tion wrongly concluded that, in the absence of the aid in                 sion. With a delay of almost two years, the appellant was the
question, BE would be insolvent and would most certainly                  subject of a staff report for the period 1997 to 1999. That
have to cease operations, without considering whether puttig              report was confirmed by the appeal assessor.
BE into administration would have been an appropriate rescue
option entailing the grant of less aid, nor the possibility
involving the closure of only one or several of its plants as             The applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest
opposed to all of them.                                                   error of assessment and misused its powers in drawing up that
                                                                          report. In support of his claims, the applicant also maintains
                                                                          that the Commission failed to comply with Article 43 of the
Moreover, the applicants dissagree with the Commision's                   Staff Regulations, thus giving rise to procedural defects. Finally,
conclusion that nuclear plants cannot be mothballed and that              the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state
BE's plants could not be closed without giving rise to serious            reasons.
concerns over nuclear safety.
Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission have
wrongly concluded that the closure of BE's plants led to a
loss of 20 % of UK electricity generating capacity such as to
threaten security of supply and, in any event, failed to consider         Action brought on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB against the
the reduced impact on generating capacity of closing only one                        Commission of the European Communities
or several of BE's plants.
                                                                                                    (Case T-163/03)
(1) OJ 1999 No C 288, p. 2.
                                                                                                    (2003/C 184/85)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                          nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB, Söder-
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik against
                                                                          tälje, Sweden, represented by Mr S. Pappas, lawyer.
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case T-157/03)
                                                                          —      annul the Decision of 4 Mars 2003 of the Merger Task
                                                                                 Force of the European Commission.
                         (2003/C 184/84)
                                                                          —      annul the Decision of 16 April 2003 of the Merger Task
                                                                                 Force of the European Commission.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —      annul the Decision of 24 April 2003 of the Merger Task
                                                                                 Force of the European Commission.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                   —      annul the refusal of the Commission to review the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     arrangement of the divestiture of the shareholding of
European Communities on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik,                           Volvo in Scania and enforce an immediate divestiture as
residing at Tervuren, Belgium, represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer,                 requested during the meeting of the 20th February 2003
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                       and put on in the letter of the 21st February 2003.
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/38               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
—     order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                            8 May 2003 by Ampafrance SA, established in Cholet (France),
                                                                            represented by C. Bercial Arias, lawyer.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Johnson & Johnson GmbH was also a party to the proceedings
                                                                            before the First Board of Appeal.
The applicant is a truck and bus manufacturer. By means of
the contested decisions, the Commission refused to enforce an               The applicant claims that the Court should:
immediate divestiture of the shareholding of AB Volvo in                    —     annul or vary those parts of the decision given by the
Scania AB and refused to communicate to the applicant the                         First Board of Appeal of the defendant on 4 March 2003
confidential terms of the divestiture of the Shareholding of AB                   in Case R 220/2002-1 in which the applicant's claims
Volvo in Scania AB as stipulated in the AB Volvo/Renault                          were not upheld and, consequently, rule that ‘babies'
Véhicule Industriel (VI) decision. On the basis of these                          napkins of absorbent cotton’ are not similar to the goods
Commission Decisions, AB Volvo has been able to maintain a                        covered by the German trade mark ‘bebe’
dominant position vis-à-vis Scania for almost 4 years.                            (No 1 168 346), that there are no similarities liable to
                                                                                  lead to a likelihood of confusion between the marks
In support of its claim, the applicant invokes Articles 8 (4), 6                  ‘bebe’ and ‘monBeBé’ (logo) and that Community trade
and 18(3) of the Merger Regulation (1).                                           mark application No 297 309 is to be registered in its
                                                                                  entirety;
According to the applicant, the Commission infringed Article 8              —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
(4) of the Merger Regulation by refusing to enforce an
immediate divestiture at the applicant's request. The applicant             Pleas in law and main arguments
argues that the minority shareholding of AB Volvo constitutes
de jure and de facto, sole or joint control with investor AB                Applicant for Community        Ampafrance SA
over Scania which should have been stopped by the Commis-                   trade mark:
sion.
Furthermore, the applicant invokes Article 6 of the Merger
Regulation. The applicant submits that the Commission should                Community       trade  mark    Mixed word and figurative mark
have revoked the Volvo/Renault decision and reviewed the                    sought:                        ‘monbebé’      —      Application
terms of the divestiture. The applicant alleges that Volvo                                                 No 297 309, lodged in respect
infringed its undertaking pertaining to the divestiture when                                               of goods in Classes 3, 5, 8, 10,
participating in the decision-making process of Scania.                                                    11, 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25
                                                                                                           and 28.
The applicant also claims that the Commission should have
disclosed to Scania the information relating to the confidential
approved terms of the divestiture as stipulated in the Volvo/               Proprietor of mark or sign     Johnson & Johnson GmbH
Renault (VI) decision. The applicant claims to be a directly                cited in the opposition pro-
involved party to whom the Commission should have granted                   ceedings:
access to the information contained in the Volvo/Renault
decision.
Finally, the applicant argues that any prolongation for the                 Mark or sign cited in op-      National trade mark ‘bebe’, re-
accomplishment of the divestiture from 2003 to 2004 is not                  position:                      gistered for goods in Classes 3,
automatic but should have been assessed and justified by the                                               16 and 24.
Commission.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21.12.1989 on the                Decision of the Opposition     Rejection of the opposition.
    control of concentrations between undertakings (JO L 257, p. 13).       Division:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       Partial annulment of the deci-
                                                                            Appeal:                        sion of the Opposition Division
Action brought on 8 May 2003 by Ampafrance SA against                                                      and partial rejection of the ap-
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                                        plication for registration as re-
               (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                            gards certain goods such as
                                                                                                           soaps etc; dismissal of the re-
                                                                                                           mainder of the appeal
                           (Case T-164/03)
                           (2003/C 184/86)
                                                                            Pleas in law:                  Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                         of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                                           (likelihood of confusion).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before