CELEX: C2001/173/65
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-77/01: Action brought on 30 March 2001 by Territorio Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others against Commission of the European Communities

C 173/36               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         16.6.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the President of the European               —     annul the defendant’s decision, at least in so far as
      Central Bank of 12 March 2001 rejecting the applicant’s                 regards Article 43 of the Normas Forales mentioned in
      complaint;                                                              Article 1(b), (c) and (d) of that decision;
—     annul the defendant’s notice of termination dated 29 No-          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      vember 2000;
—     declare that the employment relationship existing
      between the parties has not been brought to an end by             Pleas in law and main arguments
      the notice of termination dated 29 November 2000;
                                                                        This action has been brought against Commission Decision of
—     declare that the employment relationship existing
                                                                        31 October 2000 on Spain’s corporation tax laws (1), in so far
      between the parties has continued to exist, without being
                                                                        as it finds any aid granted by Spain under Article 43 of
      terminated, after 31 December 2000;
                                                                        Provincial Act 3/96 of 26 June 1996 on corporation tax
                                                                        adopted by the Provincial Council of Vizcaya; Article 43 of
—     order the defendant to continue, beyond 31 December               Provincial Act 7/1996 of 4 July 1996 on corporation tax
      2000, to provide the applicant with employment as a               adopted by the Provincial Council of Guipúzcoa; and Article 43
      security guard in accordance with the contractually agreed        of Provincial Act 24/1996 of 5 July 1996 on corporation tax
      conditions of employment;                                         adopted by the Provincial Council of Álava, to ECSC steel
                                                                        undertakings established in Spain is incompatible with the
                                                                        common market in coal and steel.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Those fiscal provisions grant a 25 % reduction in respect of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         investments actually made in, inter alia, the creation of branches
                                                                        or permanent establishments abroad as well as the acquisition
                                                                        of shares in foreign companies or the setting-up of subsidiaries
The action is based on the same facts and circumstances as in           directly associated with the export of goods or services.
Cases T-373/00 Tralli v ECB (OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001, p. 61),
T-27/01 Tralli v ECB (not yet published) and T-56/01 Tralli v
ECB (not yet published); the pleas in law and arguments                 The contested decision was adopted following the procedure
advanced are analogous to those put forward in those cases.             laid down in Article 6(5) of Commission Decision
                                                                        No 2496/96/ECSC (‘the Steel Aid Code’).
                                                                        In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that:
                                                                        —     the aid is non-existent, inasmuch as the provisions in
                                                                              issue are horizontal in nature and are of general appli-
                                                                              cation which does not result in any advantage either at
Action brought on 30 March 2001 by Territorio Histórico                      regional level or with respect to a specific category of
de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others against                      undertaking. The aid is non-existent also under the ECSC
         Commission of the European Communities                               Treaty, so that the applicants allege infringement of
                                                                              Article 4(c) of that Treaty, as well as misuse of powers,
                                                                              on the ground that the defendant chose the ECSC Treaty
                         (Case T-77/01)                                       as the basis for its decision.
                        (2001/C 173/65)                                 —     the Commission has failed to state reasons, in particular
                                                                              inasmuch as the contested decision amounts to a change
                                                                              of assessment criterion on the part of the Commission,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                             which has given no reasons for it.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               —     the Commission has failed to state reasons and committed
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    an error of assessment, inasmuch as the finding of aid
European Communities on 30 March 2001 by Territorio                           automatically applies to the Normas Forales by the mere
Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others,                  fact that they coincide, so far as their content is concerned,
Spain, represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.                                 with State tax legislation.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 173/37
—     the contested decision is arbitrary and disproportionate,          Action brought on 1 April 2001 by the Association
      inasmuch as it does not analyse the possibility of                 Contre l’Horaire d’Été against the European Parliament
      excluding from its scope part of the Normas Forales                           and the Council of the European Union
      which it envisages.
—     the procedure laid down in the ‘Steel Aid Code’ was                                         (Case T-84/01)
      infringed, inter alia by exceeding the time-limit of
      3 months prescribed in Article 6(5) of Decision
      2496/96/ECSC.                                                                              (2001/C 173/67)
(1) OJ 2001 L 76, p. 57.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
                                                                         the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Action brought on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA against                    Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2001 by
    the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                  the Association Contre l’Horaire d’Été, established at Marly-le-
                                                                         Roi (France), represented by Corinne Lepage and François
                          (Case T-83/01)                                 Steinmetz, avocats.
                         (2001/C 173/66)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         —     annul Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 and of the Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   arrangements, published in the Official Journal of the
European Communities on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA, a                         European Communities on 2 February 2001.
company established under the laws of Germany, represented
by Dominique Dupuis Latour of BPDAGI, Paris (France).
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     set aside the contested decision;                                  The applicant in the present case, an association formed to
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              draw the attention of the public to the alleged drawbacks
                                                                         arising from ‘changing the clocks’, seeks annulment of Direc-
                                                                         tive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time arrangements.
Trade mark concerned:         OSTEOCALCIUM — registration
                              n. 0000955138.                             In support of its claims, the applicant maintains:
Product or service:           ‘Pharmaceutical; veterinary and
                              sanitary preparations’ (class 5 of         —     that the wrong legal basis has been chosen (Article 95 of
                              the Nice Agreement).                             the Treaty, formerly Article 100a), inasmuch as the
                                                                               directive at issue does not satisfy the twofold condition
Challenged        Decision    Refusal of registration of the trade             of participating in the approximation of the provisions
before the Board of           mark in question, because of its                 laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Appeal:                       alleged descriptive character.                   Member States and having as its objective the establish-
Grounds submitted:            Infringement of Article 7 (1) c)                 ment and functioning of the internal market;
                              and b) of Regulation (EC)
                              No 40/94.                                  —     that the directive at issue will result in drawbacks and
                                                                               dangers to individuals, which should be seen as obstacles
                                                                               to the proper functioning of the internal market.